Free Range Naturism

Naturism => General Naturism Discussion => Topic started by: Bob Knows on January 14, 2019, 08:50:01 PM

Title: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: Bob Knows on January 14, 2019, 08:50:01 PM
Science demonstrates that Natural Sunshine is what reduces many health problems and results in longer lives.  Sun blocker prevents the health effects of sunshine.  And, taking artificial Vitamin D has no beneficial effects. 

For a long time science has known that people with low Vitamin D levels have higher death rates from a list of causes.   But a recent study with 25,000 subjects taking Vitamin D supplements had no beneficial effects.   Vitamin D may only be a "marker" or side issue for the beneficial effects of sunshine. 

Outside article.

New England Journal of Medicine. study.
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: BlueTrain on January 14, 2019, 09:11:42 PM
Maybe that's why Eskimos don't live as long as others.
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: ric on January 15, 2019, 10:12:21 AM
theres also more reseach now being done into the effect of circadian rythms on various different bits of the body.

all to do with the varying light intensities and frequencies during the day.

tinted glasses block most of these effects through the eyes, but even clear lenses have an effect especially contacts .
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: jbeegoode on January 15, 2019, 09:17:12 PM
I like this one. rogue rebellious health nut that I can be, but it makes sense.

The body makes Vitamin D, by taking the good cholesterol and sunshine. D is "associated" with all of these good things. That's natural. Eating supplements doesn't make the vitamin D happen. We are a complete system and production and use of natural goodness is built in. We don't eat massive amounts of Vitamin D in nature, we don't get it, or process it that way. I gave my body good cholesterol from an naturally balanced organic free-range source, I didn't cook out the balance and goodness. I then added sunshine all over. My Vitamin D dropped within range.

I haven't used sunscreen for years and years, but in extreme circumstances. I don't need it. I take precautions. I really enjoyed the cancer statistics. It shows the scare tactics being employed in that industry and medical field.

I went through this looking for what reasoning is used to qualify the selected daily needs for Vitamin D, if anyone i interested:
It has information, but is much to do with the current scares and fallacies and their false conclusions.

There are various reasons for the numbers. They are based on needs to take care of serious maladies like rickets. There is also a toxicity potential for D supplements. If Vitamin D is manufactured in the body naturally, the body balances what is needed. I give my body what it needs and it takes care of itself; The body self regulates; I don't need a doctor doing guessing games.

One raw egg in my smoothie each morning and as much play naked in the sunshine as I can enjoy, during the peak hours (don't over do it and burn). I can't help but think that good body movement adds to this. The sweat and particularly the sauna help exercise the skin and its functions, like making and processing in conjunction with the rest of the bodies systems.

Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: ric on January 16, 2019, 10:43:35 AM
often forgotten is most of the gov recommended daily doses for vitamins are guesses at the levels to avoid disease/s developing  not a recommendation of levels for optimum health or to cure something existing.

nobody seems to do much research into whether processed artificial supplements are used by the body in the same way as the naturally occuring substance.   bear in mind naturally occuring vitamins etc often have other compounds with them that may act as catalysts to enable or enhance the action .   also the processed supplements arnt pure and often have fillers and bulking agents not to mention flavourings and sweeteners which may not be benificial.
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: BlueTrain on January 16, 2019, 12:09:54 PM
I think that many of these things are fads. Somebody says something and it catches  on and before you know it, it's officially recommended. After all, the government is composed of ordinary people just like you and me, although a lot of them have been furloughed at the moment. They're probably the ones who do the good things that government does.

Health and nutrition is a complicated thing and there is always an attraction for simple solutions. Vitamin supplements, copper bracelets and so on. Your body is not a well-oiled machine that extracts X amount of nutrition and necessary elements from what you eat and drink. That's not to say that what you eat makes no difference. It most certainly does. But even the desired end result is subject to the same fads. What is considered overweight has changed over the years. All I can say is what Dick Van Dyke says: keep moving (Easier said than done sometimes). That and do what your mother says.
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: jbeegoode on January 16, 2019, 07:41:56 PM
Dick Van Dyke said that, too? That was Ken Kesey's advice. Dick trippin'? ;D

That is an interesting point about being a well oiled machine. The body is adaptable, it makes allowances for times of famine and abundance. It shuts down when needed, and has armies of host and first aid. It is a host working with billions of little critters and the environment, to the point that it melds to no boundaries, only oneness, just a part of. The critters are the body. It is not simple, but complex systems, beyond what science has discovered. It is an ecology. A definition as a machine just doesn't cut it.

So, I look to what is natural and preventative. I fast, I sweat, I tend toward natural foods, models of natural stress, spirituality. Nude is natural. It triggers all sorts of physical adaptations and exercises a bodies systems. It keeps things "movin'."

After a long cold winter, when you get naked in the sun, hasn't that winter taught you the difference and the value of naked and the sun? Don't ya just know?

Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: BlueTrain on January 16, 2019, 08:32:13 PM
When it's the middle of August, we all wish it were cooler and when it's the middle of January, we all wish it were warmer. That's natural. This morning when I got up, it was just about 20į F outside, now about 40į. Tonight the temperature will drop again faster than the value of our stock portfolios. I still go out walking, though hardly nude, about 2 or 3 miles round trip over the creek and through the woods. It's much nicer now; the mud is frozen and there are no insects. Still, I sweat year-round. Even nude, I sweat. I guess sweat is natural, too. It may not be natural to live where it snows, though.
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: MartinM on January 18, 2019, 02:39:29 PM
I am not sure if I read an early version of this report, but this is the basic philosophy I have been following for the last ten years or so since diagnosed with an auto-immune disease and foot problems, both now being shown to be related to inflammation:
Plenty of sunshine, avoiding burning, building a good tan and avoiding sun cream as far as possible, mixed diet with plenty of vegetables and fruit, limiting red meat, avoiding processed foods, plenty of exercise, going barefoot and, when possible, naked. Thatís probably a bit further than they recommend!
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: John P on January 18, 2019, 04:19:23 PM
Here you go, the diet of the future. It looks OK to me.

If you eat meat every day then this is the first biggie. For red meat you're looking at a burger a week or a large steak a month and that's your lot.

You can still have a couple of portions of fish and the same of chicken a week, but plants are where the rest of your protein will need to come from. The researchers are recommending nuts and a good helping of legumes every day instead.

There's also a major push on all fruit and veg, which should make up half of every plate of food we eat.
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: jbeegoode on January 18, 2019, 06:59:27 PM
I eat like this, mostly live and living foods, sushi, no chicken or meat unless it is wild. Cooking generally burns up the nutritional values, something that I taste. I love the environmental impact toy at the bottom.

So, how much environmental offset do I get for eating naked?

This diet, makes a place for small farmers, it can be a local market supporting it, It can be organic and get rid of all of those pesticides, etc. It is healthier than eating all the starch and grains produced by big production methods, which are not environmentally sound. We need to do this, to live on this planet. The big agriculture plan is a lie. We don't want GMO's, if we do this healthy bio-diverse eating...naked. :D
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: John P on January 19, 2019, 05:53:02 PM
Here's another one, not totally contradicting the previous one. But it's interesting that there's no agreement on how good or bad a high-carbohydrate diet is for us! You'd think that would be pretty basic, but the mantra "Eat your veggies" seems pretty constant.
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: Bob Knows on January 19, 2019, 06:25:27 PM
Cooking generally burns up the nutritional values,

The science disagrees with that.   Some biological evidence shows that our bodies have evolved to eat cooked food over about 2 million  years. We have lost a significant portion of our digestive system that we don't need because our food is "pre-digested" by fire. Compared to other species we have a very small digestive system as a percentage of body mass.

Eating raw food results in absorbing only about 70% of the food value, and the rest passes through without being absorbed.  In some studies the raw food group lost weight while the cooked food group gained weight on the same diet.     There is a really good book about this topic called "*Catching Fire: How cooking made us human*." 

Our bodies are VERY GOOD at telling us what is nutritional and healthy.  Most of us choose to eat what is now called "fast food" because our bodies tell us that is that they need and want to be healthy.  A lot of the fake "health food" is pretty much over priced garbage, in my opinion.  Listen to your body.
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: Safebare on January 19, 2019, 08:24:23 PM
It is amazing how science evolves.  There is a cultural aspect to science as much as factual.  Data is a wonderful thing.  It is often misleading and interpretations can span the spectrum.  I work with data and understand it's flexibility.
Anyway, my mantra is to consume food, in as pure a state as I can find it.  If its not food, avoid it at all costs.  Artificial sweeteners, manufactured supplements, overly processed foods, pesticides and other poisons are anti-food, not food.  All diets have a shelf life.  Probably even mine.
Healthy eating is one small part of healthy living.  What works for me, is just that (mine).  It probably isn't the best thing for you, so I hesitate to condemn anyone for putting thought into their habits, whether diet, exercise, career, family, etc.  If it works for them, it is just fine with me.  Kinda like religion.  I'll let you see mine, even if you wont show me yours, but don't condemn, or shame me for it.
Be safe, be healthy, be free, but more importantly, be YOU!
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: BlueTrain on January 19, 2019, 08:39:51 PM
There are a few other ways to look at it. Take animals, for instance.

Animals, both wild and domestic, that eat only plant matter, are round and sometimes fat. Think of what cattle look like. But animals which only eat meat tend to be lean. This analogy does not extend to fish or whales, of course. Just don't read too much into that. Cooking doesn't make any difference on this point.

Humans, on the other hand, have evolved to eat almost anything that other animals eat and at the same time, many foods have been domesticated (evolved, you might say) to be suitable for humans. It's a big world, too, and the variations are almost endless. There are still many things that humans cannot digest, even if you're surrounded by it (like grass) nor can most other animals. Culture also plays a part. Also, few, if any, animals that we eat are normally meat-eaters, curiously. But it's also worth mentioning that we do not all have the same nutritional requirements. Few people do manual labor like they used to, so we generally do not require high calorie diets like some people used to. And of course, some people do no work whatsoever.

However, nutrition-wise, the basic problem is simply getting enough to eat in the first place. That part is easily assumed away but it remains a problem for people in some places. Getting enough of the right vitamins is an issue on a higher level, beyond getting enough calories. That has sometimes been a problem in this country, too, which we forget. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with fast food, but I also worked my way through college working in both a sub shop and a hamburger place. I know where the food comes from and there's nothing wrong with it.

In responding to a post made as I was writing this one, let me say something about processed food. Some very traditional foods are processed more than you might think. And some very basic food stuffs did not occur naturally. They're part of what has been developed in the last five or ten thousand years, during which time humans have scarcely changed. It is true, however, that great advances have been made in New World foods since Europeans got here, foods that had not been consumed in the rest of the world. Even more recently, some cultural prejudices had to be overcome before certain foods were considered suitable for humans. In parts of Europe, for example, corn (maize, that is, 'Indian corn') was considered fit only for cattle. 
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: ric on January 19, 2019, 09:05:07 PM
im now over 60, in the last 50 odd years weve been told whats bad for us and whats good for us, the only constant is that virtually all the "informed advise" has been proved to be either based on poor science or just plain wrong.  a lot of it designed to sell something. one classic is the 5 a day veg thingy ...dreamt up in a taxi on the way to a conference based on no research  by someone who had nothing better to say.
we just try to eat a varied diet avoiding added chemicals where possible.

any dietry advice that doesnt take any account of how active you are, what work youre doing, where you live , time of year etc etc is just a waste of time.

the old stalwarts of fruit and veggies are good and too much cake makes the trousers tight seem to have stood the test of time....a selection of everything in moderation seems to be the way to go.
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: jbeegoode on January 21, 2019, 07:52:31 PM
In advance, sorry about the sloppy paragraph structure. I promise all of the pieces go together.

Science often disagrees with itself when we start listening to diet experts. Most topics of science are often in their research infancy.

What we do know is that microbes, minerals etc. in rich soil give healthier plants, which give healthier consumers of these plants. The biological makeup of all in the system has evolved together.

We know that more nutrition is best for a body by the same coin. The more fresh, alive living the food, the more nutritional gain. Things start to change after being picked, or killed. That is science.

We know that the nutritional value of food decreases molecular when it is cooked, especially over cooked. There are positives that humans have taken from eating other than fresh uncooked food. There are benefits to fermentation, some foods go easier through a tummy in various modes. All of this is science, but it is cooking, too. Overcooking, for example, can waste nutritional value. Cooking up some foods makes it go down easier. How you eat, how much you masticate, chew, grind and use saliva can make a difference. Cooking can be grinding. There are no blanket, one way fits all solutions when we start consuming all the stuff available to us. But, we know that fire kills nutrition, when food gets blasted over 115F degrees, it starts losing goodness. Softened, stretched, cooking out bad bacteria after food gets older, for preserving, are all good reasons for cooking, but all will be a tradeoff to natural nutritional balance and content.

Smoking foods, drying foods, collecting seeds, grinding up grit to paste, all have been used to bridge the gap from feast to feast. The body is also used to a cycle of feast and famine and is cleansed and balanced by some starvation, or so the science is overwhelmingly pointing to.

Up until the more stationary domestic period, sometimes we used to get fresh this or that, local seasonality was a norm, some of us had to store food, we havenít been living like great apes in Eden.

Looking around, we are all different, for example lighter and darker skins are affected by sunlight. Also, there is plenty of individuality. Another example would be our local desert dwellers, whoís bodies explode with diabetes when they get all of the sugars, etc. from modern diet. Allergies are abundant examples.

So, we have speculation, some better than otherís speculation, of what lifestyles people in other times and places lived. Bodies adapt.

We know that often a body takes what it needs and passes the rest. Its natural balances get changed by introduction of too much and getting taken over, also. That depends on the intake. To trust a body to not crave substances that are dangerous for it and overdo those, well just look at sugar, there are other addictive things, but just take sugars for example.

The studies have been well proven that sugar and salt will get people to eat and eat more and things that are not good food. The fast food industry has all the research. They have the science to make substances that get people to make themselves unhealthy eating. Stuff that they can make cheap and make a belly feel full. Add weird fats and people will die eating crap that their bodies crave. They will get no nutrition, no roughage, no amino acids, nothing that comes real food provides.

Having weight isnít always a healthy thing. To lose weight often is. Iíll have to read your book, Bob. I havenít seen that one, yet, but Iíve been into other sources. 70% as I remember, off the top of my head, is what nutrition and goodys are generally cooked out of food before it gets into the mouth. 30 plus percent in the three days after picking most plants (it varies). With a fresh garden, the taste and wilting happens fast. Then, the new processed foods have been shown to contain zero nutritional value. Then, the body has an extremely complex ingestion system that can be ruthless.

I see kids being raised eating garbage, and doing seemingly okay. But they are developing poorly and developing conditions and body habits that are messing with them by the time they begin to mature, and most disease down the road comes from this new diet in America. I see kids malnourished and obviously, and the science backs it up, they donít do as well.
So, Bob, the science is like what Safebare says. We have to trust ourselves and always question authority. I know that you are big on thinking for yourself, too.

I do watch my bodyís reaction to food and at different times. I can notice a difference eating fresh food and different kinds of food in healthy weight, energy, clear headedness, etc. over time. After cleansing, I notice ill effects, often relatively immediately, of non-nutritious food things. I can notice that I eat less to be satisfied when I eat fresh live and uncooked. I notice that I eat more, faster, like a starving body when I eat cooked. I notice that live veggies and fruit are generally more tasty than cooked foods, no matter how fancy.

Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: BlueTrain on January 21, 2019, 10:39:20 PM
Given what has been said here, it begs the question, how is it that people are living so long, then? My mother-in-law died just a few months ago at age 97. Her first cousin made it past 100. She gave up smoking at around 95. Both outlived their husbands by six or eight years. Neither seemed to worry about what they ate--they weren't 'health faddists,' as the expression goes.

I sometimes like to say that the same things happen to everyone, if there's enough time. Of course, there isn't. But what has happened is that people now live long enough to get dreadful ailments that typically come with old age. Kids don't get the range of childhood diseases that were common when I was in grade school. We don't worry about polio, which killed one of my wife's cousins. It also was common at one time for a mother to lose a child in birth, usually the last one. Industrial accidents, always the fault of the employee, were considered something to be expected, if not acceptable, and many jobs weren't particularly healthy, either. So, instead, we die of old-timer's disease.

It also used to be recognized that mothers were authorities on nutrition. So do what your mother said to do and eat your vegetables.  Lay off the cigarettes and take now and then a little wine for your digestion.
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: ric on January 22, 2019, 02:52:32 PM
people may be living longer,  but many are not living healthy meaningful lives.

ive got a neighbour thats 97,  shes basically spent the last 2 years in her armchair, must be 5 since she went out the front door. but shes still got her marbles , refuses to leave her home.

id honestly say i wish my father had died 5 years before he did, similar with my mother in law. dementia is a horrible thing to watch.  whats often forgotten is it has a profound effect on the close family as well as on the actual sufferer.

my mother did the opposite went at 58 from a heart attack,  a shock at the time but all in all a lot easier to deal with than watching a parent decline over several years.  time of  death of the physical body  is recorded as  when they stop breathing but in reallity the parent, grandparent  can be gone years before.
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: BlueTrain on January 22, 2019, 04:41:35 PM
Families differ. My mother didn't make it until age 50. Her mother lived to be about 83 or 84. I'm 72, which make it above average.
Title: Re: Vitamin D may not be the reason for lower death rates from sunshine.
Post by: nuduke on January 24, 2019, 02:58:16 PM

Going back to the Vit D thing, I had very low Vit D measured last March / April.  The doc put me on a short course of high dose vit D which - at the end of the course left me with an average Vit D level.  One thing I am convinced I experienced with the Vit D was a rise in positive mood and propensity to activity (i.e. I felt good, mentally!).  This could of course be coincidental with any number of other factors contributing to feelings of well-being but it was noticeable and coincident with the vit D treatment.  During our very nice summer this year I got lots of naked time in the garden and lots of time in the sun even when not naked.  The doc recommended that I go on Vit D supplement starting from mid October ("Start when the clocks go back").  Again I have felt a lot less depressed about the short days, long nights and cold weather than I usually do and there is a very evanescent and hard to characterise similarity in my less seasonally affected winter mood with the lift of mood during the original course of hi dose vit D.   
So whilst rationally recognising that this could be a placebo effect or something else not related to the Vit D at all, I do seem to have had some benefit from it at this emotional level.  I have read reports of this effect in others - evidently several studies have suggested that the symptoms of SAD may be due to changing levels of vitamin D3, which may affect serotonin levels in the brain. 

Last week I asked the Doc to repeat the vit D test to see if my levels had survived the winter so far.  She refused on the basis that the test is very expensive.  This is the modern NHS - cash strapped and gradually crumbling.  She said it would be pointless anyway because if my levels were OK you couldn't tell if it was the supplements or my body that was keeping the Vit D favourable.  I immediately countered this with the hopefully obvious point that if it was low then neither factor was working and that might indicate something more fundamental.  No dice!  She is a very good practitioner, though.  She did recommend that it would do no harm to continue the supplementation throughout the summer.  My response was that I intended to expose as much of me as possible to the sun in the summer for natural Vit D production!  Little did she know! :) 
I guess if I'm being really rational I should stop the supplements for a while now in mid winter to see if my mood deteriorates.