197 replies to this topic

[Athanasios]

I tried the original 1% formulation and got hives, as many others have. Then I ordered the new formula that Elizabeth Arden helped Allergan with Prevage MD. Got hives again. But I´m not sorry.

This is not a big problem with COQ10. Many are allergic to idebenone, however, including me!

[Fredrik]

I tried the original 1% formulation and got hives, as many others have. Then I ordered the new formula that Elizabeth Arden helped Allergan with Prevage MD. Got hives again. But I´m not sorry.

This is not a big problem with COQ10. Many are allergic to idebenone, however, including me!

True. A big company like NIVEA would never risk releasing such an allergenic molecule as idebenone on the market. I don´t know what Allergan was thinking. The insert on Prevage now says that you should first try the product on a small area of your body a couple of days. If no reaction, use it every other day for a week and then every day if tolerated.

I tried a generous sample of NIVEA Men Hydrogel with coenzyme Q10 and taurine with no bad reaction at all. Light texture, smells like toothpaste though, why do so many companies think that we males crave cooling menthol and perfume in our skincare?

I´ve always used fragrance free skincare aimed at women for that reason. I mean, skin has no gender. The only difference I´ve read about is that men are supposed to have a bit thicker skin with more collagen, just like we generally have greater bone and muscle mass than women.

Edited by fredrik, 22 October 2007 - 11:07 PM.

[Athanasios]

Thanks cnorwood for the study. It doesn't look like they had a group with pure base (0% idebenone), unless I'm reading it wrong. Wouldn't that be a glaring flaw, since maybe the base caused the improvement?

Stephen

Yes, the study is shaky by itself, but there is a lot of positive research that points to the same conclusions (which is why I believe it). I wouldn't rely on any one study. I encourage people to research it.

Examples:

Biofactors. 1999;9(2-4):371-8.Click here to read Links
    Coenzyme Q10, a cutaneous antioxidant and energizer.
    Hoppe U, Bergemann J, Diembeck W, Ennen J, Gohla S, Harris I, Jacob J, Kielholz J, Mei W, Pollet D, Schachtschabel D, Sauermann G, Schreiner V, Stäb F, Steckel F.

    Paul Gerson Unna Research Center, Beiersdorf AG, Hamburg, Germany.

    The processes of aging and photoaging are associated with an increase in cellular oxidation. This may be in part due to a decline in the levels of the endogenous cellular antioxidant coenzyme Q10 (ubiquinone, CoQ10). Therefore, we have investigated whether topical application of CoQ10 has the beneficial effect of preventing photoaging. We were able to demonstrate that CoQ10 penetrated into the viable layers of the epidermis and reduce the level of oxidation measured by weak photon emission. Furthermore, a reduction in wrinkle depth following CoQ10 application was also shown. CoQ10 was determined to be effective against UVA mediated oxidative stress in human keratinocytes in terms of thiol depletion, activation of specific phosphotyrosine kinases and prevention of oxidative DNA damage. CoQ10 was also able to significantly suppress the expression of collagenase in human dermal fibroblasts following UVA irradiation. These results indicate that CoQ10 has the efficacy to prevent many of the detrimental effects of photoaging.

    PMID: 10416055 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Biofactors. 2005;25(1-4):179-85.Click here to read Links
    Stimulation of skin's energy metabolism provides multiple benefits for mature human skin.
    Blatt T, Lenz H, Koop U, Jaspers S, Weber T, Mummert C, Wittern KP, Stäb F, Wenck H.

    R&D, Beiersdorf AG, Hamburg, Germany. thomas.blatt@beiersdorf.com

    As an organism ages, there is a decline in mitochondrial function and cellular energy balance. This decline is both accelerated by and can cause the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that damage nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, lipid membranes as well as structural and catalytic proteins, especially those involved in energetic pathways of cells. Further, ROS have also been linked to some of the detrimental skin changes that occur as a result of photoaging. We have previously shown that levels of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), a component of the respiratory chain in mitochondria, are reduced in skin cells from aging donors, and that topical supplementation can ameliorate processes involved in skin aging. Creatine is another important component of the cellular energy system and phosphocreatine, its phosphorylated form, functions as a reservoir for high energy phosphates. Unfortunately the creatine system and thus the energy storage mechanism in skin are negatively affected by aging and conditions of oxidative stress. This article reviews some of our in vivo data about the synergistic effects of combining a stabilized form of Creatine with CoQ10 and clearly depicts their beneficial effects as active ingredients in topical formulations.

    PMID: 16873944 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Neither Q10 or idebenone can protect against photoaging like ascorbic acid + tocopherol can:

I don't think that is a good comparison. A better comparison would be copper peptides and a lipidphilic antioxidant .

I am going to shut-up now (all comments on skin-care) as I think I am moving into conflict of interest territory (you will know why in a bit).

[stephen_b]

I tried the SkinCeuticals product starting with once every couple of days but working down to once every 4 days. I noticed that it made my skin feel warm and firm -- a nice feeling actually. Hope that's good.

Stephen

[tintinet]

Why once every 4 days? What's the best interval/dosing regime?

[Fredrik]

Why once every 4 days? What's the best interval/dosing regime?

Topical vitamin C has an half life in skin of 4 days. So you don´t have to apply it everyday if your skin turns red or warm because of the acidicity. The best dosing regime is the one that makes your skin comfortable, retinoids are more important than vitamin C so first get used to a retinoid. After that you can adjust topical C upwards and use it everyday if possible.

[shadowrun]

Speaking of Retinoids

I went to a dermatologist yesterday to ask for a retinoid prescription - I figured since I was armed with my knowledge and some insistence there wouldn't be any problems.

I quote below what the doctor told me.

"Yeah, retinoids are great for acne and wrinkles and stuff...but your just too young, I only prescribe them to my patients with acne or who have obvious skin damage."

...wtf

- He wouldn't give me a damn prescription.

He also told me to use Head and Shoulders for my dandruff...So I think hes a freaking idiot regardless

[Fredrik]

Speaking of Retinoids

I went to a dermatologist yesterday to ask for a retinoid prescription - I figured since I was armed with my knowledge and some insistence there wouldn't be any problems.

I quote below what the doctor told me.

"Yeah, retinoids are great for acne and wrinkles and stuff...but your just too young, I only prescribe them to my patients with acne or who have obvious skin damage."

...wtf

- He wouldn't give me a damn prescription.

He also told me to use Head and Shoulders for my dandruff...So I think hes a freaking idiot regardless

Your dermatologist is right that retinoids are only FDA proved to TREAT skin damage, not to prevent it. But the experimental research on prevention is there even if the drug companies never applied for that indiciation. Most dermatologist up to date on the subject of retinoids and photoaging will state that they do prevent photodamage, such as actinic keratoses, pigmentation and wrinkles.

Head & shoulders (zinc pyrithione) is not as effective as ketaconazole, but it works against mild dandruff.

[zoolander]

I'm not sure if the following supplement for skin has been mentioned

[Fredrik]

I'm not sure if the following supplement for skin has been mentioned

I´ve seen the other extracts, GliSODin, grape seed and pomegranate tested as oral photoprotection but what is the alpha lipoic acid doing there? I´ve never seen anything on oral supplementation, just topical. Maybe someone out there has a study up their sleeve.

[zoolander]

I'm a bit stand offish over the chicken sternum extract

[Fredrik]

I'm a bit stand offish over the chicken sternum extract

It sounds gimmicky to me. I mean, the collagen will just break down into it´s building blocks, amino acids and will probably end up somewhere else before being rebuilt into skin collagen.

This snip from wikipedi mirrors just this concern of mine:

"Collagen is also sold commercially as a joint mobility supplement. This lacks supportive research as the proteins would just be broken down into its base amino acids during digestion, and could go to a variety of places besides the joints depending upon need and DNA orders."

Besides that, I think it´s unnecessarily crude to eat human and non-human animals (and their parts, like chicken sternum) when you can get all amino acids in sufficient amounts from plant protein. Other big non-human animals like mountain gorillas, elephants, giraffes, hippopotamus and rhinoceros seem to do very well on a 100% vegan diet with only plant protein. They can even grow a fur or get rhinoceros skin out of those amino acids.

Edited by fredrik, 30 October 2007 - 12:12 AM.

[Mixter]

You could probably go and take some hydroxyprolin as collagen
precursor, but that makes close to no sense, UNLESS your normal
synthesis of the above is genetically impaired (e.g. perhaps in rosacea?).
If you have no genetic collagen building weakness, 2-3g ascorbate throughout
the day is fully sufficient to make enough hydroxyprolin->collagen.

[curious_sle]

mixter, that brings me back to some other question... how much vitamine c should one take per os daily for optimal skin benefits (besides all other). i used to take more but now it's just 6xortho core + 1g. Is 2-3g optimal and are there any papers on that or is it just guestimate?

Edited by curious_sle, 30 October 2007 - 10:28 PM.

[zoolander]

Besides that, I think it´s unnecessarily crude to eat human and non-human animals (and their parts, like chicken sternum) when you can get all amino acids in sufficient amounts from plant protein. Other big non-human animals like mountain gorillas, elephants, giraffes, hippopotamus and rhinoceros seem to do very well on a 100% vegan diet with only plant protein. They can even grow a fur or get rhinoceros skin out of those amino acids.

from the above statement I am guessing that you are vegetarian. It's true that you can get all the amino acids in sufficent amounts from plant protein however plant proteins are often and more than likely not complete proteins. A vegetarian must carefully monitor their intakes to get a full spectrum of amino acids to fulfil a complete protein. Additionally, the percentage of protein in plant proteins is usually a lot less when compred to flesh proteins. If you are moderately to highly active and workout in the gym you would need a well planned diet to achieve 2g protein/kg/day just by eating plant products.

I don't think you can really compare gorilla and humans there is a genetic difference of 2.4%. No human could support a mass of 400lbs on a gorillas diet.

[Fredrik]

from the above statement I am guessing that you are vegetarian. It's true that you can get all the amino acids in sufficent amounts from plant protein however plant proteins are often and more than likely not complete proteins. A vegetarian must carefully monitor their intakes to get a full spectrum of amino acids to fulfil a complete protein. Additionally, the percentage of protein in plant proteins is usually a lot less when compred to flesh proteins. If you are moderately to highly active and workout in the gym you would need a well planned diet to achieve 2g protein/kg/day just by eating plant products.

I don't think you can really compare gorilla and humans there is a genetic difference of 2.4%. No human could support a mass of 400lbs on a gorillas diet.

I´m vegan at home and just lazy (lacto-ovo-vegetarian) when eating out.

You´re right that I can´t compare us directly. I´m just saying you don´t necessarily need the AAs to come from flesh. It´s just convenient, traditional (and tasty perhaps) to ingest them that way.

It´s not hard at all to get the RDA for protein, 0.8 g/kg, on a vegan diet. You don´t have to combine different incomplete proteins at the same meal, as once thought, as long as you eat different plant foods over the course of a day the amino acid "pool" will combine them for you.

But 2g/kg is harder when calorirestricted. Then you probably need to add some protein powder, pea, rice or soyprotein. I manage to get 1.5g/kg and I practice mild CR. As an ad lib vegan many years ago I consumed about 120 grams of protein a day.

The percentage of protein is lower in plant food but calorie per calorie broccoli, spinach and many other greens for example contains MORE protein, although incomplete, than beef. And the protein from broccoli comes with folic acid, vitamin and minerals that the beef protein is missing. I eat that with quorn that really is like engineered fake chicken =)

Sorry, I´m taking this thread in another direction. I´ll get back on track.

Edited by fredrik, 31 October 2007 - 11:37 AM.

[ajnast4r]

I´m vegan at home and just lazy (lacto-ovo-vegetarian) when eating out.

vegetarian crew holler :D

[wydell]

I am not a vegetarian. Anyway, this vegan probably gets enough protein. Mac Danzig is also probably top 20 in the world in MMA in the 155 pound division.


http://video.google....8...h&plindex=1

Edited by wydell, 13 January 2008 - 03:06 PM.

[Fredrik]

I´m vegan at home and just lazy (lacto-ovo-vegetarian) when eating out.

vegetarian crew holler :D

haha :D

[Fredrik]

I am not a vegetarian. Anyway, this vegan probably gets enough protein. Mac Danzig is also probably top 20 in the world in MMA in the 155 pound division.


http://video.google....8...h&plindex=1

On his website it says: "Mac places a rear naked choke early in the first round on Tommy Speer to become the TUF6 CHAMPION!!!!" I don´t know what a REAR NAKED CHOKE is but it sounds both terrifying and vaguely exciting at the same time.

And he´s too muscly (so you can exhale now Mitkat, I still think you´re cuter ) but at least this fighting guy is a vegan and that´s HOT!

http://www.macdanzig.net/

Edited by fredrik, 14 January 2008 - 02:15 AM.

[TianZi]

Sun Exposure: In Retrospect, a Good Thing in Limited Amounts

[Caveat: I'm not a physician, and also not a biologist or otherwise a scientific researcher of any stripe. In my statements below, I have entirely relied on numerous publicly-available published studies on the effects of sun exposure as regards incidence and mortality rates for a broad spectrum of cancers, as well as other ailments in some cases.]

I noticed in this thread that posters consistently recommend using topical sun block in advance of sun exposure, ideally before each and every incident of sun exposure. This is consistent with the medical establishment's recommendations for the last few decades, in light of the risk of developing melanoma and other skin cancers as a result of sun exposure, and damage to the skin resulting in a more aged appearance.

However, there is now conclusive evidence that the benefits of limited sun exposure outweigh the risks, at least as regards incidence and mortality rates for cancer (and incidence rates for osteoporosis and other ailments to boot, although it is only very recently that sun exposure studies have started addressing conditions other than cancer). In a nutshell, dozens of studies conducted by prestigious individuals and organizations in the past few years have concluded that incidence and mortality rates for a long list of common internal cancers greatly decrease commensurate with the amount of regular unprotected exposure to sunlight the individual in question has. Even as regards melanoma, while rates for incidence of this cancer increase proportional with overexposure to the sun (resulting in burning), rates for mortality decrease (note the emphasis on "overexposure"; contrary to what you may have read on warning labels, there is presently no consensus in the scientific community that anything but overexposure to sunlight results in an increased incidence rate for melanoma). As regards the degree to which these rates change, studies have shown a 50% or greater protective effect dependent on the type of cancer and the amount of regular sun exposure.

The reason for this cancer-protective effect from sunlight isn't known with certainty, but is believed to result from increased Vitamin D levels in the body caused by exposure to ultraviolet rays. Significantly, present brands of commercially available sun block prevent the body from obtaining Vitamin D in this way. It is unclear whether consumption of Vitamin D in a digestible form could provide the same cancer protective benefits as direct exposure to sunglight, but a number of studies have suggested that it cannot, perhaps because there are variations in forms of Vitamin D that we haven't yet recognized. However, it is known that the form of Vitamin D delivered by UVB sun rays is D3, which is quite different from the Vitamin D2 in some brands of fortified milk. Further, Vitamin D consumed as a dietary supplement in excess can cause calcium build-up in the internal organs, a bad thing, and something not associated with Vitamin D obtained through sun exposure. One of the NBC News articles linked below specifically addresses why diet and supplementation aren't likely to provide the same benefits as direct unprotected limited sun exposure.

This research for the most part was initially done in "low light" countries in northern Europe and elsewhere that for many decades had shown very significantly increased rates of incidence and mortality for a host of cancers, as compared against "sunny" countries near the equator. In recent years, the results in these European studies have been replicated many times in US studies.

Increasingly, the authors of these studies, and the physicians who read them, recommend ensuring limited unprotected regular exposure to the sun, so long as that exposure does not result in a burn from overexposure (and that length of time will vary individually).

Here are links to a few articles discussing representational studies (which you can use as a stepping stone to reviewing the actual studies yourself, if you are so inclined); you can find many others:

http://www.reuters.c...s/idUSL07203932

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/7875140/

http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/7145080.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6898938/

http://www.wwaytv3.c...er_risk/12/2007

You will have noted from the above I have said nothing about how even limited exposure to the sun changes the outward appearance of the skin. None of the studies I've read regarding the foregoing address this, as in truth it is only a cosmetic concern. Personally, I'd trade a few wrinkles in return for a life free of terminal cancer. If you are persuaded that the benefits of limited sun exposure outweigh the risks, but remain concerned about how unprotected sun exposure may negatively change your skin's appearance, you may wish to research studies measuring visible aging effects on the skin from limited regular sun exposure not resulting in a burn versus overexposure resulting in a burn (I've not read up on this). You may also consider what other interventions may lessen any negative cosmetic change in the skin's appearance.

Edited by TianZi, 15 January 2008 - 07:05 AM.

[ajnast4r]

I'm not a physician, and also not a biologist or otherwise a scientific researcher of any stripe.

the most important part of this article

It is unclear whether consumption of Vitamin D in a digestible form could provide the same cancer protective benefits as direct exposure to sunglight, but a number of studies have suggested that it cannot,

this was either written 10 years ago, or hes outright lying. supplemental vitamin D absolutely provides the same benefits

However, it is known that the form of Vitamin D delivered by UVB sun rays is D3, which is quite different from the Vitamin D in milk, which is D2.

the end-products of supplemental d2 and d3 metabolism are no different than what you get from the sun

Further, Vitamin D consumed as a dietary supplement in excess can cause calcium build-up in the internal organs, a bad thing,

this is twisting the facts... this would only happen from taking HUGE amounts of vit D over prolonged periods of time. this is not even an issue worth discussing in people supplementing [properly] 1000-2000iu daily




that article is pretty much garbage. a mild sunscreen and vitamin d supplementation are 2 of the best things you can do to PREVENT cancer... end of story.

Edited by ajnast4r, 14 January 2008 - 12:56 PM.

[TianZi]

I'm not a physician, and also not a biologist or otherwise a scientific researcher of any stripe.

the most important part of this article

It is unclear whether consumption of Vitamin D in a digestible form could provide the same cancer protective benefits as direct exposure to sunglight, but a number of studies have suggested that it cannot,

this was either written 10 years ago, or hes outright lying. supplemental vitamin D absolutely provides the same benefits

However, it is known that the form of Vitamin D delivered by UVB sun rays is D3, which is quite different from the Vitamin D in milk, which is D2.

the end-products of supplemental d2 and d3 metabolism are no different than what you get from the sun

Further, Vitamin D consumed as a dietary supplement in excess can cause calcium build-up in the internal organs, a bad thing,

this is twisting the facts... this would only happen from taking HUGE amounts of vit D over prolonged periods of time. this is not even an issue worth discussing in people supplementing [properly] 1000-2000iu daily




that article is pretty much garbage. a mild sunscreen and vitamin d supplementation are 2 of the best things you can do to PREVENT cancer... end of story.

You evidently were unwilling to read any of the articles I linked, which were published by news organizations such as Reuters, The Associated Press, NBC News and BBC, and were simply reporting the findings in recent studies and opinions of experts on this topic. If you'd taken the time to read these articles, you'd have found that none of them were written "ten years ago", and that everything I'd written was based on information within these articles. You should not have called me a liar.

I don't claim to be an expert, and therefore included links to articles referring to the opinions of experts and studies that supported my statements. Evidently, you expect readers to treat you as an expert whose opinions require no substantiation

Again, and as stated in my original post, one of the NBC News articles addresses the issue of supplementation. Since you evidently didn't bother to read it at the link provided (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7875140), I've copied below some of the pertinent quotes from this article published in 2005 (emphasis added):

--------------

"Scientists are excited about a vitamin again.

But unlike fads that sizzled and fizzled, the evidence this time is strong and keeps growing.

If it bears out, it will challenge one of medicine's most fundamental beliefs: that people need to coat themselves with sunscreen whenever they're in the sun. Doing that may actually contribute to far more cancer deaths than it prevents, some researchers think.

The vitamin is D, nicknamed the "sunshine vitamin" because the skin makes it from ultraviolet rays. Sunscreen blocks its production, but dermatologists and health agencies have long preached that such lotions are needed to prevent skin cancer.

Now some scientists are questioning that advice.

The reason is that vitamin D increasingly seems important for preventing and even treating many types of cancer. In the last three months alone, four separate studies found it helped protect against lymphoma and cancers of the prostate, lung and, ironically, the skin. The strongest evidence is for colon cancer.

Many people aren't getting enough vitamin D. It's hard to do from food and fortified milk alone, and supplements are problematic.

So the thinking is this: Even if too much sun leads to skin cancer, which is rarely deadly, too little sun may be worse.

No one is suggesting that people fry on a beach. But many scientists believe that "safe sun" — 15 minutes or so a few times a week without sunscreen — is not only possible but helpful to health.

One of these is Dr. Edward Giovannucci, a Harvard University professor of medicine and nutrition who laid out his case in a keynote lecture at a recent American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Anaheim, Calif."

...

[D]iet accounts for very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood, Giovannucci said.

Supplements contain the nutrient, but most use an old form — D-2 — that is far less potent than the more desirable D-3. Multivitamins typically contain only small amounts of D-2 and include vitamin A, which offsets many of D's benefits.

As a result, pills might not raise vitamin D levels much at all.

...

"[T]oo much of the pill variety can cause a dangerous buildup of calcium in the body. The government says 2,000 IUs is the upper daily limit for anyone over a year old.

On the other hand, D from sunshine has no such limit."


________________

In the two years since that article was published, a great number of additional studies have been completed concluding that the benefits of unprotected limited sun exposure outweigh the risks. I linked articles discussing several of them, which again you chose not to read. The controversy described in the 2005 article is fast becoming a consensus even in the United States that limited, unprotected sun exposure is beneficial.

Fast forward to the Jan. 2008 Reuters article linked above:

_________________

"A little more sunshine might help you live longer, according to a study published on Monday suggesting that for some people health benefits from the sun outweigh the risk of skin cancer.

Sunlight spurs the body to produce vitamin D but fear of skin cancer is keeping many people in the shade and depriving them of an important protection from a range of diseases, researchers said.

"The skin cancer risk is there but the health benefits from some sun exposure is far larger than the risk," said Johan Moan, a researcher at the Institute for Cancer Research in Oslo, who led the study. "What we find is modest sun exposure gives enormous vitamin D benefits."

...

"The current data provide a further indication of the beneficial role of sun-induced vitamin D for cancer prognosis," said Richard Setlow of the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory, who worked on the study."

______________

The other linked articles in my original post discuss other studies, and the information in those articles speaks for itself.

Edited by TianZi, 14 January 2008 - 04:10 PM.

[frederickson]

First of all, NBC news is not a bastion of scientific integrity. Quoting a news report without many actual references against supplemental vitamin D is not exactly overwhelming evidence. I completely agree with you about vitamin D playing a huge role in the prevention of cancer and other diseases. But this article provides no support for why supplemental vitamin D-3 would be any different... it just says it is.

"Many people aren't getting enough vitamin D. It's hard to do from food and fortified milk alone"

true

"and supplements are problematic."

WHY?


"Supplements contain the nutrient, but most use an old form — D-2 — that is far less potent than the more desirable D-3."

perhaps with cheap multivitamins, but i don't think this is true in vitamin D supplements (definitely not mine)... but am currently looking into it.


"Too much of the pill variety can cause a dangerous buildup of calcium in the body. The government says 2,000 IUs is the upper daily limit for anyone over a year old.
On the other hand, D from sunshine has no such limit."

this is the statement i have the most problem with, and it is obviously aimed at a non-scientific audience who will blindly accept what they hear on the news. first of all, that governmental 2000 IU upper limit is absolute garbage. secondly, so long as you are taking D-3, what is the difference between that obtained from the sun??? there is no reasoning provided, probably because there is no good reason for the statement.

[TianZi]

First of all, NBC news is not a bastion of scientific integrity. Quoting a news report without many actual references against supplemental vitamin D is not exactly overwhelming evidence. I completely agree with you about vitamin D playing a huge role in the prevention of cancer and other diseases. But this article provides no support for why supplemental vitamin D-3 would be any different... it just says it is.

"Many people aren't getting enough vitamin D. It's hard to do from food and fortified milk alone"

true

"and supplements are problematic."

WHY?


"Supplements contain the nutrient, but most use an old form — D-2 — that is far less potent than the more desirable D-3."

perhaps with cheap multivitamins, but i don't think this is true in vitamin D supplements (definitely not mine)... but am currently looking into it.


"Too much of the pill variety can cause a dangerous buildup of calcium in the body. The government says 2,000 IUs is the upper daily limit for anyone over a year old.
On the other hand, D from sunshine has no such limit."

this is the statement i have the most problem with, and it is obviously aimed at a non-scientific audience who will blindly accept what they hear on the news. first of all, that governmental 2000 IU upper limit is absolute garbage. secondly, so long as you are taking D-3, what is the difference between that obtained from the sun??? there is no reasoning provided, probably because there is no good reason for the statement.

Hopefully, you've taken the time to actually read the full articles I've linked, rather than the short excerpts I've copied from only two of them.

Obviously, NBC News is not making any statements based on its own expert knowledge of the subject. I thought this was obvious. It is usually clear when reading the article which of the experts named in the article is being relied upon with respect to a particular assertion. Presumably the Harvard professor is a reliable source of information; NBC News reasonably regarded him as so being.

We have to look further for detailed explanations of the broad statements made by the various experts.

Differences between D2 and D3 as described in the article are easily confirmed by researching this on the internet, as I'm sure you'll agree if you do so.

The article mentions that Vitamin D derived from sunlight doesn't have the drawbacks of potential calcium deposits on soft tissue, etc. that can be caused by ingesting vitamin D (this is a problem different from toxicity that can occur after ingesting very high levels of Vitamin D). This positive attribute of Vitamin D derived from sun exposure is also stated without a detailed explanation in many other articles on this subject. According to the Wikipedia stub on Vitamin D, Vitamin D3 derived from sunlight eventually reaches an optimal level with sufficient unprotected exposure to ultraviolet rays, and further D3 generated by the body itself after homeostasis is achieved degrades as quickly as it forms. This does not happen when ingesting Vitamin D2 or D3.

As regards potential drawbacks from ingesting Vitamin D, I found this interesting article published in May 2007 discussing a recently-completed study by Duke and U. of North Carolina researchers; thr article was entitled "High Calcium And Vitamin D Intakes Associated With Higher Risk Of Cognitive Impairment In Elderly":

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070501115230.htm

I've copied below only the first two paragraphs of the article (the authors of the study conclude that increased consumption of Vitamin D leads to increased calcium deposits on the soft tissues of the brain, which in turn causes the greater volume of brain lesions observed in the study). You should read the entire article for yourself.

__________________

ScienceDaily (May 2, 2007) — "Elderly men and women who consumed higher levels of calcium and vitamin D are significantly more likely to have greater volumes of brain lesions, regions of damage that can increase risk of cognitive impairment, dementia, depression and stroke.

Dr. Martha Payne and her co-investigators from Duke and the University of North Carolina examined magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans from 232 men and women (79 men, 153 women) between the ages of 60 and 86 (average age 71). All the subjects had at least some brain lesions of varying sizes, including the extremely miniscule ones often seen in even healthy older persons, but those who reported consuming more calcium and vitamin D were markedly more likely to have higher total volume of brain lesions as measured across numerous MRI scans."

Edited by TianZi, 14 January 2008 - 06:44 PM.

[dehbleh]

Exfoliation + copper peptides...you'll look young forever (well for a long time at least)

I find this also true. But everyone now and then add Tretinoin to your routine and you can look even better.

Copper Peptides (in sufficient doses) are one of those topical actives that are only just starting to get the credit they deserve.

[ajnast4r]

Differences between D2 and D3 as described in the article are easily confirmed by researching this on the internet, as I'm sure you'll agree if you do so.

d2 raises serum 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D exactly the same as d3... only difference is d3 keeps serum levels elevated for 2 weeks after supplementation is stopped, wheres as d2 produces a rapid decrease.
http://www.nutraingr...-ergocalciferol

although i would recommend sticking with d3

the high calcium + D thing was discussed in the supplement forum, and generally agreed that this was probably due more to the high amounts of calcium rather than vitamin D. you cant look at a study like this that uses multiple nutrients and doesnt keep proper controls & make the assumption that it must be the vitamin D causing the problem. the proper form of supplemental calcium, adequate amounts of resistance exercise, k2, magnesium & other nutrients are needed as well to make sure calcium is deposited into bones and not into soft tissue.


there are referenced levels for serum D... most people are brought into optimal levels by 1000iu daily, as confirmed by blood tests. the key is confirming through bloodwork what amount of supplementation brings you within desires levels.

[niner]

...which is quite different from the Vitamin D in milk, which is D2.

This is starting to feel like an urban legend to me. I've been checking the ingredients on milk cartons; I've looked at 3 or 4 different brands in my area, so this is certainly not an authoritative sample, but every single one of them used D3. So does my cheap multi. I'm sure that D2 is out there somewhere, but I'm having a hard time finding it.

As an aside, it's a false dichotomy to say that you have to trade good looks for high vitamin D levels from sun. You could continue to use sunscreen on your face, neck, and hands, which are almost always exposed, but get brief unprotected exposure on your chest, back, and legs.

[TianZi]

...which is quite different from the Vitamin D in milk, which is D2.

This is starting to feel like an urban legend to me. I've been checking the ingredients on milk cartons; I've looked at 3 or 4 different brands in my area, so this is certainly not an authoritative sample, but every single one of them used D3. So does my cheap multi. I'm sure that D2 is out there somewhere, but I'm having a hard time finding it.

As an aside, it's a false dichotomy to say that you have to trade good looks for high vitamin D levels from sun. You could continue to use sunscreen on your face, neck, and hands, which are almost always exposed, but get brief unprotected exposure on your chest, back, and legs.

1. I may be wrong about the form of Vitamin D in milk being D2, and not D3. I'm going to amend my prior post. Per Wikipedia (which is only as accurate as its contributors), D2 is derived from plant and fungal sources, whereas D3 is derived from human and animal sources.

2. Or just use sun block on your face, if you are satisfied with the long-term safety of all of the ingredients in the brand you use (which hopefully doesn't contain nanoparticles). I'm still looking for a study observing negative visible effects on the skin from sun exposure not resulting in a burn. Have one handy?

The 2008 article quoted researchers opining that a desireable sun block would be one blocking the longer ultraviolet rays that can cause skin cancer, but admitting the shorter ones that result in generation of Vitamin D3.

[TianZi]

...which is quite different from the Vitamin D in milk, which is D2.

This is starting to feel like an urban legend to me. I've been checking the ingredients on milk cartons; I've looked at 3 or 4 different brands in my area, so this is certainly not an authoritative sample, but every single one of them used D3. So does my cheap multi. I'm sure that D2 is out there somewhere, but I'm having a hard time finding it.

As an aside, it's a false dichotomy to say that you have to trade good looks for high vitamin D levels from sun. You could continue to use sunscreen on your face, neck, and hands, which are almost always exposed, but get brief unprotected exposure on your chest, back, and legs.

1. D2 vs D3

It isn't an urban legend. But since some milk is apparently fortified with D2, and some D3, I'm going to amend my prior post.

I've copied a few paragraphs from the Wikipedia entry on Vitamin D that concern the different sources of D2 and D3, and use in products such as milk. Hopefully the contributors got their facts straight. At any rate, citations are provided within the Wiki entry, and you can read the endnotes and check the original sources yourself.

_____________

"Several forms (vitamers) of vitamin D have been discovered. The two major forms are vitamin D2 or ergocalciferol, and vitamin D3 or cholecalciferol.

* Vitamin D1: molecular compound of ergocalciferol with lumisterol, 1:1
* Vitamin D2: ergocalciferol or calciferol (made from ergosterol)
* Vitamin D3: cholecalciferol (made from 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin).
* Vitamin D4: 22-dihydroergocalciferol
* Vitamin D5: sitocalciferol (made from 7-dehydrositosterol)

...

Vitamin D2 is derived from fungal and plant sources, and is not produced by the human body. Vitamin D3 is derived from animal sources and is made in the skin when 7-dehydrocholesterol reacts with UVB ultraviolet light at wavelengths between 270–290 nm.[4] These wavelengths are present in sunlight at sea level when the sun is more than 45° above the horizon, or when the UV index is greater than 3.[5] At this solar elevation, which occurs daily within the tropics, daily during the spring and summer seasons in temperate regions, and almost never within the arctic circles, adequate amounts of vitamin D3 can be made in the skin only after ten to fifteen minutes of sun exposure at least two times per week to the face, arms, hands, or back without sunscreen. With longer exposure to UVB rays, an equilibrium is achieved in the skin, and the vitamin simply degrades as fast as it is generated.[1]

In most mammals, including humans, D3 is more effective than D2 at increasing the levels of vitamin D hormone in circulation; D3 is at least 3-fold, and likely closer to 10-fold, more potent than D2.[6] However, in some species, such as rats, vitamin D2 is more effective than D3.[7] Both vitamin D2 and D3 are used for human nutritional supplementation.

...

In some countries, foods such as milk, yogurt, margarine, oil spreads, breakfast cereal, pastries, and bread are fortified with vitamin D2 and/or vitamin D3, to minimize the risk of vitamin D deficiency[.]"

2. Sun Block

Or just use sun block on your face, if you are satisfied with the long-term safety of all of the ingredients in the brand you use (which hopefully doesn't contain nanoparticles). I'm still looking for a study observing negative visible effects on the skin from sun exposure not resulting in a burn. Have one handy?

The 2008 article quoted researchers opining that a desireable sun block would be one blocking the longer ultraviolet rays that can cause skin cancer, but admitting the shorter ones that result in generation of Vitamin D3.

Edited by TianZi, 15 January 2008 - 05:01 AM.