>> my notes - didn't we just have a discussion on this where they said that
>> natural sunlight was better because of the way the body processes
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> (snip article)
If you are close enough to the equator and in the summertime, then a few
minutes of sun exposure is sufficient to produce the vitamin D you need.
However, last year the Chicago Tribune did an article about this, and
in this article they claimed that during February in Chicago, if you
were to go outside naked on a sunny day from sunup to sundown, you would
end up deficient in your daily requirement of vitamin D.
Also, do not be confused by vitamin D2 and vitamin D3. Vitamin D3 is
the natural form of vitamin D that is produced by sunlight. Vitamin D2
is a synthetic form of vitamin D that is used to supplement milk, some
orange juice, etc. Vitamin D2 will keep people from dying from rickets,
but it is not clear that it has the health benefits for prostate cancer
which vitamin D3 does (which may explain why a study showed that dairy
products were not good for prostate cancer - if the vitamin D2 in the
dairy interferes with the binding of vitamin D3).
Ed Friedman
Stephen Jordan - 29 Jun 2005 00:30 GMT
Quoting me:
>> ISTR that only a few minutes of sun exposure are necessary to
>> manufacture one's daily vitamin D requirement.
He replied
> If you are close enough to the equator and in the summertime, then a few
> minutes of sun exposure is sufficient to produce the vitamin D you
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> sundown, you would end up deficient in your daily requirement of
> vitamin D.
Having been in Chicago during February, I can well believe it. Lotsa luck
finding any sunshine at all ;-)
And if one is foolish enough to step outside while naked, one will lose
certain irreplaceable parts very quickly.
Ron might not admit it, but he knows it's true.
Regards,
Steve J
Ed Friedman - 29 Jun 2005 18:35 GMT
Somebody e-mailed and asked me to post the following info. I make no
claims for its accuracy, but since it deals with vitamin D slowing down
the growth rate of prostate cancer it is appropriate for this newsgroup.
It does make sense to me, since the drug given, cholecalciferol, is
the chemical name for vitamin D3. The link is:
http://www.ndmnutrition.com/vit_d_&_pros._ca.htm
Ed Friedman
Netmask - 01 Jul 2005 07:38 GMT
If you went naked in Sydney (no one would take any notice btw) in February
from sun up to sun set you would have nice dose of skin cancer and be a
pleasant lobster colour depending on your background genes!!! Seriously if
this research on Vitamin D is correct then the incidence of Prostate cancer
should be lower in Australia - but somehow I don't think it is?
>>> my notes - didn't we just have a discussion on this where they said that
>>> natural sunlight was better because of the way the body processes
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Ed Friedman