By Willow Aureala

According to Dr. Douglas Seals, a University of Colorado physiologist, and a preacher of the gospel of arteries, “flexible, unclogged arteries are the key to successful aging” (Kessler, p. 64). And, apparently, a 17th century British physician is believed to have opined: “A man is as old as his arteries.” Dr. Seals conducts research on arteries, including oxidative proteins, velocities of pulse waves, and flow-mediated dilation. He also investigates LPW and HPW.  Even though he does research on a variety of aspects related to arterial health, he says there is a ‘poor person’s way of measuring arterial health’ – just track your blood pressure. “If, over time, systolic pressure (the top number) goes up, and there is a widening gap between it and the diastolic (bottom) number, your arteries are aging. You are aging from the inside out. Behind that blood pressure number lurks inflammation in the artery walls, inelasticity, and impaired dilation” (Kessler, p. 65). Additionally, LDL, the “bad” cholesterol, is also related to arterial health, although we don’t know at this point which is more important to make sure stays within normal limits – blood pressure or cholesterol levels.

My blood pressure has been about the same since I first remember it being measured, so I think I’m good on that aspect of health and longevity! Also, my cholesterol levels have been in the low normal range as long as I’ve been having them tested. What about you – how is your blood pressure, and is it increasing, decreasing or staying the same? And, what about your cholesterol levels? Get ‘em checked out and see where you are, and keep your arteries healthy!

Reference

Kessler, Lauren (2013) Counterclockwise: My year of hypnosis, hormones, dark chocolate, and other adventures in the world of anti-aging. Rodale.

 By Willow Aureala

Back in the 1990s, I was dating a guy who seemed to do a Master Cleanse fairly regularly; okay, maybe he only did it once or twice while we were dating - I’m not really sure – but it seemed that he did a Master Cleanse more often than I thought necessary or appropriate, especially given his already healthy diet and fitness program. When I read the booklet about the Master Cleanse that I found at a store back then, I was very skeptical about this detoxifying regimen. It didn’t make sense to me that lemonade [actually a mixture of water, lemon juice, cayenne, and maple syrup] and salt water [or drinking a laxative tea] would be a safe or effective method of ‘detoxifying’.  The authors of the booklet explained their reasoning for these ingredients, I’m sure, but I just didn’t agree with them. Supposedly, these liquid ingredients ‘clean out’ your digestive system, and help your body [and mind] ‘prepare’ for a healthier diet [say a raw food or vegan diet].  According to the Master Cleanse website “If the style of life you want is healthy, energetic, and long-lasting then you must eliminate toxins, de-vitalized foods, processed foods, and otherwise dead foods from your diet.” In the world of cleanses, detoxification programs, raw fooders, and other ‘health’ crazes, the word ‘toxin’ is bandied about a lot. Just about anything is thought by someone to be a ‘toxin’ if they think it is ‘bad’ for your body. I think this ‘toxin’ idea is mostly a bunch of hooey. Do I think some foods are better for your body than others? Sure! Do I think that eating a bunch of junk food can be ‘bad’ or harmful? Sure? And, of course, in excess quantities, just about anything will be harmful and could be considered ‘toxic’. But, I disagree with the idea, for example, that steamed vegetables are ‘dead’ foods and are, therefore, toxic.

The authors of the Master Cleanse also promote it as a weight loss program. Will it help you lose weight? Well, sure! Drink only a ‘lemonade’ preparation for 10 days and you’ll lose some weight as you aren’t taking in many calories. Is the Master Cleanse the best way to lose weight? According to webmd [see website below under references], not only will you likely lose weight due to the few calories, but also lose muscle, bone and water. And, apparently, many people gain the weight they lost pretty rapidly once they finish the Master Cleanse.

Is detoxifying really necessary?

Many religious practices, as well as certain dietary promoters, believe that fasting with water or juice is a beneficial and valuable spiritual practice, as well as a healthy one for the body. Apparently, detoxing the body has been around for quite a while, having been created by ancient Egyptians and later revised by the Greeks (Kessler p. 116). Detoxing is also a pretty big industry, if internet searches and over 1,500 detox books on Amazon are any indication. An internet search for “detox” yields over 15 million hits! So, obviously people are into detoxing, and others are helping them figure out ways to do it. But is the body incapable of ridding itself of ‘toxins’ without resorting to cleanse programs? Well, according to many research studies, the body is well able to cleanse itself; the liver and kidneys, among other organs, do the bulk of the job [again, as long as there isn’t a long-term use or ‘overload’ of some of the overtly noxious substances, such as eating a whole lot of junk foods or being exposed to some chemical agent in large amounts]. Additionally, it is difficult to measure the presence of toxins [as well as define the word], knowing what is a toxic level for any given person is very difficult [not to mention, generally for most humans], and the demonstration of direct links between people and toxins and specific conditions haven’t been established (Kessler p. 116). Of course, ‘alternative’ and holistic practitioners point to the notion that there are lots more toxins, both in food, food packaging, and the environment, than there used to be and that our bodies aren’t able to handle all this stuff as well (Kessler, p. 116).

Dr. John McDougall believes that “your body can handle only so much protein, fat, cholesterol, sulfur-containing amino acids, and dietary acids. When you take in more than your body can use, metabolize, neutralize and/or eliminate, those excess amounts act as poisons. On a typical Western diet, these toxic by-products build up in your system on a daily basis… and their effects are additive and cumulative. Taking in too much protein, methionine, and dietary acid weakens our bones over time. Excess dietary fat and cholesterol clog the arteries and increase the risk of cancer” (p. 40-41). Thus, McDougall believes that “reducing or eliminating the animal foods in your diet immediately relieves the burden on your body from these five dietary poisons, and at the same time greatly reduces your risk of exposure to infectious bacteria, viruses, parasites, and prion diseases (like those that cause mad cow disease).

Unfortunately, there are no good large-scale, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to help us resolve this situation. And, according to the Mayo Clinic, the reported millions of people with powerful stories about how they feel after a cleanse is really about the placebo effect. So, depending on whom you want to believe, detoxifying may or may not be necessary or helpful. If you do decide to choose a detoxifying program, I encourage you to be careful and choose a program that isn’t ‘outrageous’ in its demands or how long you stay on the program.  

For example, “all-liquid regimens, as a rule, are a mistake – and sometimes a big one. In the 1970s, between 2 million and 4 million people were reputed to have tried what was known as the Last Chance Diet. There were reports that 58 people died from heart attacks while following this starvation diet that allowed only liquid protein derived from slaughterhouse by-products [YUCK!]. Cleanses with harsh laxatives are unkind to the colon, stripping it of helpful bacteria and teaching it to be lazy, teaching it to act old [really?]” (Kessler, p. 119). I really wonder about Kessler’s last sentence, but it’s something to consider.

Sweating out the toxins?

Do saunas, steam rooms, or sweat lodges help us detox? I’ve heard many people say that they believe it to be true. Unfortunately, however, sweating experts [yes, there are experts on sweating!] like Dee Anna Glaser, M.D. “say that perspiration contains only trace amounts of toxins (and virtually no heavy metals), and that sweating heavily does nothing to increase those levels. Other scientists warn that excessive sweating can actually impair the body’s natural detox systems. Dehydration can stress the kidneys and keep them from doing their job” (Kessler p. 122). I’m sure many of you heard about the unfortunate folks who died and others who became ill in a Sedona, Arizona sweat lodge, so take care! Although, certainly taking a quiet break in a sauna or sweat lodge can help reduce stress, as long as done in appropriate amounts with appropriate hydration.

A ‘good’ detox program?

So, if someone does decide to undertake a cleanse or detox program for whatever reasons, what might be a good one [in essence, not too risky or likely to result in other types of problems]? Personally, I have done two-week juice fasts, one to two week [and one time, a 30-day] water fast, a summer long melon-only diet [I wasn’t thinking of it as a ‘detox’ or cleanse, but some would], and similar things and so far have experienced [at least, that I’m aware of] no negative consequences. However, since I have been a fairly healthy vegan [and for over a decade, mostly raw fooder], perhaps my body was more ‘prepared’ to handle such plans/programs/diets/cleanses? Hard to say.  A cleansing program “could be as simple as replacing the infamous “Dirty Dozen” (the 12 common fruits and vegetables that carry the greatest amounts of pesticide residue [see references below for more info on the Dirty Dozen] with organic produce and avoiding processed, packaged and junk foods. You can add high-fiber foods, drink [appropriate amounts of] water, take saunas, exercise – all good things to do wither or not you labor under a body burden ” (Kessler, p. 117).

McDougall claims that “the best way to cut out these toxic foods is to replace them with whole grains, legumes, and starchy vegetables – foods that provide all of the nutrition you need, along with sufficient calories and substance to give you energy and keep you satisfied. Even if you are already showing signs of sickness from the excesses of meat, dairy, and eggs, there is hope. Starch has an immense ability to allow your body to naturally heal itself” (p. 43).

Personally, I think my diet of mostly raw foods [fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds, and low in fat] is a pretty good way to stay ‘clean’ [if you want to call it that], although I am aware that there are environmental concerns. Eating more organic produce can help with that.

References:

WebMD: http://www.webmd.com/diet/lemonade-master-cleanse-diet

Kessler, Lauren 2013. Counterclockwise: My Year of Hypnosis, Hormones, Dark Chocolate, and Other Adventures in the World of Anti-Aging. Rodale.

Huffington Post article on the “Dirty Dozen”: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/13/dirty-dozen_n_875718.html#s290785title=Apples

Environmental Working Group: 2014 Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce [unfortunately, EWG wants you to pay for the 2014 guide]: http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/

The EWG 2011 guide is free: http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/foodnews/pdf/2011EWGPesticideGuide.pdf

McDougall, John and McDougall, Mary 2012. The Starch Solution: Eat the Foods You Love, Regain Your Health, and Lose the Weight for Good! Rodale.

One website on the Master Cleanse: http://themastercleanse.org/

 By Willow Aureala

We all would like quick, easy, and relaxing ways to be fit and healthy, as well as to live a long and healthy life, without the yucky diseases of the heart, veins, brain or other organs.  And, while some aspects of longevity are debated [supplementation, diet, brain activities and the like], exercise definitely is not. In fact, exercise can result in dramatic changes, and increase in health, and it can even reverse some problematic bodily issues. Here are just some of the very solid research results on fitness and health:

1.     National Institutions of Health: “People who exercise regularly not only live longer, they live better”.

2.     A 10-year McArthur Foundation Study of Successful Aging concluded that “the powerful effects of exercise and calling it the only anti-aging regimen that actually works.”

3.     Besides quitting smoking, the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University confirm that “there is no single thing that will increase vitality at any age other than exercise.”

4.     A more than 40 year Harvard Nurses’s Health Study with over 250,000 participants notes that “higher levels of midlife physical activity are associated with exceptional health status.”

5.     Doug Seals, a vascular-aging guru at the University of Colorado, says “based on all available evidence, exercise has the most powerful anti-aging effect, head to toe.”

6.     The College Alumni Health Study, a 40-year study with 50,000 participants examining activity, health, and longevity found that people who exercise live better, look better, feel better, and live longer. Lifespan increases for each minute increase on a treadmill. On average, those who are active, lively and disease-free lived five years longer than those who don’t exercise.

7.     An 80-year long study of 1,500 Californians found that being active in midlife was the single most important predictor of good health.

8.     Regular exercise can help prevent more than 25 diseases and health conditions later in life, according to a review of more than 40 studies on the benefits of exercise in the International Journal of Clinical Practice.

9.     Research of the world’s healthiest and longest-lived people from Japan to Pakistan to Russia to Ecuador over three decades found that the two main things the healthiest had in common was chilling physical activity as part of their daily lives and a mostly plant-based diet.

10.  Even if a person doesn’t start exercising until they are older, they can still reap benefits and turn back the clock: people aged 75 or older benefitted from starting an exercise program. Their muscle strength increased and reversed the progressive effects of ‘functional decline’ (the ability to perform daily acts of living).

So… you get the point: exercise is amazingly good for people to engage in to stay healthy, increase the lifespan, and maintain good mobility. Yet, amazingly, fewer than 2 out of 10 Americans exercise the recommended amounts – a modest 30 minutes five days a week, according to the Centers for Disease Control and prevention. Also, more than 25%of Americans get NO exercise at all.

What’s the BEST exercise to do?

Well, there are all sorts of studies and recent fitness craze-of-the month flavors to choose from.  There is HIIT [High Intensity Interval Training], gentle jogging, fast walking [which may be the same as gentle jogging], burpee [yes, really, that’s a name for an exercise, which is, a squat, plank, into another squat, jump up, push-up – a basic calisthenics], squats, swimming, water aerobics, yoga, and many, many more. They all have their proponents, and they all have good health benefits. But, the bottom line is (and I have personal experience with this) choose something you enjoy and can stick with [or change things up periodically if it’s hard to stick with one thing]. The main thing is to move your body, break a sweat, and do it regularly. Get outside if you can and enjoy the outdoors [and get a little Vitamin D at the same time], or go to the gym a few days a week, or both, but do something and move your body! Your body and mind/brain will more than likely thank you in your ‘golden years’!

Reference:

Kessler, Lauren 2013. Counterclockwise: My Year of Hypnosis, Hormones, Dark Chocolate,  and Other Adventures in the World of Anti-Aging, pages 162-177.

By Willow Aureala

I have heard and read quite a bit about bottled water. I’ve watched a documentary on plastics that is related to the plastic bottles used for bottled water. I’ve heard and read enough that I started using a glass water bottle, filled with my own filtered water, and taking that with me wherever I go. It is heavy, yes, but I thought it was worth it. After reading a section on bottled water in Marion Nestle’s What to Eat, I have even more thoughts about bottled water that I wanted to share. [Nestle says she has no familial relationship to the Nestle company.]

Nestle’s information is a bit old; her book was published in 2006, and much of her information was gathered in 2004 and 2005, so it is a bit dated. However, I think the information still applies, especially given the aisles and aisles of space devoted to bottled water in many stores.  There are several problems with bottled water that will be discussed.

Bottled water does NOT reduce diseases caused by public drinking water sources

One of the hypes about bottled water is that it is ‘purer’ than tap water. Microbes might be in tap water, but not in the bottled water, according to the bottle water companies. However, Nestle reports that according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2002, there were NO drinking water-related outbreaks of disease caused by a public water supply, and there was actually one caused by a bottled water source (p. 403-4). I did some additional research for more recent CDC reports on water drinking illnesses, and found a May 2014 announcement that the U.S. has one of the safest drinking water supplies in the world, and that disinfection and treatment practices, along with environmental regulation of water pollutants, have substantially improved the safety of public drinking water supplies.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides regulations and testing for public drinking water supplies. Thus, tap water seems to be relatively free of harmful microbes, and does not need to be filtered or boiled before drinking it.  Private well water and catchment water are another story, however. These are not regulated nor tested by the EPA, and more sources of outbreaks occur from drinking these types of water than public water.

Chemical contaminants

There is, however, a problem with chemical contaminants in drinking water. Chlorine is the most commonly used agent to kill microbes in water, and can create its own problems. “Chlorine itself is benign but it reacts with other chemicals in the water to form ‘disinfection by-products’ such as chlorinated trihalomethanes” (Nestle p. 404). Unfortunately, these by-products may occur in different amounts in different water systems, and the quantities that produce illness or disease can vary, and researchers debate the usually low levels found in public drinking water increasing the risk of diseases like cancer and reproductive problems. Some researchers say that “studies of water and health are so difficult to design and interpret that nobody can really tell” (p. 404), which is understandable.  Thus, while there is no doubt that tap water contains undesirable chemicals such as antibiotics, hormones, plasticizers, insecticides, and fire retardants, it is difficult to determine at what level these become harmful. The EPA has found a thousand or so chemicals in tap water and has set allowable limits for many of them. You can check out your local water supply at this EPA website to look up reports on your own city’s drinking water: http://water.epa.gov/drink/local/

As Nestle noted, because of the rapid increase in the amount and number of chemical contaminants found in drinking water, the government no longer guarantees the safety of drinking water; the advice now given is “if you are concerned about the safety of your water, install a filter.” So, then shouldn’t we also buy bottled water to avoid these contaminants?

Bottled water – an expensive marketing scam

“Bottled waters appear to represent many choices – bubbles, flavors, and the colors and sizes of packages – but up to 40% of them start out as tap water” (Nestle p. 406). So, for example, the Dasani and Aquafina labels come from local suppliers [city water], cleans the water up a bit, and toss in a few minerals. Other brands are tap water subjected to distillation, deionization, reverse osmosis, or other cleaning system. Most bottled waters have been treated to remove chlorine and they don’t contain fluoride unless the label indicates that it has been added. “These differences, however, do not make much nutritional [or health] difference” (Nestle p. 407). The profit margins of bottled water are high: from 20 to 60%, and the amount of money invested in media campaigns is outrageous! According to Nestle, “in 2004, PepsiCo put $22 million into domestic advertising for Aquafina, and Coca-Cola spent $18 million to advertise Dasani” – these huge amounts of money are being used to promote WATER! (p. 406).

In 2004 prices, bottled water cost anywhere from 69 cents per gallon to $16 per gallon, while tap water is less than 3/10 of a cent per gallon, typically. Additionally, bottled water does not have to be as rigorously tested, nor required to be disinfected to the same extent, as tap water, and the FDA oversees bottled water, which as weaker standards than does the EPA. Organizations such as the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has tested bottled water and found “one-third to exceed allowable limits for one or more regulated chemical or biological contaminant” (p. 409)! Since it appears that the bottled water industry is more or less self-policed, it is a wonder that more problems don’t occur more often with bottled drinking water. The Environmental Working Group [EWG] produces a scorecard that shows the results of questions put to different bottled water brands [where does their water come from, is it purified and how, and are there contaminants], and the results are not very satisfying [transparency is lacking for many, for example]. You can seem them for yourself here: http://www.ewg.org/research/ewg-bottled-water-scorecard-2011

Taste

The taste of water, like anything, is highly objective. Some people think their tap water tastes fine, while others do not.  Some people enjoy mineral and seltzer waters, while some do not.  Different research studies have also yielded different results, as well. In fact, students in a psychology class that I taught conducted their own study comparing tap water to bottled water, where they asked participants to compare the taste of each, while not knowing which was from which source, and the results were a wash; some preferred the tap water taste, while some preferred the bottled water, but there was not a large difference in the results.

The plastic bottles dilemma

There has been much attention paid to the plastic bottles that water is packaged in, and in fact, I tended to decline drinking from them mostly because I was unsure what the ‘truth’ was about the plastic, and that if I had an option [such as my own glass bottle of filtered or reverse osmosis water], then I would choose what I considered the best option at the time. After reading Nestle’s information about the plastic in the bottles, I am still unsure how much of a risk these chemicals are to me. The plasticizers, or endocrine disrupters, “interfere with sex hormones and could be responsible for health problems such as early sexual development, reduced sperm counts, and cancers of the breast and testes – all of which seem to be increasing in human populations” (p. 414). The EPA even ranked endocrine disruption as one of its top research priorities, and have since learned that “some of the chemicals used in making plastic bottles are indeed ‘estrogen active,’ and they can leach into the water in bottled water” (p. 414). HOWEVER, as Nestle notes, “the amounts that get into water from plastic bottles are measured in nanograms – billionths of a gram” (p. 414). These agents have also been found in many foods, and are thought to be from pesticides, disinfectants, and cleaning agents that from plastic bottles. “Bottled water, say other researchers, accounts for less than 10% of the total amount of endocrine disrupters in the food supply” (p. 414). Plasticizers also leach out from bottles more quickly when heated, but most drink bottled water chilled or at room temperature.

Conclusion – get a filter

Bottled water especially that comes in plastic bottles is not automatically safer for humans than public tap water. Bottled water is much more expensive than tap water, as well; up to 1,900 times more expensive, according to the EWG! My suggestion, and that of Organic Style [which appears to now be defunct], is to play it safe[r] and install a filter [especially if your water source is a private well or catchment system]: in my research and evaluation of different filtering systems in the past, a reverse osmosis filter seems to be about the best for the price range [around $200], and there are newer ones that don’t have to have an external waste water disposal [waste water from the filtering process]. However, they aren’t as easy for the average person to install as other filters, such as under-the –sink ceramic or other types of filters. Reverse osmosis filtering is supposed to remove most of the contaminants in water.  Some people recommend ultraviolet filtration [UV] systems, but they do require additional electricity [and since we’re on solar power, the UV system is not as advantageous to us].  Do your own research and check the manufacturer’s manual or instructions for the types of substances that are supposed to be filtered by using the filter you are contemplating purchasing. You’ll more than recoup the cost of just about any filtration system if you carry around your own glass bottle, compared to the cost of store-bought bottled water. The glass bottles typically last more than three years [they get knocked around a bit and eventually break, but I’ve never had them break on me or in my bag], and don’t leach chemicals into the water like plastic does [or, at least, not near as much].  

By Willow Aureala

I don’t know about you, but since I’ve been vegetarian (1981), then vegan (1989), I have been repeatedly asked the question “Where do you get your protein?” Since I got asked this question a gazillion bunch of times, I read a lot about it. People were actually worried about me, thinking I might go into protein deficiency or something!  I would end up reassuring my friends and family that yes, I really was confident that I was getting enough protein from my fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds [although I don't think everyone was convinced]. I was surprised, for some reason, to get asked the question again last year. I think I was surprised for two main reasons: 1) I hadn’t been asked that question in a long time and I hadn’t thought about it much at all, and 2) don’t people know yet that there is plenty of protein in plants? I really thought so, but apparently, I was wrong! It seems that the misinformation about protein is still abundant and still needs to be demonstrated to many people.

Not only is there enough protein in plant-based foods to maintain good health [and maybe even superb health], but eating an animal-based diet may even be harmful. I was reading The Starch Solution by McDougall recently, and he goes over the protein myth, as well as the damages that excess protein can do to a person’s body. T. Colin Campbell in his books The China Study and Whole [both books I recently read] also discuss the misinformation about protein, as well as the actual harm that can result from eating too much protein.

For example, McDougall reports in his book The Starch Solution that excess protein can be toxic and actually do damage to the liver, kidneys and bones. As he wrote “Excess protein can take its toll, even when we are strong and healthy. On average, we lose a quarter of our overall kidney function over 70 years of life just from consuming a diet high in animal protein” (p. 41). He also notes that if the liver is already compromised, excess protein speeds up the processes that can lead to organ failure. Additionally, “protein overload also harms the bones; each time we double our protein intake we increase the amount of calcium excreted in the urine by 50%, escalating our risk for osteoporosis and kidney stones” (p. 41). I remember, back in the 1980s when I was studying the issue a great deal, I remember being shocked by the fact that dairy and animal proteins can actually lead to osteoporosis!  Doesn’t everyone know that more calcium leads to stronger bones, and thus the dairy industry’s push of dairy products??! Well, that’s one reason why people are so convinced that animal protein and dairy products are so ‘good’ [or even necessary] – the dairy and beef and other animal-based lobbies and their very successful campaigns. Yes, the food industry is very political, and the information that we are taught in schools about 'eating healthy' is wrong!

So, how much protein does the average person need every day? According to Dr. Campbell and others, somewhere around 15% of our daily calories [see Whole and The China Study] is a healthy amount of protein to strive for. Additionally, Dr. Campbell reports on many research studies, including his own, that demonstrate that when higher amounts of protein are eaten, more diseases [such as cancer, heart disease, etc.] occur. Dr. Doug Graham recommends a protein amount of 10% [see his book 80/10/10]. The “average” animal product [averaging the amount in beef, chicken, eggs, and fish] has 35% of protein [as a percentage of total calories], while the “average” plant contains 13% of protein. Thus, I have long known that my vegan, mostly raw foods diet contains plenty of protein. But, with all the money that the industries who are involved in growing animals for food [beef, dairy, eggs, fish] put into lobbying and media campaigns, it is still difficult for the average American to learn about how healthy a plant-based diet is.So, we need to continue educating ourselves and others and see if we can get this protein myth

By Willow Aureala

What is Vitamin D?

Vitamin D is actually a hormone, and not a vitamin, although for some reason, it is referred to as a vitamin (McDougall p. 158). Humans produce Vitamin D from sun exposure, not from foods, although some “food” items, such as calcium pills and dairy foods, have Vitamin D added, one would not be consuming those on a vegan or vegan raw foods diet [and, McDougall doesn’t recommend either of those options].

Blood levels of Vitamin D – are they accurate?

There has been a lot of media hype in the last year or two regarding Vitamin D and how many Americans are deficient in this vitamin, and that supplementation has been suggested and/or sunbathing for about 30 minutes to an hour each day [one author who recommends the sunbathing option is Swazye Foster in her new book The Science of Raw]. I had heard some about this media hype from different sources, but I tended not to pay too much attention to media hype in general as these kinds of things tend to be more along the lines of ‘fads’ rather than sound medical advice or evidence-based information; often the media stories about such things tend to be based on one or two studies, which may or may not have been done well.

Then, about a year and a half ago, I had my Vitamin D level [among other things] checked [with blood chemistries], and my Vitamin D level was reported to be below suggested levels. Even though I live in Hawaii and I tend to spend roughly 16 to 20 hours outdoors [although usually just my arms are exposed to the sun], my Vitamin D level was considered low.  McDougall reports on two research studies testing the Vitamin D levels of people living in Hawaii with average sun exposure of 29 hours per week in one study [the other study didn’t mention exposure time], between 44% and 51% of the research participants had blood levels of Vitamin D below what is considered acceptable. If people in Hawaii don’t tend to have ‘normal’ blood levels of Vitamin D and they spend quite a few hours exposed to the sun, what does this mean? We’ll look at this in more detail.

My doctor, who does not recommend such things lightly, suggested taking a Vitamin D oil supplement, which I did. I have been taking the recommended amount of Vitamin D oil for over a year and a half now. Unfortunately, I haven’t had my level checked recently, so I don’t know if my blood level of Vitamin D has been positively affected by supplementation.  Also, some researchers believe that the level reported to be ‘normal’ for Vitamin D in blood tests may currently be too high. For example, according to McDougall, the current standard or level for Vitamin D for normal values [as of the publication of his book in 2012] is 30 to 80 ng/ml. McDougall believes, however, that 20 ng/ml is adequate, based on several studies he cites. Due to these and other factors, I am now re-thinking supplementation of this vitamin after reading three well-researched and documented books: The China Study by Campbell and Campbell, Whole by Campbell and The Starch Solution by McDougall and McDougall.

It’s complex

One of the problems with suggesting supplementation [as I’ve noted in earlier articles] is that it is based on ‘reductionist science’ – meaning that researchers focus on one component of a food or a nutrient at the expense of all others. This has been done with many nutrients: Vitamin E, Vitamin B, Selenium, Vitamin C, and many others. I’ll write an article on Vitamin E later, but after reading Whole, I discovered that the original research studies suggesting that Vitamin E supplementation might help reduce heart attacks was flawed, and, furthermore, later research found that Vitamin E supplementation might actually increase heart attacks! As Campbell and Campbell discuss in The China Study, the mechanisms and metabolism of various nutrients in our bodies is complex, and often by studying only one component of a nutrient, the complexities are not taken into account and the effects of the one nutrient may be exaggerated or lost in translation of the details or complexities. Campbell and Campbell note that Vitamin D IS affected by the foods we eat, but not in the way that other vitamins are. They describe how certain ‘foods’ can cause Vitamin D to be suppressed, and that these ‘foods’ turn out to be animal proteins, as well as excessive calcium [like enhanced dairy products] (p. 180-81). [Not only is Vitamin D affected by animal protein and dairy intake, but so is calcium; dairy products tend to leach calcium out of bones; more on that later!] Campbell and Campbell remind us that Vitamin D formation in the body, like all other nutrients, is a complex web of coordinated chemical and biological reactions; “a multitude of reactions working together in so many ways” (p. 181). McDougall further reinforces that the media hype of the lack of Vitamin D in so many Americans, especially those living farthest from the equator, are at greater risk for common diseases such as heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, common cancers, and multiple sclerosis (p. 160). However, a very important fact is missed with all the hype about low Vitamin D levels: “as people move farther from the equator, they eat fewer plant foods and more animal foods. Sunshine plays a big part in overall health, but a small part in the prevention of common Western diseases. Vitamin D supplements will not cure these diseases” (p. 160).

What is best way to get enough Vitamin D?

So, depending on whether you choose to follow the current normal levels of Vitamin D, or choose to follow McDougall’s recommendation of 20 ng/dl, what might you do if your level is even below the 20 ng/dl?

First, McDougall suggests that if your level is found to be below 20 ng/dl, he would have it re-tested to be sure there was no lab error. If it is still under 20 after the re-test, he recommends spending more time in the sun and test again before taking Vitamin D supplementation, which he thinks could even be dangerous! Second, if it is difficult to spend extra time in the sun, McDougall recommends tanning beds; he thinks they are the second best methods to boost Vitamin D. So, if you live in an area where getting enough sunlight to improve your Vitamin D levels, then spend an appropriate amount of time, similar to the time recommended to be outdoors, in a tanning bed – but don’t overdo it! As McDougall notes, “when used appropriately, like sunshine, tanning beds can safely prevent or reverse Vitamin D deficiency” (p. 162). Supplementation, he believes, is the choice of last resort, as it can lead to imbalances, and may actually hurt bones. McDougall notes that a “major research article in the May 2010 Journal of American Medical Association showed that a large dose of Vitamin D given to elderly women result in more falls and 26% more fractures than in women taking a placebo” (p. 162-3). Thus, Vitamin D supplementation may actually be a contraindication for some, and this needs to be studied more.

In conclusion, according to experts, exposing yourself to the sun every couple of days for up to an hour or so is recommended to maintain appropriate Vitamin D levels. If this isn’t possible, a tanning bed is a second option. Supplementation may be a last resort, but it may also lead to problems. So, get out in the sun and enjoy the outdoors! :)