[_0w8t]

It is unfortunate that "vitamin D" is called "vitamin" since it is in fact a hormone. As with most hormones, their effect depends on many factors including the number of receptors on target cells that can change significantly increasing or decreasing sensitivity to D. That itself is poorly understood and it is unknown how long-term consumption of D supplements in what ever form with little exposure to real Sun affects sensitivity.

So the advise is to take D supplements only if recommended by a doctor.

[jrapdx3]

Vitamin D (for lack of better official term) indeed has an apparent role in an amazingly broad array of body systems. I suppose calling it a "vitamin" is appropriate in environments with insufficient sunlight which includes northerly latitudes, say above the 45th parallel (where I happen to live).

Presumed deficiency of D (per lab studies) is quite common here and supplementation is usually recommended for optimum health. Besides location, lifestyle factors often reduce sun exposure increasing chances of low D level.

There are tradeoffs involved with most recommendations. The common advice to avoid UV exposure re: melanoma risk has propelled manufacture of sunscreens into a big industry. Sunscreens filter out nearly all UVB, and interfere with forming D. Ironically, low body stores of D may increase cancer risk according to some studies. BTW my dermatologist knows about that, nonetheless advocates minimizing cancer risk, worrying less about vitamin D deficiency or risks of supplementation.

Indigenous Alaskan populations were always vulnerable to D deficiency yet it was uncommon, probably associated with their diet, rich in the oils of sea-going animals, known sources of D. Out of curiosity, a while back based on published info I calculated their intake of vitamin D was roughly 1500-2000IU/day. This seems consistent with opinions of some researchers re: appropriate intake level (don't have the references at hand--I can locate them if there's interest).

The jury's still out on vitamin D in terms of its functions and dietary requirement. It is a fascinating story that with any luck will be at least better resolved in my lifetime.

[_0w8t]

The recommendation to avoid UV exposure at all is just wrong indeed. The harm from UV is highly non-linear function of dose. It could be that in low doses when the body can quickly and fully recover it decreases the risk of melanoma through compensatory mechanisms. And even if this is not the case, one needs very short exposure to high Sun to get daily dose of D when risk of melanoma is significantly lower than most other risk factors one constantly meets throughout the life.

As for D supplements, one really should very careful even in cases of high latitudes (and this is the reason I avoid D supplements despite living at 61th parallel). Quoting Paul Albert , http://bacteriality.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Albert_IO... :

So are we really facing an epidemic of vitamin D "deficiency" or are we simply beginning to note more signs of an imminent epidemic of chronic disease – an epidemic which would be exacerbated by increasing the amount of vitamin D added to our food supply?