Vitamin D Question? (cancer, pressure, iron, gain)

I have seen the 'recommendations' for D3 (or just Vitiam D) intake as a maximum of 2000 IU but have heard others challenge this - what is the scoop on the dangers of Vitamin D toxicity and is that recommendation good advice? What is the proper upper limit? Any good articles for or against?

[coyoteskye]

Here's a link to a page on Vit D on a web-site that i trust .... very informative and helpful.
There are a number of excellent articles to choose from.
The Weston A. Price Foundation

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I have seen the 'recommendations' for D3 (or just Vitiam D) intake as a maximum of 2000 IU but have heard others challenge this - what is the scoop on the dangers of Vitamin D toxicity and is that recommendation good advice? What is the proper upper limit? Any good articles for or against?

Vitamin D2 is bad - corporations love to give it to you, though.

Vitamin D3 is good.

With 2/3 of your body exposed to the sun on a summer day in, say, southern California, your body can produce about 2,000 IU per hour.

Dumb azses hide from the sun.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2003/...ort_vitd2.html

http://fitnotes.blogspot.com/2007/04/get-your-vitamin-d3.html (broken link)

[20yrsinBranson]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I have seen the 'recommendations' for D3 (or just Vitiam D) intake as a maximum of 2000 IU but have heard others challenge this - what is the scoop on the dangers of Vitamin D toxicity and is that recommendation good advice? What is the proper upper limit? Any good articles for or against?

20 minutes of sun exposure creates 50,000 IU of Vitamin D. Nature knows best.

20yrsinBranson

[ergohead]

Vitamin D3 is considered extremely harmful to the medical industry by Ergohead. Adequate vitamin D3 levels can prevent such an alarming number of diseases, that it is considered a major threat to the medical industry.

http://www.theita.com/client_files/about/sunlightrobbery.pdf (broken link)

"Important evidence supporting the association between prostate cancer and sunlight comes from Dr Christopher
Luscombe and colleagues at Keele University and North Staffordshire Hospital [130]. They found that sunbathing,
regular foreign holidays, and sunburn in childhood are associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer when men with
prostate cancer were compared in a case/control study with men who had benign prostatic hypertrophy. Men who
were sunburnt as children were most strongly protected against prostate cancer. This does not of course suggest
that sunburn itself is protective but rather that intense exposure to the sun is likely to be protective."

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

Here's a link to a page on Vit D on a web-site that i trust .... very informative and helpful.
There are a number of excellent articles to choose from.
The Weston A. Price Foundation

Thanks for the link - great articles and nice reads.

I ususally do not sun bath (had enough of that when I was younger) but do get about 1/2 to 1 hour of sun on face and arms every day plus food intake of D3. I was thinking of supplementing up to about 2200 IU and just wanted to do a little reasearch. Thanks!

[Niftybergin]

Originally Posted by ergohead

Dumb azses hide from the sun.

Thanks. I'll tell my skin cancer you said so.

Originally Posted by Niftybergin

Thanks. I'll tell my skin cancer you said so.

This has always intrigued me - I have seen people with leathery, wrinkled, tanned, and freckeld skin - basically sun damaged - and no cancer. Then I have seen good looking skin no major belmishes and whamo-bamo they get a melanoma (somtimes in places where the sun aint shined) - some die some do not. To me this says that it is more than just sun exposure. I think the sun may trigger certain processes in certain people but this taking place would only say it was indirectly causing skin cancer in certain types of people not directly in all exposures. Genetics seems to play a major role in its ability to manage, regulate, and efficiently deal with the environment - some people may not be equipped to handle certain environmental pressures in certain amounts others seem to be able handle any amount even though their skin may not look pretty.

[bluedevilz]

Originally Posted by ergohead

Vitamin D2 is bad - corporations love to give it to you, though.

Vitamin D3 is good.

With 2/3 of your body exposed to the sun on a summer day in, say, southern California, your body can produce about 2,000 IU per hour.

Dumb azses hide from the sun.

LE Magazine, April 2003 - Report: Vitamin D: The Underrated Essential

Fitnotes: Get Your Vitamin D3 (http://fitnotes.blogspot.com/2007/04/get-your-vitamin-d3.html - broken link)

Those would be the dumb azses without skin cancer

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by bluedevilz

Those would be the dumb azses without skin cancer

Sure, blame the sun - easy target.

Avoidance of threat is a stupid strategy, that makes a person even more stupid, i.e., incapable of dealing with his or her environment.

The sun protects from skin cancer, and most likely, other cancers as well.

I think the cancer-stricken have other issues going on.

Probably non-thinking conformists, the kind that waits for "established authority" to advise them on "all matters". The kind that eats the 7 basic food groups and thinks that is a healthy thing to do, per se. The kind who are exposed to hundreds of environmental and "food"-containing carcinogenics daily and do nothing to offset or mitigate the invasion. These people have faith in authority.

A hint: The 50 mg of vitamin C gained from eating an orange, saturated with pesticides and herbicides, isn't an amount sufficient to overcome the damage caused by the pesticides and herbicides in the orange, let alone other challenges.

The kind who believes the FDA is there to protect them.

The kind who believes pharmaceutical companies want to help them.

The kind who believes . .