PS – Karl Withakay: Vit D is fat soluble, so if you’re drinking fortified skim milk to get the Vit D you might absorbing less than what’s advertised (unless you’re eating some fatty food with it)

You can throw out “(last one)” as a hand grenade and refuse to respond if you wish to do so, but that does not means you get a free pass on your points.

1. OK, 1000 IU is your number, which is the number I also used.

2. 2 quarts of milk / day is a good amount of milk, but if you break it down, it’s not unreasonably excessive:

Two quarts (64oz) is 8 X 8 oz cups. Spread across 3 meals a day (and remember, we are assuming zero vitamin D from any other dietary sources here), that’s only 2-2/3 cups per meal. That’s ~21 oz of milk per meal (assuming that one only consumes milk as part of a meal), which is just one large mug of milk per meal. 21 oz, for example, is the size of a single medium beverage at McDonald’s.

It’s certainly more than most people drink, but we’re not really discussing what most people drink; we’re discussing what’s reasonably possible through diet. My “milk mugs” at home are 22 oz to the brim.

3. “I guarantee that I can get enough of anything if I eat/drink something that is fortified with it”

Yes, milk is fortified with vitamin D3. Many foods we eat are fortified. What’s your point? You never mentioned not consuming fortified foods as part of one’s valid dietary sources of vitamin D.

Your claims were:

“You will not get enough vitamin D from diet alone (unless you eat 2 or 3 portions of fish every day).”

and later

“To have enough vitamin D [in zero sunlight] you either have to have a skewed diet (lots of fish) which is therefore not ‘healthy’ in the implied sense or supplement with sun exposure and/or supplements.”

those two statements have been demonstrated to be false 9at least in the US), excepting if for the second statement, you are considering fortified foods to be supplements. In any case, the first statement is has been unquestioningly demonstrated to be false.

When you consider that the overwhelming majority of milk sold in the US is fortified with vitamin D3, milk cannot be considered an atypical dietary source of vitamin D in the US.

Are you now qualifying your position to be more nuanced than originally presented?

(last one)

1. A good rule of thumb is 100 IU/d ~ +1 ng/ml, so 1000 IU/d ~ +10 ng/ml which is how much vitamin D levels drop in the UK in autumn/winter.

2. 2 quarts of milk a day is a l-o-t of milk

3. Milk is fortified with vitamin D !!! I guarantee that I can get enough of anything if I eat/drink something that is fortified with it

“If your only source of vitamin D is your diet – so no sun exposure at all – then you’ll become vitamin D deficient.”

Granted, if you have sufficiently inadequate exposure to sunlight or UVB, but this statement:

“To have enough vitamin D [in zero sunlight] you either have to have a skewed diet (lots of fish) which is therefore not ‘healthy’ in the implied sense or supplement with sun exposure and/or supplements.”

does not follow.

“You will not get enough vitamin D from diet alone (unless you eat 2 or 3 portions of fish every day).”

Let’s look at some numbers: 3 portions of fish, with say ~325 IU vitamin D3 each (averaging 5 different fish sources of D)= about 1000 IU

at ~125IU / server (1 cup), that comes out to around 8 cups of milk a day. That’s 2 quarts of milk (ignoring any other dietary sources of D) a day, which is a lot, but not an excessive amount. It is, in fact, about my usual daily intake of milk.

Could you perhaps state what you understand to be the required daily intake of D (all sources) so that I can know what number you believe is unreachable through diet alone?

http://www.pjms.com.pk/issues/octdec208/pdf/review01.pdf

In other words being religious is also not good for your health, but they couldn’t write that down

The current RDA for vitamin D assumes ‘minimal sun exposure’ (which is one of the reasons why the new recommendations have been criticised).

@Karl Withakay

I’m not sure what the contradiction is (or are you just trolling?).

If your only source of vitamin D is your diet – so no sun exposure at all – then you’ll become vitamin D deficient.

To have enough vitamin D you either have to have a skewed diet (lots of fish) which is therefore not ‘healthy’ in the implied sense or supplement with sun exposure and/or supplements.

“I would argue that it is because, despite what the alties would have us believe, vitamin deficit of any clinical significance is actually not particularly common in developed nations. ” -nybgrus

You’re totally right. Data easily accessible on the WHO website. One of the most prominent worldwide deficiencies, Vitamin A, is consumed at almost overdose quantity in affluent countries. Funny thing is, it’s usually the alties that end up with the deficiencies from diet restriction. lol. Just wait until our vegan culture ages and finds out what vitamin k2 deficiency is all about. Otherwise, it is the result of another illness or other medical complication, rather than diet. Most my life, I was anemic (despite popping iron pills daily) due to wheat intolerance. Who knew? lol

“Furthermore, despite being a large n, they were all older physicians… People who not only have the knowledge to eat better than most, but more importantly no question that they have the means to.” -nybgrus

“Male physicians over age 50 in the USA are equivalent to what population’s random sample?” -sonic

These are significant observations. The difference was shown in male physicians over 50 with baseline history of cancer (read: cancer treatments). I imagine they would have more access to advanced prolonged medical care, as well, creating a web of confounding factors. A random sampling would be far stronger evidence, but at least within the subset, they were randomly assigned.

Another note of importance is that there is no link between nutrition and two thirds of cancer types, and a weak correlated link for some of the rest. For the case to be improved, they would have to show a link between the cancers presumably impacted by diet, such as colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, etc. As you can see in the following graphs, pancreatic cancer mortality was the same for both groups. Colorectal cancer LOOKS as if there’s a significant difference, until you notice how they re-gauged the y-axis. Sneaky.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/data/journals/jama/0/m_joc120108f2.png

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/data/journals/jama/0/m_joc120108t2.png

I exercise practically every day. I run for about an hour every weekday morning and run for a couple of hours through the local hills every Sunday morning. Three months ago I developed tendonitis as a result of tying my shoe laces too tight to improve my downhill runs. So I took up cycling which was unaffected by the tendonitis, and yesterday I completed the 210km Around The Bay ride.

But I don’t do this for any health benefit. I just love the exercise. It’s quite exhilarating to run through the hills, especially the downhill runs. It was also quite a bit of fun mixing it with twenty thousand riders in the around the bay ride. And pretty satisfying to complete it exhausted but in good shape because of well tuned preparation for the ride and perfect pacing during the ride.

If there are any health benefits, that is merely peripheral. But if I compare my unfit self before the age of twenty-eight and now, I feel much better able two cope with whatever rocks life throws at me. Fitness and stamina is not only for longevity. It is for the here and now. As is the enjoyment of whatever activity you chose to do. Try it sometime.