What are the Benefits of Vitamin D?
26. Feb, 2010 
2 Comments
In order to better understand the benefits of vitamin D, you need to understand two things about it —what vitamin D is and the role that it plays in the human body. In technical terms, Vitamin D is a fat-soluble phormone. In plain English that means it is a substance that undergoes some change in our body to become a hormone.
The most important function of vitamin D in our body is to regulate the absorption of calcium and help maintain the density and strength of your bones. In children, absence of sufficient amounts of vitamin D can cause rickets and deformation of long bones.
sunlight generates vitamin d
In adults, it can result in osteomalacia, which causes your bones to become very fragile. It can also cause osteoporosis in adults, which again results in the weakening of bones. Adequate amounts of vitamin D can help you avoid all these complications. It can further help you lessen the effects of arthritis and back pain. Another striking benefit of vitamin D is its role in preventing cancer.
Vitamin D regulates the process of apoptosis in human body which means that vitamin D promotes death of our body cells once they’ve reached a certain point. This process is very important to promote good overall development and growth of our body. When this activity reduces, it can cause an excessive amount of cells that do not die easily causing cancer. The best part about all these benefits is that you don’t need to spend money to get them. All you need to do is ensure you’re spending a few hours in the sun every week, and your body will take care of the rest.
Related posts:
D is for don’t.
most people in northern latitudes have a deficiency that needs to be corrected, true?.
RECOMMENDED Summer Sunlight Exposure Levels Can Produce Sufficient (20 ng ml−1) but Not the Proposed Optimal (32 ng ml−1) 25(OH)D Levels at UK Latitudes
Note that “only 2.9 % have proposed optimal levels of 32 ng/ ml”
Now why is it that 97% of people have lower concentrations of vitamin D in their blood than the putative ‘optimum’ ? Could it have something to do with this
IN the Framingham study the lowest cardiovascular disease risks were found in participants with with baseline 25(OD)D levels of 20 to 25 ng/ml, but increased with both higher and lower values suggesting that increased cardiovascular risk occurred at levels below 30 ng/ml.”
The heart attack risk is increased at lower levels than are now being considered optimum levels, that’s just one disease so maybe there is a trade off and on balance the attaining the higher levels and reducing risks of all the other diseases will lead to a longer heathier life?
IN NHANES III higher mortality was observed in participants with 25 OH)D above 49ng/ml”.
That English UVB exposure does not put vitamin D levels up to 32 nm/ml in 97 % of people is obviously because either :-
A – Natural selection hasn’t got round to it yet, 97% of the English are still adapted to running around with no clothes on.
or
B – It wouldn’t be good for them to have levels that high.
Mad dogs and ….
CONTRARY to what is expected, many studies have come to the conclusion that vitamin D concentrations are generally higher among people in northern Europe than among people in southern Europe [30], [31]. Our average serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are in line with the earlier Swedish values estimated in the MORE study [30]. These values were, independent of season, approximately 30% higher than the average among people from central and southern Europe. The results have been explained by a diet containing more vitamin D-fortified foods, lighter skin and wearing lighter clothing when being outdoors during the summer [30], [31]. Our results indicate that our genes, as well as environmental factors, contribute to our vitamin D status. Higher vitamin D concentrations in northern countries may have a genetic basis.”
Why are Europeans white?
For a given amount of sun whites will have higher levels of vitamin D than blacks for genetic reasons, in fact they have higher levels for the same exposure than even southern Europeans. There are dangers in humans of tropical ancestry trying to raise their vitamin d levels to Northern Europeans’ natural levels, let alone trying to attain the very high putative ‘optimums’ that are now close to being officially recommended for everbody and which only 3% of English people reach with normal sun exposure.
UNFORTUNATELY our norms for adequate vitamin intake are based on subjects or populations of European origin. We are thus diagnosing vitamin-D deficiency in non-European individuals who are, in fact, perfectly normal. This is particularly true for African Americans, nearly half of whom are classified as vitamin-D deficient, even though few show signs of calcium deficiency—which would be a logical outcome. Indeed, this population has less osteoporosis, fewer fractures, and a higher bone mineral density than do Euro-Americans, who generally produce and ingest more vitamin D .
[...]
By pathologizing non-Europeans as being vitamin-D deficient, modern medicine is paving the way for programs that are well intentioned but ultimately tragic in their consequences: mass vitamin-D supplementation to be dispensed through the school system and awareness campaigns. Such public health programs have already been proposed for African Americans and northern indigenous peoples.
What will be the outcome of raising vitamin-D levels in these populations? Keep in mind that we are really talking about a hormone, not a vitamin. This hormone interacts with the chromosomes and gradually shortens their telomeres if concentrations are either too low or too high. Tuohimaa (2009) argues that optimal levels may lie in the range of 40-60 nmol/L. In non-European populations the range is probably lower. It may also be narrower in those of tropical origin, since their bodies have not adapted to the wide seasonal variation of non-tropical humans.
If this optimal range is continually exceeded, the long-term effects may look like those of aging:”