By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
It has been known for decades that those who live closer to the equator have a lower risk of multiple sclerosis (MS).[1] In various pieces of research, Vitamin D produced by sunlight, has been suggested as the factor responsible for the decreasing risk of MS based on proximity to the equator. However, a recent study shows that sunlight, while obviously being critical in the production of vitamin D, has its own profound influence in lessening the degeneration of nerves (neurodegeneration) in those with MS.[2]
By measuring whole brain volume (WBV) and grey-matter volume (GMV) by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the scientists determined that greater summer sunlight exposure predicted greater WBV and GMV in MS patients. Interestingly though, when vitamin D levels were measured, they had no influence on the positive effects of sunlight exposure with WBV or GMV. The researchers concluded: “Sun exposure may have direct effects on MRI measures of neurodegeneration in MS, independently of vitamin D.”
This research opens the door to a whole new area of research on vitamin D. The idea that brain volume is correlated to sunlight exposure independently of vitamin D blood levels causes one to wonder how many other research papers, touting the benefits of vitamin D, might be reassessed to determine if sunlight exposure had its own benefits beyond its ability to cause the production of vitamin D in skin.
The idea that WBV and GMV are greater in those exposed to sunlight also brings up the possibility that IQ could be influenced positively by sunlight exposure. It has also been shown that autism is more prevalent in areas of less sunlight exposure and more common to occur in children with wintertime births. Could the pregnant mother’s sunlight exposure have an influence on fetal-brain development beyond the level of vitamin D produced in her body? Could that influence improve IQ? Could factors such as nitric-oxide production by the UVA portion of sunlight play a role? And, beyond brain and nerve protection and development, could there be independent protective influences of sunlight on the myriad diseases correlated to vitamin D deficiency—diseases such as heart disease, hypertension and cancer?
As Dr. Bernard Ackerman once stated, “the sun, now incriminated as the major culprit responsible for an “epidemic” of melanoma, will be rehabilitated from its status current of pariah, our worst enemy, to its place rightful, all things considered, namely, humankind’s best friend.”[3]
The fact—that research is proving sunlight has beneficial effects beyond vitamin D production—shows that the rehabilitation has begun.
[1] Acheson ED. Some comments on the relationship of the distribution of multiple sclerosis to latitude, solar radiation, and other variables. Acta Neurol Scand 1960;35:132-47.
[2] Zivadinov R, Treu CN, Weinstock-Guttman B, Turner C, Bergsland N, O’Connor K, Dwyer MG, Carl E, Ramasamy DP, Qu J, Ramanathan M. Interdependence and contributions of sun exposure and vitamin D to MRI measures in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013 Feb 5. [Epub ahead of print]<?xml:namespace prefix = o />
[3] A Bernard Ackerman, dermatologist. The Sun and the “Epidemic” of Melanoma: Myth on Myth! 2008.
By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
An excellent article from Science Daily discusses a new piece of research from the journal, Endocrine Abstracts, which has provided evidence that vitamin D supplementation (in persons who are deficient) can provide increased muscle efficiency. The mechanism occurs in the mitochondria, which are the power-generating engines in all body cells. Vitamin D replenishment may help the mitochondria to use glucose and oxygen to make the ATP, which is a ready source of energy. Part of the process of producing ATP is accomplished by a chemical called phosphocreatine. If phosphocreatine cannot be replenished quickly after muscle work, then recovery from muscle fatigue will be slow, and the person experiencing this slow recovery will experience an inability to feel energetic.
This research showed that after 10-12 weeks of vitamin D treatment among patients with muscle fatigue, the replenishment of phosphocreatine occurred about 20% faster, and all patients reported improvement in symptoms of fatigue. The article also mentioned that a parallel study, the group demonstrated that low vitamin D levels were associated with reduced mitochondrial function. The takeaway from this research is that chronic fatigue may be lessened by optimizing vitamin D levels.
The authors of the Science Daily article described vitamin D as “…a hormone produced in the skin using energy from sunlight, and to a lesser extent derived from dietary sources.” We all know that sunlight is the only natural way to produce vitamin D, so it was good to see them give sunlight its due. In the future, I believe it will be confirmed that chronic fatigue can be relieved in people who are deficient in vitamin D, simply by getting in the sunlight!
By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
Vitamin D has a multitude of health benefits, and the only natural way to obtain vitamin D is from sunlight exposure, which causes the skin to produce vitamin D3. The D3 is then is converted to a potent hormone that “turns on” more than 1,000 genes in the genetic engine. As I studied the scientific literature regarding vitamin D and sunlight, I noticed, however, that the strongest and most consistent health benefits were often related more closely to sunlight exposure per se, than to vitamin D supplementation or vitamin D blood levels. Some of my earliest observations regarded prostate cancer and osteoporosis, where vitamin D supplementation and high blood levels of vitamin D seemed generally effective, but exposure to sunlight was profoundly effective.
I also noted that vitamin D supplementation seemed to decrease osteoporotic fractures, but sunlight exposure could actually reverse the disease. (See my previous post). And of course, we know that sunlight or other ultraviolet light exposure dramatically enhances mood.
One of the latest studies to corroborate my observations was published in the European Journal of Cancer in December, 2012, and was entitled, is prevention of cancer by sun exposure more than just the effect of vitamin D? A systematic review of epidemiological studies.[i] In their review, the authors noted that regular sunlight exposure correlated to a reduced risk of colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). However, vitamin D levels correlated to a reduced risk of colorectal, and to a lesser extent, breast cancer, but were not correlated to a significant risk reduction in prostate cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The authors concluded with this statement: “Particularly in prostate cancer and NHL, other sunlight-potentiated and vitamin D-independent pathways, such as modulation of the immune system and the circadian rhythm, and the degradation of folic acid, might play a role in reduced cancer risk as well.”
The authors could have also mentioned the effect of sunlight on vasodilation, mediated by the production of nitric oxide (produced by the skin after sunlight exposure). They could also have discussed the influence of sunlight on production of serotonin and endorphins. These effects have nothing to do with vitamin D, and future research will determine whether these “beyond-vitamin D” effects also reduce the risk of various cancers.
Vitamin D is an exceptionally important product of sunlight, but it is hardly the only product. I predict that a whole new field of research on other photoproducts of sunlight exposure will soon emerge and provide impressive new knowledge regarding the life-and-health giving benefits of our most precious friend, the sun.
[i] van der Rhee H, Coebergh JW, de Vries E. Is prevention of cancer by sun exposure more than just the effect of vitamin D? A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Eur J Cancer. 2012 Dec 10. pii: S0959-8049(12)00885-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.11.001. [Epub ahead of print] <?xml:namespace prefix = o />
By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
In 1997, Dr. Y Sato and colleagues showed that sunlight deprivation (due to being hospitalized) in Parkinson’s patients resulted in compensatory hyperparathyroidism, which in turn led to reduced bone mass and excessive hip fractures.[1] In 1998, he made the same observation regarding elderly women with Alzheimer’s disease.[2] Then, in 2003, he reported that sunlight deprivation was also a cause of hip fractures in elderly women who suffered from stroke.[3] This time, however, he studied the effects of sunlight—or the lack thereof—on the bone mass of elderly women who were either exposed to sunlight or were kept inside a care facility. Over twelve months, 129 women were exposed to regular sunlight and another 129 received no sunlight exposure. The results were startling: in these sedentary women, the sunlight group increased bone mass by an average 3.1%; in the non-sunlight-exposed group, it decreased by 3.3%, a swing of 6.4%.
Of course, one might ask why a small increase in bone density in one group and a loss of bone density in the other makes any difference; the real question is whether it prevented hip fractures. Now consider this: as proof of the efficacy of improving bone mass, the women who had the benefit of sunlight had only one bone fracture in their group. The sunlight-deprived group had six fractures! This is obviously a reversal of osteoporosis and a reversal of fracture risk.
Sato was not through with his research; in 2005, he and his colleagues exposed a group of Alzheimer’s patients to sunlight for one year, and another was kept in a typical indoor hospital setting.[4] In the sunlight group a 220% increase in vitamin D levels was found, and bone mass increased by 2.7%. In the indoor group, bone mass decreased by 5.6%. That is a difference of 7.3% in only one year! The final proof, of course, is with fractures. In the sunlight group, there were three fractures; in the sunlight-deprived group there were eleven, or 3.7 times more.
Finally, in 2011, Dr. Sato and his group did a similar study on elderly patients with Parkinson’s disease.[5] A two-year program of sunlight exposure was compared to a two-year program of continued sunlight deprivation. This time, the sunlight group experienced an increase of 3.8% bone mass, whereas the sunlight-deprived group lost 2.6% bone mass. The sunlight group experienced three fractures and the sunlight deprived group, eleven fractures, as in the aforementioned study.
One more thought: An investigation in Spain concluded that women who actively participated in sun exposure had one-eleventh the chance of a hip fracture as those who stayed indoors.[6]
The conclusion: sunlight exposure not only prevents, but can also reverse osteoporosis and fractures. Every physician who treats this disease should have sunlight exposure as his number-one treatment protocol. But is anyone listening?
[1] Sato Y, Kikuyama M, Oizumi K. High prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and reduced bone mass in Parkinson’s disease. Neurology. 1997 Nov;49(5):1273-8.<?xml:namespace prefix = o />
[2] Sato Y, Asoh T, Oizumi K. High prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and reduced bone mass in elderly women with Alzheimer’s disease. Bone. 1998 Dec;23(6):555-7.
[3] Sato, Y. Amelioration of osteoporosis and hypovitaminosis D by sunlight exposure in stroke patients. Neurology 2003;61:338-42.
[4] Sato Y, Iwamoto J, Kanoko T, Satoh K. Amelioration of osteoporosis and hypovitaminosis d by sunlight exposure in hospitalized, elderly women with Alzheimer’s disease: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20:1327-33.
[5] Sato Y, Iwamoto J, Honda Y. Amelioration of osteoporosis and hypovitaminosis D by sunlight exposure in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2011;17(1):22-6.
[6] Larrosa, M. Vitamin D deficiency and related factors in patients with osteoporotic hip fracture. Med Clin (BARC) 2008;130:6-9.
The Institute of Medicine (IOM), in 2010, put forth its recommendations for daily supplementation of vitamin D. They suggested that infants under a year old ingest 400 IU per day, that adults ingest 600 IU per day and that those over 70 years of age take 800 IU per day. Since the sunlight can stimulate the production of up to 20,000 IU per day, it can easily be seen that such recommendations are abysmally low for those addults who are not receiving any sunlight, or where winter conditions prevent any vitamin D production by the sun.
The Vitamin D Society (VDS) of Canada has just posted a press release that illustrates the incongruity of the IOM recommendations based on weight. Perry Holman, Executive Director of the Society, correctly points out that it is counterintuitive to recommend so much more vitamin D per pound to an infant than an adult. The IOM recommendations would provide a 10-pound baby 40 units of vitamin D per pound, whereas a 200-pound adult would receive only 3 IU per pound. Vitamin D scientists suggest that 1000 IU for every 25 pounds of bodyweight is best, so why should the IOM be so prejudicial as to allow adults only about one-thirteenth the amount of vitamin D per pound as an infant? These are supposed to be intelligent people, no?
In reality, The IOM recommendation of 400 IU is right on target for the 10-pound infant, considering the recommendation of the vitamin D scientists for 1,000 IU per 25 pounds of bodyweight. The problem lies in the fact that for the other two age groups, it is woefully inadequate. Thanks to Perry Holman and the VDS for pointing out the lack of consistency and clear thinking on the part of the IOM.
And remember, we do not need to worry about any of this nonsense if we simply get out in the summer sun, or, when sunlight is not available, use some other source of UVB light to produce our vitamin D. The body will self-regulate its production, and we will never need to worry about how many units are necessary. Just remember never to burn either the infant or the adult! Moderation and common sense is the key.
By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
Among the many other horrors associated with lack of sunlight, myopia (nearsightedness) is now becoming of scientific interest. In the latest article written on the subject, Robin Wuffson, MD, discusses the research from Denmark, showing that deterioration of the eye leading to myopia (in children aged 8-14) is more common in the winter than in the summer months.[1]
Another piece of research, reported only a few months ago, showed that actual exposure of the eye to sunlight was protective against myopia in people aged 15 to 50 years.[2] If you search this site, you will find several other posts on sunlight and myopia. In my opinion the link is now irrefutable: Lack of sunlight can now be added to the list of environmental and nutritional mistakes that can lead to blindness.
“Do not take my Sunshine Away!”
[1] http://www.emaxhealth.com/11306/sunlight-exposure-reported-decrease-vision-deterioration-children
[2] Sherwin JC, Hewitt AW, Coroneo MT, Kearns LS, Griffiths LR, Mackey DA. The association between time outdoors and myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Jul 1;53(8):4363-70.
By: Marc Sorenson–
A recent research paper published in the journal Annals of Rheumatic Diseases[1] showed that older women, who lived in areas where the most sunlight was available, were at about a 20% reduced risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Younger women did not see the same reduction in RA. In my opinion that is because younger women have been brainwashed by the Powers of Darkness (The American Academy of Dermatology, Skin Cancer Foundation, etc.) into staying indoors and slathering on sunscreen. The older (30-55 in 1976) group of women was followed from 1976 to 2008; the younger (25-42 in 1989) group was followed from 1989 until 2009.
This study is not the first to show a positive effect of sunlight and vitamin D on RA. RA is one of several rheumatic diseases that affect bones, muscles, joints and tendons. In a study of 29,000 women, those who ranked in the top third of vitamin D consumption had one-third less risk of RA.[2] In mice studies, vitamin D treatment inhibits the progression of rheumatoid arthritis and minimizes or prevents the symptoms.[3] And in another human study, subjects diagnosed with a form of the disease known as inflammatory arthritis, the lower the vitamin D levels are, the higher is the disease activity.[4] Vitamin D’s anti-inflammatory properties and its ability to reduce the autoimmune response are likely responsible for the improvement in RA.[5] Investigations also find that RA is more common in winter; consistent with the idea that vitamin D, or sunlight itself, is a major factor in reducing the risk.[6] We must remember in all of this research showing a positive effect of vitamin D, that 90% percent of vitamin D is produced by sunlight. Safe Sunlight exposure is the key, because it will furnish the correct amount of vitamin D and simultaneously lead to the production or nitric oxide, endorphins, serotonin and other factors that enhance human health. Vitamin D is only one product of Sunlight, which is the King!
However, sunlight exposure and vitamin D levels are not the only factors in arthritis. The inflammatory foods we consume also lead to deterioration of the joints. At our health resort, about 4 weeks ago, we had a guest show up with severe rheumatoid arthritis in her hands. We put her on a pure, plant-based diet with lots of greens and colorful fruit. increased her exercise and told her to take more vitamin D (no D-producing sunlight when she arrived). In one week she was off all arthritis meds, lost 12 pounds and 12 inches and felt renewed. Can you imagine what we could do for arthritis with a combination of sunlight and a plant-based diet?
[1] Elizabeth V Arkema, Jaime E Hart, Kimberly A Bertrand, et al. Exposure to ultraviolet-B and risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis among women in the Nurses’ Health Study. Ann Rheum Dis doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202302. <?xml:namespace prefix = o />
[2] Merlino LA, Curtis J, Mikuls TR, Cerhan JR, Criswell LA, Saag KG. Vitamin D intake is inversely associated with rheumatoid arthritis: Results from the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Arthritis & Rheumatism 2004;50:72-77.
[3] Cantorna MT, Hayes CE, DeLuca HF. 1,25-Dihydroxycholecalciferol inhibits the progression of arthritis in murine models of human arthritis. J Nutr1998;128:68-72.
[4] Patel S, Farragher T, Berry J, Bunn D, Silman A, Symmons, D. Serum vitamin D metabolite levels may be inversely associated with current disease activity in patients with early inflammatory polyarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56;2143-49.
[5] Cutolo M, Otsa K, Uprus M, Paolino S, Seriolo B.. Vitamin D in rheumatoid arthritis. Autoimmune Rev 2007;7:59-64.
[6] Cutolo, M. et al. Circannual vitamin D serum levels and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis: Northern versus Southern Europe. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2006;24:702-4.
By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
The Skin Cancer Foundation recently posted a press release on their website stating that they have busted the “myths surrounding vitamin D and sun exposure.” In it they quote Perry Robins, president of the foundation, as saying, “The misconception that exposure to UVB radiation is the optimal source of vitamin D puts people at risk for potentially life-threatening skin cancer. Furthermore, in most cases the body stops producing vitamin D after just a few minutes of sun exposure.”[1]
The idea, that sunlight exposure is the optimal source of vitamin D, is not a misconception–as will be explained below. We will also discuss the fact, that while the skin may cease producing vitamin D after 20 minutes of full-body exposure, it is because it has produced all the vitamin D the body needs—up to an impressive 20,000 international units (IU). Since many multi-vitamin supplements contain only 400-600 IU, it is obviously best to make sunlight the primary source of vitamin D.
In addition, the SCF press release states that “About 86 percent of melanomas (the most dangerous form of skin cancer) and 90 percent of nonmelanoma skin cancers are associated with exposure to UV radiation.”[2] The citation, of course, comes from a dermatological journal, Archives of Dermatology. Here are a few facts the SCF should have considered: (a) Whereas common skin cancers such as squamous-cell carcinoma is more common among those who are regularly in the sunlight, the risk of the deadly melanoma is considerably reduced by regular sunlight exposure.[3] (b) In addition, it should be known that most melanoma occurs on areas of the body that are seldom or never exposed to sunlight.[4] [5] [6]
Other facts that belie the aforementioned statements made by the SCF in their press release are these: (a) Outdoor workers, while receiving 3-9-times the sunlight exposure as indoor workers, have had no increase in melanoma since 1940, (b)whereas melanoma in indoor workers has increased steadily and exponentially.[7] Quite obviously, if sunlight exposure led to melanoma, outdoor workers would have the greatest incidence of the disease and indoor workers would have a lesser incidence. That the opposite is the case is also manifested by numerous scientific papers showing that those with more regular exposure to sunlight have a lesser risk of melanoma.[8]
It should also be noted that sunlight exposure has profoundly decreased in the last hundred and ten years due to a population that has moved indoors. For example, indoor occupations such as “professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service workers (except private household service workers) grew from one-quarter to three-quarters of total employment between 1910 and 2000.” The outdoor occupation of farming decreased by 96%.[9] Yet, the Melanoma International Foundation (MIF) has stated that ultraviolet radiation from sunlight causes melanoma and should be avoided as a detriment to human health. They also state that melanoma incidence has increased by 3,000% since 1935.[10] Try to figure out that reasoning! Considering that the population has moved indoors, it becomes obvious that there is a terrible disconnect between the facts and the statements of both the SCF and the MIF. The SCF is closely allied with sunscreen manufacturers. Could this press release be nothing more than a ploy to increase sunscreen sales?
And speaking of sunscreens, the increase in sunscreen sales is dramatic,[11] [12] and the incidence of melanoma continues to skyrocket in spite of its use.[13] The blockage of sunlight by sunscreens correlates to an increased risk of melanoma, and yet the MIF and SCF state that we need to avoid the sunlight? Give me a break! Still, the SCF has stated that “for adequate protection against melanoma, non-melanoma skin cancers and photo-aging, everyone over the age of six months should use sunscreen daily year-round, in any weather.” Yes, they are suggesting that we use sunscreen even in cloudy weather in the winter! How convenient for an organization, which works closely with sunscreen manufacturers, to make such a statement. Could there be a conflict of interest here?
The SCF press release discusses three statements that they label as “myths.” Let’s look at these statements by the Skin Cancer Foundation to determine which are really myths, and which are really facts.
The Foundation lists the following statements as myths:
1. UVB radiation is a good source of vitamin D.
2. Sun exposure is the only source of vitamin D
3. Tanning beds are a healthy option for boosting vitamin D levels.
Let’s take a look at each statement and then look at the facts:
#1 UVB radiation is a good source of vitamin D. This is not a myth! UVB radiation from 10-15 minutes of full-body exposure to peak summer sunshine can stimulate the production of up to 20,000 IU of vitamin D.[14] Indeed, UVB radiation is an incredibly effective source of vitamin D, and that is no myth. Any statement to the contrary is false.
#2 Sun exposure is the only source of vitamin D. No such myth, to my knowledge, has been propagated. A myth is an unproved or false collective belief. There is no false collective belief that sun exposure is the only source of vitamin D. However, sunlight is certainly by far the best source of vitamin D. For example, cod liver oil has about 400 IU per teaspoon; salmon, 400 IU per 3.5 oz. serving; fortified milk, 100 IU per 8 oz. glass; and fortified orange juice 100 IU per 8 oz. glass. Compare this to 20,000 IU from sun exposure; it’s no contest.[15]
#3 Tanning beds are a healthy option for boosting vitamin D levels. This is not a myth!
An excellent study compared 50 people who used tanning beds regularly with 106 who did not. The tanning-bed group had 90% higher vitamin D levels and significantly higher bone density.[16] Other research has shown that (a) Women who use tanning beds have a reduced risk of endometrial cancer of 40-50%.[17] (b) There is a significantly lowered risk of venous thrombotic events among women who use tanning beds when compared with those who do not.[18] (c) Tanning-bed use is inversely correlated to breast-cancer risk.[19]
Fortunately, organizations beyond the SCF are “seeing the light.” Cancer Research UK has joined with other health organizations to make a consensus statement regarding sunlight and vitamin D.[20] Those organizations are British Association of Dermatologists, Cancer Research UK, Diabetes UK, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the National Heart Forum, the National Osteoporosis Society and the Primary Care Dermatology Society. Here is the first part of the statement: “Vitamin D is essential for good bone health, and for most people sunlight is the most important source of vitamin D. The time required to make sufficient vitamin D varies according to a number of environmental, physical and personal factors, but is typically short and less than the amount of time needed for skin to redden and burn. Enjoying the sun safely, while taking care not to burn, can help to provide the benefits of vitamin D without unduly raising the risk of skin cancer.”
The aforementioned dermatological and other health societies of the UK do not consider the health benefits of responsible sun exposure to be a myth. Why, then, does the SCF consider themselves so much more intelligent than these organizations? This may be the clue: There are 69 corporate sponsors of the SCF, each of which pays at least $10,000 per year for the privilege of belonging to the “Corporate Council.[21] If you look at the SCF Corporate-Council page, you will note that many of the members are involved in producing or selling products for skin protection, i.e. sunscreens. Is it any wonder that the SCF suggests year-round sunscreen use, even in cloudy, wintry weather? It certainly smacks of some quid pro quo, no?
Let’s get some safe sunlight as recommended by Cancer Research UK and other reputable organizations across the pond and forget about the biased and irresponsible SCF.
[1] http://www.skincancer.org/media-and-press/press-release-2013/vitamin-d
[2] Koh HK, Geller AC, Miller DR, Grossbart TA, Lew RA. Prevention and early detection strategies for melanoma and skin cancer: Current status. Archives of Dermatology 1996; 132: 436-442.
[3] Grant, WB. An ecologic study of cancer mortality rates in Spain with respect to indices of solar UVB irradiance and smoking. Int J Cancer. 2007 Mar 1;120(5):1123-8.
[4] Garland FC, White MR, Garland CF, Shaw E, Gorham ED. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the USA Navy. Arch Environ Health 1990; 45:261-67.
[5] Rivers, J. Is there more than one road to melanoma? Lancet 2004;363:728-30.
[6] Crombie, I. Racial differences in melanoma incidence. Br J Cancer 1979;40:185-93.
[7] Godar DE, Landry RJ, Lucas AD. Increased UVA exposures and decreased cutaneous Vitamin D3 levels may be responsible for the increasing incidence of melanoma. Med hypothesis (2009), doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.09.056
[8] Lee J. Melanoma and exposure to sunlight. Epidemiol Rev 1982;4:110–36.
Vågero D, Ringbäck G, Kiviranta H. Melanoma and other tumors of the skin among office, other indoor and outdoor workers in Sweden 1961–1979 Brit J Cancer 1986;53:507–12.
Kennedy C, Bajdik CD, Willemze R, De Gruijl FR, Bouwes Bavinck JN; Leiden Skin Cancer Study. The influence of painful sunburns and lifetime sun exposure on the risk of actinic keratoses, seborrheic warts, melanocytic nevi, atypical nevi, and skin cancer. Invest Dermatol 2003;120:1087–93.
Garland FC, White MR, Garland CF, Shaw E, Gorham ED. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the USA Navy. Arch Environ Health 1990; 45:261-67.
Kaskel P, Sander S, Kron M, Kind P, Peter RU, Krähn G. Outdoor activities in childhood: a protective factor for cutaneous melanoma? Results of a case-control study in 271 matched pairs. Br J Dermatol 2001;145:602-09.
Garsaud P, Boisseau-Garsaud AM, Ossondo M, Azaloux H, Escanmant P, Le Mab G. Epidemiology of cutaneous melanoma in the French West Indies (Martinique). Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:66-8.
Le Marchand l, Saltzman S, Hankin JH, Wilkens LR, Franke SJM, Kolonel N. Sun exposure, diet and melanoma in Hawaii Caucasians. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:232-45.
Armstong K, Kricker A. The epidemiology of UV induced skin cancer. J Photochem Biol 2001;63:8-18
Crombie IK. Distribution of malignant melanoma on the body surface. Br J Cancer 1981;43:842-9.
Crombie IK. Variation of melanoma incidence with latitude in North America and Europe. Br J Cancer 1979;40:774-81.
Weinstock MA, Colditz,BA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ. Bronstein, BR, Speizer FE. Nonfamilial cutaneous melanoma incidence in women associated with sun exposure before 20 years of age. Pediatrics 1989;84:199-204.
Tucker MA, Goldstein AM. Melanoma etiology: where are we? Oncogene 2003;22:3042-52.
Berwick M, Armstrong BK, Ben-Porat L, Fine J, Kricker A, Eberle C. Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Nat Cancer Inst 2005;97:95-199.
Veierød MB, Weiderpass E, Thörn M, Hansson J, Lund E, Armstrong B. A prospective study of pigmentation, sun exposure, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1530-8.
Oliveria SA, Saraiya M, Geller AC, Heneghan MK, Jorgensen C. Sun exposure and risk of melanoma. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:131-8.
Elwood JM, Gallagher RP, Hill GB, Pearson JCG. Cutaneous melanoma in relation to intermittent and constant sun exposure—the western Canada melanoma study. Int J Cancer 2006;35:427-33
[9] Ian D. Wyatt and Daniel E. Hecker. Occupational changes in the 20th century. Monthly Labor Review, March 2006 pp 35-57: Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[10] Melanoma International Foundation, 2007 Facts about melanoma. Sources: National Cancer Institute 2007 SEER Database, American Cancer Society’s 2007 Facts and Figures, The Skin Cancer Foundation, The American Academy of Dermatology.
[11] Kline & Company’s Cosmetics & Toiletries USA Annual Service (1972 and 2008 editions).
[12] Fredonia market research group report, 2009.
[13] Melanoma incidence in Connecticut, 1936-1999. Source: Connecticut Tumor Registry.
[14] Hollis, BW. Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels indicative of vitamin D sufficiency: implications for establishing a new effective dietary intake recommendation for vitamin D. J Nutr 2005 Feb;135(2):317-22.
[15] Holick, MF. High Prevalence of Vitamin D Inadequacy and Implications for Health. MAYO CLIN PROC. 2006;81:353-373
[16] Tangpricha, V. et al. Tanning is associated with optimal vitamin D status (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration) and higher vitamin D levels. Am J Clin Nutr 2004:80:1645-49.
[17] Epstein E, et al. A population-based cohort study on sun habits and endometrial cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009 Aug 4;101(3):537-40.
[18] Lindqvist PG et al., Does an active sun exposure habit lower the risk of venous thrombotic events? A D-lightful hypothesis. J Thromb Haemost 2009;7:605-10.
[19] Yang L, et al. Prospective study of UV exposure and cancer incidence among Swedish women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Published Online May 6, 2011.
[20]http://www.sunsmart.org.uk/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@sun/documents/generalcontent/cr_052628.pdf.
[21] Corporate Council page, Skin Cancer Foundation. Accessible at http://www.skincancer.org/about-us/corporate-supporters/corporate-council.
By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
Research from Belgium has shown that there is a high rate vitamin D deficiency in elderly nursing-home residents. In fact, almost every resident was deficient.[1] Also, the research showed that as vitamin D deficiency was compared with the likelihood of depression among those residents, there was a consistent tendency toward increasing depressive symptoms with increasing D deficiency. In other words, those who were most D deficient were most likely to be depressed.
This research simply confirms the results of other investigations, most notably a study showing that Those whose vitamin D levels were deficient—defined as less than 20 ng/ml—had 11.7 times the incidence of depression when compared to those whose vitamin D levels were higher.[2] Usually an association is considered impressive when a measured factor correlates to a 50% increase or decrease. In this case, the correlation between vitamin D deficiency and risk of depression was a staggering 1,169 percent! Still other related research showed that elderly persons whose serum vitamin D levels were in the deficient category had three-and-one-half times the risk of being admitted to a nursing home as those whose levels were in the highest category.[3]
Interestingly, the first phrase of the title of the research from Belgium was “Walk on the sunny side of life.” Ninety percent of the vitamin D in the serum of Americans is produced by the skin in response to sunlight exposure, so research like that mentioned above is really a measure of sunlight exposure and depression. Obviously, what these depressed elderly persons really need is to get out of the care facility and into the sunlight!
[1] Verhoeven V, Vanpuyenbroeck K, Lopez-Hartmann M, Wens J, Remmen R. Walk on the sunny side of life–epidemiology of hypovitaminosis D and mental health in elderly nursing home residents. J Nutr Health Aging 2012 Apr;16(4):417-20
[2] Wilkins C. et al. Vitamin D Deficiency Is Associated With Low Mood and Worse Cognitive Performance in Older Adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006;14:1032–1040).
[3] Visser, M. et al. Low serum vitamin concentrations of 25 hydroxyvitamin D in older persons and the risk of nursing home admission. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84:616-22.
By: Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute–
According to the Centers for Disease Control in May 2011, “about one in 12 people in the United States now has asthma—a total of 24.6 million people and an increase of 4.3 million since 2001.”[1] This is another of those diseases like diabetes that is increasing out of control and shows no sign of abating.
The Scientific American, on April 14, 2011, published an article entitled Why are Asthma Rates soaring?[2] In that article, they lamented the fact that for the last three decades asthma rates have been surging, and that differing theories have arisen as to the reason for the increase, only to be disproven and discarded. Among those theories was the hypothesis that the world has become so “clean” or sterile, that youngsters are not subjected to infectious organisms and thereby do not develop strong immune systems capable of fighting off pollens, dust, etc. To me, that seemed like a rather lame hypothesis, and the article indicates that the idea is no longer in vogue. Another theory was that those who had allergic reactions to various environmental pollutants had weaknesses that predisposed them to asthma. Both of these ideas have failed the test of truth; neither allergy nor early-life “cleanliness” leads to an increase in asthma. The latest theory to surface is that the pandemic of obesity is to blame, because it causes inflammation throughout the body. However, there are many obese people who are not asthmatics.
Newer research has the answer. In Qatar, researchers measured serum vitamin D levels in asthmatic children and compared those levels to levels of healthy non-asthmatic controls.[3] Deficiency was defined as having levels below 20 ng/ml. Many other possible factors were also measured, such as nutritional practices, and various serum measurements such as calcium, phosphorus, alkaline phosphatase, magnesium, creatinine and Parathyroid hormone.
The results were these: asthmatic children had less exposure to sunlight (67%) and less physical activity (71.3%). Vitamin D deficiency was by far the strongest predictor of asthma; those who had the lowest vitamin D levels were nearly five-times more likely to have asthma.
The Scientific American’s editors must not to know that many scientists other than the aforementioned have suggested that vitamin D deficiency, caused by lack sunlight, leads to asthma. Much of the research was done before they published their article.
Researchers in Boston have hypothesized that the decrease in sunlight exposure and resultant vitamin D deficiency is responsible for the asthma epidemic.[4] Others show the same facts: the increase in asthma has paralleled the decline in sunlight exposure, and asthma risk is 40% lower in children of women who have the highest vitamin D consumption during pregnancy.[5]
A scientific experiment from Australia also demonstrated that when asthmatic mice were exposed to ultraviolet light, before being exposed to an asthma-causing allergen, asthma symptoms were reduced.[6] Finally, another study from Spain showed that children exposed to the most sunlight have much lower risks of asthma.[7] To me, it is amazing that the article in Scientific American never even mentioned the possibility of asthma being caused by deficiency of vitamin D brought on by lack of sunlight. Now that this latest research is in, It is my hope that they will correct the mistake and use their considerable prestige to promulgate the vitamin D/sunlight/asthma connection. It is time to return to the sun.
[1] Vital Signs: Asthma Prevalence, Disease characteristics, and self-Management education—United States, 2001-2009. MMWR 2011;60(17):547-552
[2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-asthma-rates-so…
[3] Bener A, Ehlayel MS, Tulic MK, Hamid Q. Vitamin D deficiency as a strong predictor of asthma in children. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2012;157(2):168-75.
[4] Devereux, G. et al. Maternal vitamin D intake and early childhood wheezing. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;85:853-59
[5] Camargo, C. et al. Maternal intake of vitamin D during pregnancy and risk of recurrent wheeze in children at 3 y. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;85:788-95.
[6] Hart, P. et al. Sunlight may protect against asthma. Perth (Australia) Telethon institute for child health research. Quoted in Australian AP Oct 24, 2006.
[7] Arnedo-Pena, A et al. Sunny hours and variations in the prevalence of asthma in schoolchildren according to the International Study of Asthma and Allergies (ISAAC) Phase III in Spain. Int J Biometeorol 2011;55:423-434.