[TACIXAT]

I started drinking milk a year or two ago. Most milks have vitamin D added. It has made a stark difference in my life and it wasn't until I was looking back saying "I'm a lot happier than I was this time last year" that I figured out what changed.

Highly recommend supplementing with D. If you can tolerate lactose, milk is a nice pathway for it.

[fnordpiglet]

This is why, even though as a programmer I’m congenitally unfit for it, I go outside sometimes. Sunlight also gives you vitamin D, and has all sorts of other benefits. As I don’t go outside often I’m not particularly concerned about skin cancer and am generally skeptical of the idea that terrestrial life is maladapted to the Sun. I buy over exposure has bad long term effects, but the current view seems to be you need to wear sunblock for any level of exposure. That just seems wildly unlikely and the fact the body needs sunlight to produce essential stuff like vitamin D further reinforces my belief that we are over correcting into unhealthy zones.

[Azure88]

As a person not from america, the fact that this is the main view is worrying to me. Over here in the UK it's 100% normal to just use the rule of thumb that as long as you try not to get burnt, it's healthy to get some sun. No sunblock needed unless you know you'll be out in it for many hours without shade like if you go to the beach or a long walk.

[petesergeant]

The UK is much higher North than most of the US, and as a result the UV Index is pretty different:

https://www.grida.no/resources/7130

Note that it’s the same as Spain in the northern-most of the continental US, same as Morocco in the middle, and same as Dubai in the south.

Americans have far more need for sun-screen than Brits do

[jb1991]

In general, norther countries need more protection from the sun, not less. The rates of skin cancer go up significantly as you move north. My guess is partly cultural, but I don't know for sure the cause. When it is dark all winter, people want to spend as much time in the sun as they can during summer, perhaps. The fact that you also get more natural summer exposure due to longer days is probably part of it.

[jb1991]

This is a very common attitude in northern Europe, but it’s dangerous. I recently saw a dermatologist, I live at approximately the same latitude as the UK, east of there. He strongly advised sunblock, especially for children. You so very rarely see children wearing it during the summer. You are really playing with your health if you ignore these dangers.

Here are some maps of the effect of sun exposure on skin cancer as you move north through Europe: https://ecis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf/factsheets/Melanoma_cancer...

[sacnoradhq]

This is how to get skin cancer like malignant melanoma and how to age one's skin.

Anyone not intent on looking old prematurely uses sunscreen.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

Looking "young" past a certain age just looks weird and creepy anyway.

[zeristor]

I went for a six hour walk in the rain in April and got sunburnt in the UK.

I was surprised.

[sacnoradhq]

Clouds attenuate UV-A in unexpected ways. UV-B and -C leads to aging and skin cancer.

UV light is also bad for the eyes.

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/sunshine-on-a-clou...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10872925/

[News-Dog]

Healthy Sun Exposure[1,2] depends on your Latitude[3], Hemisphere[4,5], Time of Day (Dawn & Dusk),

Exposure Time, Skin and Eye Type[6], Coverings (Clothing, Sunscreen, UV Filtering Glasses)[7,8]

[1] Health Effects of Sunlight Exposure : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_sunlight_exp...

[2] Ultraviolet - Human Health-related effects : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Human_health-relat...

[3] Latitude : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude

[4] Ozone Depletion - Effects : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Effects

[5] NASA - Ozone Watch : https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

[6] Health Effects of Sunlight Exposure - Benefits of Optic Exposure & Effects on Eyes

: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_sunlight_exp...

[7] Sunscreen : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunscreen

[8] Ultraviolet - Sunscreen Safety Debate : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Sunscreen_safety_d...

[sacnoradhq]

Ozone: hey, at least we managed to ban CFCs internationally.

If we can do that, it's confusing how we can't incrementally tackle climate change with selective international agreements that would make the most impact for the socio-economic burden.

[News-Dog]

The Ultraviolet Index, or UV Index : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_index

UV Index - The Sun Safety Scale - Forefront Dermatology (2017)

: https://forefrontdermatology.com/uv-index-sun-safety-scale/

A Guide to the UV Index (PDF) : https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/uviguid...

Ultraviolet Index - External links - 'UV Index Forecast' - 'Real-time Global Ultraviolet Index'

: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_index#External_lin...

The Fitzpatrick Scale (aka) Fitzpatrick Skin Typing test; or Fitzpatrick phototyping scale

: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale

Developed in 1975 by American dermatologist Thomas B. Fitzpatrick,

as a way to estimate the response of different types of skin to ultraviolet (UV) light.

Season : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season

Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder

Light Therapy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_therapy

Vitamin D : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D

Vitamin D Deficiency : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_deficiency

Vitamin D Toxicity (aka) Hypervitaminosis D : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_D

[dkrest]

But longer UV-A wavelengths can help with progressing myopia https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28063778/

Black-and-white thinking is unsciеntific.

[fnordpiglet]

The dermatologist cartel in the US advices zero unprotected sun exposure. There’s evidence this is a contributor to high cholesterol levels in the US.

[red-iron-pine]

The high cholesterol level is likely correlated to vitamin d.

A lot of these studies came out of heart disease investigations within the black community. In the US there is just more compared to West Africa, and after controlling for weight, income, diet, etc., they guessed the difference was likely sunlight and outdoor time.

Followup studies found similar findings, albeit less pronounced with white and middle eastern people.

[borski]

Ah yes, the “dermatologist cartel” of untrustworthy white coats. rolls eyes

Please provide sources for the evidence you speak of.

[toolz]

It's really not a hard thing to google.

> Sunscreen also blocks our skin from making vitamin D, but that’s OK, says the American Academy of Dermatology, which takes a zero-tolerance stance[1] on sun exposure: “You need to protect your skin from the sun every day, even when it’s cloudy,” it advises on its website. Better to slather on sunblock, we’ve all been told, and compensate with vitamin D pills.

-- https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...

1: https://www.aad.org/media/stats-vitamin-d

[borski]

The vast, vast majority of Google results do not support your claims. I’m glad you found one that did, and I’m all for more studies, but “it’s really not that hard to google” is both condescending and doesn’t move the argument forward. You are the one making an argument against the established widespread medical opinion; the onus is on you to prove your argument, not on me to prove your argument for you.

https://www.thechildren.com/health-info/conditions-and-illne...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30945275/

“ There is little evidence that sunscreen decreases 25(OH)D concentration when used in real-life settings, suggesting that concerns about vitamin D should not negate skin cancer prevention advice. However, there have been no trials of the high-SPF sunscreens that are now widely recommended. What's already known about this topic? Previous experimental studies suggest that sunscreen can block vitamin D production in the skin but use artificially generated ultraviolet radiation with a spectral output unlike that seen in terrestrial sunlight. Nonsystematic reviews of observational studies suggest that use in real life does not cause vitamin D deficiency. What does this study add? This study systematically reviewed all experimental studies, field trials and observational studies for the first time. While the experimental studies support the theoretical risk that sunscreen use may affect vitamin D, the weight of evidence from field trials and observational studies suggests that the risk is low. We highlight the lack of adequate evidence regarding use of the very high sun protection factor sunscreens that are now recommended and widely used.”

[myshpa]

And now show us list of their sponsors. I'll bet there will be several sunblock manufacturers on it.

[karlzt]

>> You need to protect your skin from the sun every day

Agree

>> even when it’s cloudy

Bullshit.

[fnordpiglet]

There’s a lot of doctor cartels in the US that emphatically force singular ideologies - babies sleeping on bellies die instantly, mothers who can’t nurse are creating sickly autistic monsters, everyone must take statins, etc. See parallel comment for source, or visit a dermatologist.

[borski]

There is no cartel that says babies sleeping on their bellies die instantly, or that mothers who don’t breastfeed are creating sickly autistic monsters. Literally not a single doctor who should be allowed to practice has said any of that, as it is far too extreme and one sided.

Investigating those issues? Sure. Possibly even believing it’s safer to sleep a baby not on their belly, or that mothers should breastfeed if they can because it is likely to be healthier for the baby? Absolutely.

But almost the entirety of your comment is an appeal to extremes, which is a logical fallacy.

[jb1991]

This is not an American centric view. Dermatologists in many countries throughout Europe, especially northern countries, strongly advise the use of sunblock.

[Sammi]

The 1903 Nobel was given to a guy who showed that light cures Lupus, a terrible skin disease. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Ryberg_Finsen

It it very well established in science that light is good for you in some many different ways.

[xupybd]

I live in NZ. The rest of the planet doesn't live this close to the ozone hole. We have the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. We need to use sun protection at all times.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300553551/nz-has-the...

[drbaba]

My understanding is that the main correlation between sunlight and skin cancer is for sudden exposure to strong sun. If you go outside all year without sunblock (as people used to do back in the day), and thus build up and maintain a natural tan, the cancer risk is very low. But if you sit inside all year and then suddenly go to the beach,l in July, the risk increases.

[mharig]

I do not know a single person who died from skin cancer. And only a few who had skin cancer. The prevalence cannot be sufficiently high to justify a hysteria.

[jiggawatts]

I saw a summary of an extensive series of studies where the punchline was: "Yes, exposure to the Sun will increase your risk of cancer. Do it anyway."

[borski]

Sunblock doesn’t block those beneficial benefits from sunlight; it blocks getting burnt, which can lead to cancer.

[Auracle]

You sound awfully certain of that, when some evidence definitely points the other way. This isn’t the article I was looking for but it touches on it:

https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...

[borski]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36108241

[sacnoradhq]

UV-A, -B, and -C are bad in different ways. Sunburns skew towards UV-A, while cancer and aging tends to be from UV-B and -C. Vitamin D synthesis results from UV-B exposure.

[borski]

Sure, but as discussed elsewhere in this thread, the studies (at present, which doesn’t mean we won’t learn more in the future) do not support the assertion that sunblock prevents Vitamin D synthesis in any meaningful way, despite what a random blog post might tell you.

[sacnoradhq]

Amen. :) You're preaching to the choir. Health and wellness blogs generally service the theater of the placebo and hivemind ignorance bordering on mysticism.

[BossingAround]

Milk consumption is pretty horrible for the environment (and I'm not even mentioning what happens to animals on milk farms). I say that as a (full-of-shame) milk drinker, but recommending milk because of vitamin D is pretty ridiculous to me.

There are so many vitamin D pills that are much cheaper than milk, and much better for the environment while having the same function.

[Gareth321]

Medicine, computers, and building materials for EVs and well insulated homes are also "horrible" for the environment. We gladly make that sacrifice because we're happy with the trade. I understand you aren't, and that's fine.

It should also be noted that not all dairy production is equal. New Zealand, for example, produces milk with a much lower carbon footprint (https://www.dairynz.co.nz/media/5794851/carbon-footprint-of-...). The formula isn't a secret. Grass fed cows produce less methane and CO2. There is also amazing research on reducing methane production by up to 98% by supplementing the diet of cows with seaweed (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-30/seaweed-a....).

The point being, advocating for abstention is rarely a winning strategy. Instead we should use technology and policy to improve our production methods. Then we can save the environment and continue to enjoy products we consider to be important to our lifestyles. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[namaria]

Human civilization is pretty horrible for the environment in it's current form. Trying to break it down vertically and pinpointing personal choices on it is an exercise in diversion. We need deep structural changes to how we source energy, how we solve logistics and how we manage labor. Arguing about diet choices or duration of showers is just a way to keep us from tackling what really matters.

[tcfhgj]

Diet choices are things that really matter, as you can see in the IPCC report summary

[namaria]

If most people were willing to change their diets overnight, maybe. Mathematically or statistically, irrelevant when you take into account real human beings. It's as disingenuous as saying "if everyone were nice, Earth would be paradise".

[BossingAround]

Soon enough, capitalism will force people to change their diets overnight. When 1lb of beef is $30, people will think twice what to eat for diner.

Now, whether it's carbon tax that'll force e.g. beef to go to its true cost, or climate change, that I don't know.

[myshpa]

> reducing methane production by up to 98%

The burps are not everything.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23738600/un-fao-meat-dair...

"many peer-reviewed studies, ... put livestock emissions at between 14.5 percent and 19.6 percent of the world’s total"

"... it doesn’t factor in the significant climate benefits we’d get if we freed up some of the land now dedicated to livestock farming and allowed forests to return, unlocking their potential as “carbon sinks” that absorb and sequester greenhouse gases from the air.

Scientists call this the opportunity cost of animal agriculture’s land use. Because animal farming takes up so much land — nearly 40 percent of the planet’s habitable land area — that opportunity cost is massive ...

"One study found that ending meat and dairy production could cancel out emissions from all other industries combined over the next 30 to 50 years."

> we can save the environment and continue to enjoy products we consider to be important to our lifestyles

No, we can't.

Without Changing Diets, Agriculture Alone Could Produce Enough Emissions to Surpass 1.5°C of Global Warming (2018)

https://www.wri.org/insights/without-changing-diets-agricult...

Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320356605_Agricultu...

IPCC: Slashing Emissions From Meat Crucial to Climate Action

https://sentientmedia.org/ipcc-report-food-system/

Why the food system is the next frontier in climate action

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/04/why-the-food-syst...

[News-Dog]

  'Cows Toilet Trained'

[sacnoradhq]

We ought to worry about meat agriculture before cow milk consumption. Meat ag presents multiple existential threats greater than diabetes, cancer, or obesity:

- Cramming thousands of animals together with their excrement and humans who work with it creates a convenient pandemic pathogen bioreactor

- Antibiotic resistance by abusing the same substance (just a different supply chain) to make animals grow faster at the expense of antibiotics ceasing to work in people

- Climate change, roughly 10%

- Pollution of air, water, and soil (Ever see what pig farmers do with shit? They liquify it and spray it in the air in shit lakes.)

- Inefficient use of agricultural land and resources that could feed more people and more cheaply

[cashsterling]

Depends heavily on diary farming practice. Open-pasture diary (which is a minority practice) is not bad for the environment: low energy use for high calorie production, methane emission vastly reduced, excellent soil management., humane treatment of the cows. And the milk tastes amazing.

Industrial agriculture is pretty horrible for the environment and also unsustainable for long term soil management. But it is what we need at the moment to feed the world's population.

[mcdonje]

>But it is what we need at the moment to feed the world's population.

Not true. The American food system is incredibly wasteful, and people are getting sick from diseases associated with western diets and overeating, like diabetes and heart disease. People eating traditional eastern diets use less resources and have less diet related illnesses.

Industrial farming is not helpful or needed. The only thing it's good for is putting money in some people's pockets.

[cashsterling]

Okay... I totally agree with you. I'm a "shop from the sides of the store, not the middle" kind of person.

[_zoltan_]

I drink milk from my local farm, and they sell their beer. Win win.

[armatav]

Environment won’t care, drink milk

[puttycat]

I started taking vitamin D supplements (D3 pills) after getting a blood test with below norm vitamin D level. Saw an immediate improvement in concentration, mood and energy throughout the day. (this is merely anecdotal, of course)

I don't see how milk itself is related though.

[red-iron-pine]

Aye, vit d in pill form is cheap and abundant. doesn't require a huge farm to produce and is stable for a lot longer than a couple liters of milk.

I take 1000-3000 IUs with dinner at night a couple times a week and sleep like the dead.

[hatsunearu]

Milk has loads of other nutrients. It's literally supposed to be a meal replacement for baby cows.

Might be because of anything to be honest.

[botencat]

"I started eating [Y that has a lot of stuff in it, including X] -> started feeling better -> Y must be good for you"

[jawerty]

Can't agree more once I started prioritizing Vitamin D in my diet and getting hours of sun if possible it's like a 180 with mental health. Eggs are a great source as well.

[chrisco255]

Vitamin D is fat soluble. The fat in milk helps your body to absorb it better.

[ec109685]

You don’t need much fat to absorb vitamin D and amount of fat you eat with the supplement doesn’t really affect the level in your bloodstream: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23427007/

“ We conclude that absorption was increased when a 50,000 IU dose of vitamin D was taken with a low-fat meal, compared with a high-fat meal and no meal, but that the greater absorption did not result in higher plasma 25(OH)D levels in the low-fat meal group.”

[diydsp]

That study focused on infrequent megadoses... check out studies like this on that give modest daily doses: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30691521/

Or this meta-regression of 43 studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24993750/

[ec109685]

Right, but they don’t show you need a lot of fat to help with absorption.

[mjrpes]

Did you take before/after blood tests to confirm you had low blood levels and that drinking milk helped? A cup of milk is roughly 150iu, while recommended supplements range from 600 to 2000iu. Also, lactose-free milk is common nowadays.

[TACIXAT]

I had taken one a long while ago in a checkup and my levels were abysmally low. That explained why I was miserable at the time.

Supplemented for a bit and it was a stark turn around, but I fell out of the habit of doing it and forgot. I drink a half gallon a day easily.

[opportune]

Even better, eat fatty fish! This may sound weird but adding consistent sardines/herring/mackerel/salmon to your diet can be life changing. They are nutrient powerhouses, they’re the best dietary sources of both vitamin D and DHA/EPA fatty acids. Of course, they’re also good sources of protein.

Most people I’ve mentioned this to will say something like “but they’re so fishy” or think that sardines are disgusting cat food. At least for canned sardines, what a lot of people don’t know is that there is a wide range of quality in both the packing and actual fish - fishy odors are from a chemical TMAO that is a byproduct of decomposition and anecdotally is more common in the cheap brands. There are brands like Matiz and Nuri that have much higher quality sardines; they’re also physically much larger than what you might think sardines are supposed to look like, with only 3 or so fish per tin. I also like this new brand Minna for a slightly cheaper option.

[red-iron-pine]

mmmmm heavy metals and microplastics

[opportune]

Small fish like sardines have very low amounts of heavy metals to the point it’s negligible. I couldn’t confidently tell you anything about microplastics though

https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/are-sardines-healthy-and...

[News-Dog]

Unsweetened and Unflavored Pot-set 'Greek Style' Yogurt before bedtime is my preference : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogurt

>* European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) determined that lactose intolerance can be alleviated,

by ingesting live yogurt cultures (lactobacilli) that are able to digest the lactose in other dairy products.*

[m00dy]

can't really tolerate lactose, can't even digest it literally. Any alternatives for that ? currently living in northen-europe.

[limograf]

You can charge up mushrooms with vitamin D (D2) by placing them in direct sunlight for 30 minutes. Any ordinary mushrooms. So salmon (D3) and charged mushrooms would do just as well.

[nuxi]

If you're not vegetarian you can try cod liver oil, e.g:

https://www.norwegianpharma.com/our-products/norsk-tran

https://www.mollers.com/product/mollers-tran/

[puttycat]

Vitamin D pills.

[ojosilva]

Look for lactose-free milk, typically color-coded in purple tones.

[RadixDLT]

A2 milk

[RadixDLT]

but doesn't pasteurization kill any vitamins and nutrients?

[vixen99]

A study back in 1974 reported that vit. D in milk was unaffected by pasteurization, boiling, or sterilization.

Hartman, A. M., and L. P. Dryden. 1974. Vitamins in milk and milk products. Pages 325–401 in Fundamentals of Dairy Chemistry. 2nd ed. B. H. Webb, A. H. Johnson, and J. A. Alford, ed. AVI/ Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.

Different cooking methods for other foods can alter the D content but not drastically it seems. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29548435/)

[Turing_Machine]

The effect of cooking on nutrients varies widely, depending on the specific cooking process and the nutrient in question.

"Nutrients" are typically defined as proteins, carbohydrates, lipids (fats), vitamins, and minerals.

Vitamin C is not very heat-stable, so you generally need to get that from raw fruits and vegetables (unless the food has been supplemented with it after cooking).

Vitamin D, by contrast, is pretty heat-stable.

Some proteins are rendered much more digestible by heat, so cooking actually improves the nutritional value of the food, in some cases by a great deal.

Lipids aren't generally affected much, though again some are more heat-stable than others. This is why some fats and oils are a better choice for deep-frying.

Carbohydrates are generally rendered more digestible by cooking, if anything (as long as they don't get so hot they start burning).

Minerals are mostly unaffected by heat. They can leach into the cooking water, so you'll lose some minerals if the cooking water is discarded. If it's something like soup, where the liquid is consumed, there's little or no impact.

There are even some commonly-consumed foods that are actually toxic unless they are cooked or otherwise processed. Cassava and some types of beans fall into this category.

I don't want to make a blanket statement, but I'd reckon that overall cooking helps more than it harms. Note that cooking is nearly universal across human cultures. Some cultures eat a lot more raw foods than others, true, but even the most raw-loving groups generally have some foods they cook (or otherwise process to break down, for instance, by fermentation).

[random3]

How would this affect the added vitamin and fat?

[xattt]

It helps the poster build a straw man argument.

[nkmnz]

No, it doesn't.

[cultofmetatron]

of course it does. pasteurization involves rapidly heating and cooling the milk to kill off bacteria and viruses. Thats going to denature a lot of enzymes as well as change the structure of a lot of proteins. To say that no vitamins or nutrition is affected is an incredulously false to make here

[mtizim]

I think the parent meant

"`for any choice of (∀) nutrient, pasteurization kills nutrient` evaluates to false"

Rather than

"`any nutrient (∃), pasteurization kills nutrient` evaluates to false" - which is what you seem to be responding to.