@petewxyz saidAny idea what the group sizes were? Humans are chase hunters, so it is plausible that the combination of endurance sport and multivitamins does the trick. Being cynical, one might imagine that there's less point in endurance athletes taking steroids and the actual effect is due to the other athletes immune response being suppressed.
There was an interesting study that made it into the British Medical Journal about five years ago. No surprise that there was no sig dif for groups taking multivitamins vs control in terms of viral illnesses, but (from memory) there was a curious phenomenon that not only did endurance athletes suffer less viral illnesses, but for that group multivitamins had made a further a ...[text shortened]... . Not really my area so I just read it in passing, no idea if it was ever repeated or taken further.
https://www.jabfm.org/content/29/2/226
Research suggests that the impact of vitamin D status on human health is large enough to have played a remarkable role in human evolution. Anthropologists regard human skin color as an evolutionary adaptation to ultraviolet light.3 The theory posits that dark skin is protective against the intense sunlight at the equator but that at other latitudes individuals with lighter skin have the evolutionary advantage of better health. This is because their sunlight-dependent vitamin D concentrations are closer to those of the ancestral, dark-skinned, equatorial population. Thus the geographic intensity of sunlight and its health impact produce the spectrum of human skin colors we see as we move away from the equator.
From a health perspective, this theory implies that health disparities are found in all populations with diverse skin colors.3⇓–5 In areas of intense sunlight, those with lighter skin are disadvantaged. In areas like the United States, those with darker skin have poorer health. Yet the theory also implies that health professionals can readily take action to alleviate these health disparities: sun protection for those with light skin where sunlight is intense, and vitamin D supplements for those with dark skin everywhere else.
@deepthought saidFunny how that is a liberal's automatic go to.
What that write up doesn't tell us is whether they adjusted for Social Economic Status (SES).
Did you read both posts?
Do you believe higher rates of skin cancer among whites is rooted in socioeconomic differences?
@eladar saidNo, I only read the second one. For respiratory illnesses SES is likely to be important, poor housing conditions are liable to exacerbate respiratory illnesses. It's plausible it matters for skin cancer rates, although the direction of effect is less predictable, the better off can afford holidays in sunny parts of the world so maybe they get more exposure. Unless they've controlled for it in the data you cannot start drawing conclusions about skin colour, vitamin D and incidence of respiratory illnesses. You have to show that it's not caused by anything else or at least that it dominates over other effects. In fact, since the article in your second post mentions Native Americans it seems unlikely to be due to skin colour. Further, SES is going to affect the likelihood that someone buys or takes vitamins.
Funny how that is a liberal's automatic go to.
Did you read both posts?
Do you believe higher rates of skin cancer among whites is rooted in socioeconomic differences?
@deepthought saidLol, I am a white guy and I never have the money to holiday. I think people believe all white people are super rich while blacks are dirt poor.
No, I only read the second one. For respiratory illnesses SES is likely to be important, poor housing conditions are liable to exacerbate respiratory illnesses. It's plausible it matters for skin cancer rates, although the direction of effect is less predictable, the better off can afford holidays in sunny parts of the world so maybe they get more exposure. Unless they ...[text shortened]... to skin colour. Further, SES is going to affect the likelihood that someone buys or takes vitamins.
Most people do not supplement vitamin D.
@eladar saidDoesn't anyone who drinks milk get vitamin D? Why don't people who are lactose intolerant get sick more often?
Lol, I am a white guy and I never have the money to holiday. I think people believe all white people are super rich while blacks are dirt poor.
Most people do not supplement vitamin D.
@metal-brain saidAnother study found that 30 minutes of midday summer sun exposure in Oslo, Norway was equivalent to consuming 10,000–20,000 IU of vitamin D
Doesn't anyone who drinks milk get vitamin D? Why don't people who are lactose intolerant get sick more often?
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-from-sun#time-of-day
You are not going to get 10 to 20k IU of vitamin d from milk. It is more like 100 IU in a cup of milk. Drinking a gallon of milk will give you about 1.6k IU of vitamin d, up for drinking 10 gallons of milk everyday?
@eladar said"Another study found that 30 minutes of midday summer sun exposure in Oslo, Norway was equivalent to consuming 10,000–20,000 IU of vitamin D"
Another study found that 30 minutes of midday summer sun exposure in Oslo, Norway was equivalent to consuming 10,000–20,000 IU of vitamin D
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-from-sun#time-of-day
You are not going to get 10 to 20k IU of vitamin d from milk. It is more like 100 IU in a cup of milk. Drinking a gallon of milk will give you about 1.6k IU of vitamin d, up for drinking 10 gallons of milk everyday?
What time of year is that?
@metal-brain saidSummer, when winter viruses are nowhere to be seen in the Northern Hemisphere.
"Another study found that 30 minutes of midday summer sun exposure in Oslo, Norway was equivalent to consuming 10,000–20,000 IU of vitamin D"
What time of year is that?