Tanning Truth

Indoor Tanning: Smart Tan

Posted: Friday, January 18th, 2008

An estimated 30 million North Americans turn to tanning salons as a controlled alternative to outdoor tanning. As we become increasingly aware of the benefits associated with regular exposure to sunlight and of the importance of managing the risks that can be associated with sunburn and overexposure, more people are turning to indoor tanning facilities to help attain their tans in a controlled environment scientifically designed to minimize the risk of sunburn.

The Tanning Industry’s Base Belief

The professional indoor tanning industry’s scientifically supported position is summed up in this declaration: Moderate tanning, for individuals who can develop a tan, is the smartest way to maximize the potential benefits of sun exposure while minimizing the potential risks associated with either too much or too little sunlight.

This position is founded on the following tenets:

1. Ultraviolet light exposure from the sun or from an indoor tanning unit is essential for human health, and getting it in a non-burning fashion is the smartest way.
2. The professional indoor tanning industry promotes and teaches what we refer to as The Golden Rule of Smart Tanning: Don’t ever sunburn.
3. For the past decade, the indoor tanning industry has been more effective at teaching sunburn prevention than those who promote complete sun avoidance. Since the mid-1990s, tanning industry research has supported what millions of indoor tanners have known all along: that non-tanners sunburn outdoors more often than people who tan indoors. The professional indoor tanning salon industry is part of the solution in the ongoing battle against sunburn and in teaching people how to identify a proper and practical life-long skin care regimen.
4. A tan is the body’s natural protection against sunburn. Your skin is designed to tan as a natural body function.
5. Every year, millions of indoor tanners successfully develop “base tans” before embarking on sunny vacations – tans that, combined with the proper use of sunscreen outdoors, help them prevent sunburn.
6. There are known physiological and psychological benefits associated with sunlight exposure and there are many other potential benefits that appear linked to sun exposure, but need further research. The potential upside of these benefits is considerable and deserves further consideration. Because sunlight is free and vitamin D is a relatively cheap pharmaceutical product, research into the many benefits of vitamin D has not been funded to its natural conclusion.
7. The body produces Vitamin D naturally when the skin is exposed to sunlight. Vitamin D deficiency has become a recognized epidemic in North America and overzealous sun protection practices likely have contributed to this.
8. The risks associated with UV overexposure are manageable for anyone who has the ability to develop a tan.

Why Is Indoor Tanning “Smart Tanning?”

Indoor tanning, if you can develop a tan, is an intelligent way to minimize the risk of sunburn while maximizing the enjoyment and benefit of having a tan. We call this SMART TANNING because tanners are taught by trained tanning facility personnel how their skin type reacts to sunlight and how to avoid sunburn outdoors, as well as in a salon.

Tanning in a professional facility today minimizes risk because the government regulates indoor tanning in the United States and Canada. In the United States, exposure times for every tanning session are established by a schedule present on every piece of equipment that takes into account the tanner’s skin type and the intensity of the equipment to deliver a dosage of sunlight designed to minimize the risk of sunburn. The schedule, as regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada, also takes into account how long an individual has been tanning, increasing exposure times gradually to minimize the possibility of burning.

That kind of control is impossible outdoors, where variables including seasonality, time of day, weather conditions, reflective surfaces and altitude all make outdoor tanning a random act and sunburn prevention more difficult.

How Do Indoor Tanning Salons Teach Sunburn Prevention?

The indoor tanning industry is at the forefront in educating people how to successfully avoid sunburn over the course of one’s life.

• Studies of indoor tanners have shown consistently that indoor tanning customers once they begin tanning in a professional salon, are less likely to sunburn than they were before they started tanning.
• Studies have also shown that indoor tanners are less likely to sunburn outdoors as compared to non-tanners.

Consider, in recent years sunburn incidence in the general population has been steadily increasing while sunscreen usage has been declining. And according to the American Academy of Dermatology, the sub-group most likely to sunburn is older men. In contrast, sunscreen usage outdoors among indoor tanners is increasing.

We believe that teaching people strictly to avoid the sun may be making them more likely to sunburn when they do go outside for summer activities – and everyone does go outdoors at some point. Consider:

1. Tanning is your body’s natural defense mechanism against sunburn, and indoor tanners have activated this defense against burning – a tan essentially multiplies the ability of sunscreen worn outdoors to do its job. That’s one reason non-tanners are more vulnerable when they inevitably do go outdoors.
2. Indoor tanners are educated at professional tanning facilities how to avoid sunburn outdoors, how to use sunscreens appropriately and how to properly moisturize their skin.

When you also consider that the majority of people who sunburn are male, according to the AAD, and that 65-70 percent of indoor tanning customers are female, clearly, it is non-tanners who are doing most of the burning outdoors. In the war against sunburn, tanning salons are part of the solution. Those who abstain from sun exposure completely are more likely to sunburn when they inevitably do go outdoors, even if they attempt to wear sunscreen.

Why We Promote Indoor Tanning As “Smart Tanning”

The professional indoor tanning industry promotes responsible indoor tanning and sunburn prevention as “smart.” We choose not to use the word “safe.” Here is why:

The word “safe” implies that one can recklessly abuse something without any fear of causing harm. And reckless abandon certainly is not the behavior the professional indoor tanning industry is teaching. In fact, we are playing a key role in successfully preventing that kind of reckless abuse. By teaching a “smart” approach to sunburn prevention that recognizes that people do perceive different benefits from being in the sun, we are able to teach sunburn prevention in a practical way that respects both the potential benefits and the risks of sun exposure.

For example, previous generations believed that sunburn was an inconvenient but necessary precursor to developing a tan. Today we know better, and we are teaching a new generation of tanners how to avoid sunburn at all costs. Again, our position: Moderate tanning is the best way to maximize the potential benefits of sun exposure while minimizing the potential risks of either too much or too little exposure.

These graphs illustrate our point. The left graph shows the conventional thinking about sunlight: that totally eliminating sun exposure eliminates risks. That oversimplification is why the $30 billion sun-care industry tells us to wear sunscreen 365 days a year, no matter where we live. But the right graph is a more accurate, albeit more complicated, description of the risk function.

The one thing we do know for certain about sunlight is that zero exposure does NOT equal zero risk; in fact, the risks of zero exposure would be deadly. So the risk function must be curved. The vertex of that curve — where risk is minimized — is different for every person and cannot be randomly defined. What’s more, this graph does not even take into account the balance between benefits and risks. That has to be part of the equation if any campaign is going to be effective.

Human life is totally reliant on sun exposure, and the life-giving effects of ultraviolet light. The question for each of us — a question that nobody knows the exact answer to — is how much sun exposure is appropriate, and how much is too much. Basing the answer to that question on the belief that any exposure increases one’s risk of skin damage — a belief that is not categorically supported in the medical literature —fails to recognize the positive influence ultraviolet light and sunlight have on our lives.

New research on breast cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, colon cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis and other deadly diseases — research that shows that regular sun exposure may play a key part in preventing the onset or retarding the growth of these deadly diseases — supports the position that moderate sun exposure, for those of us who can develop a tan, is the best way to maximize the potential benefits of sun exposure while minimizing the potential risks of either too much or too little exposure.

Why Don’t We Hear More About Smart Tanning Then?

That is changing. In 2006 the American Cancer Society and the Canadian Cancer Society joined health officials in Australia in finally recognizing that individuals need some ultraviolet light exposure in order to be healthy, and that sun avoidance may be contributing to vitamin D deficiency.

Why did this acknowledgement take so long? As we mentioned, the truth about sun exposure is abstract and complicated — the right level of exposure for one person may not be right for another person. Heredity, skin type, and many other factors make it a different equation for everyone. But one truth is universal: We all need sun exposure and UV light in order to survive.

It is a lot easier just to tell people to avoid sunshine than teach them how to enjoy it responsibly and appropriately, so many of our public health advisories have attempted to oversimplify the message and few took into account any potential for positive effects of sunlight. Instead of teaching you how to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks, many reports simply oversimplify the scenario and mislead you into believing that any exposure is bad for you.

You should also be aware of the fact that many industries benefit from scaring you about any sun exposure – twisting a proper message of sunburn prevention into an unwarranted message of total sun avoidance. This profit-based science has created what we believe is a total misuse of sunscreens.

What Do We Mean When We Say “Misuse of Sunscreens?”

Sunscreen should only be used to prevent sunburn. It is being marketed to block all UV exposure, which is unwarranted.

Make no mistake: Sunscreen is a good product with an intelligent usage: the prevention of sunburn. But it is not necessary to wear this product daily most of the year in most climates to prevent sunburn. Yet many in the $30 billion sun care industry encourage everyone to wear products with sunscreen (many of which are women’s cosmetics) 365 days a year — no matter where they live. This is misuse of the product and may in fact cause more harm than good in the long run. Please consider:

1. Sunscreen, when worn, almost completely prevents your skin from producing any vitamin D. Sun exposure to the skin is the body’s natural way to produce Vitamin D – it is the way you are naturally intended to get it. An estimated 90 percent of the vitamin D in our systems comes from sun exposure. In fact, according to accepted anthropologic evolutionary theory, that’s why fair-skinned cultures developed fair skin: To better produce vitamin D from sunlight.
2. Vitamin D is very rare in foods and the form of vitamin D you get from foods and dietary supplements is not processed in the body the same way as Vitamin D produced naturally from sun exposure to the skin.
3. Wearing sunscreen in northern climates most of the year totally blocks your body’s ability to produce vitamin D.
4. Many studies have shown and it is now universally accepted that up to 90 percent of the North American population is vitamin D deficient. What’s more, recent research has shown that humans need five to 10 times more vitamin D than we previously thought – levels that are not attainable through diet and supplements alone.
5. Women’s cosmetics today almost always contain sunscreen. It is very difficult for women to find products that do not block UV exposure.

Again, while sunscreen is an excellent product that has an intelligent usage in the fight against sunburn, overuse of the product may have serious consequences as well. Because most women wear foundation products daily, their make-up may be preventing them from producing vitamin D much of the year. And because women are more likely than men to develop osteoporosis, making up 18 million of the 25 million Americans afflicted with the disease, they would stand to benefit even more from an increase in vitamin D production.

What Is The Appropriate Usage of Sunscreen?

Simply stated, sunscreen should be used as a tool to prevent sunburn whenever sunburn is a possibility. It should not be used on a daily basis in climates and seasons when sunburn is not possible.

While the tanning industry does support the use of sunscreens as a tool to prevent sunburn outdoors, we do not believe it is proper to teach people to wear this product during times of the year when one would not be able to sunburn outdoors. That is misbranding the product

That is why the professional indoor tanning industry teaches proper sunscreen usage more effectively than those who simply tell the public to wear the product 365 days a year: The tanning industry’s approach is more credible and practical.

Why Should We Be Concerned About Vitamin D Deficiency?

New research has shown that vitamin D deficiency is epidemic in American adults today, suggesting that up to 90 percent of North Americans are vitamin D deficient. It is likely that over-usage of sunscreen in climates and seasons when sunburn is not a possibility has contributed to this epidemic. This is especially significant because:

• A 2006 systematic review of 63 studies on vitamin D status in relation to cancer risk has shown that vitamin D sufficiency can reduce one’s risk of colon, breast and ovarian cancers by up to 50 percent. The landmark paper, published in the February 2006 issue of The American Journal of Public Health, is the most comprehensive paper on vitamin D written to date.
• Additionally, vitamin D deficiency is a leading cause of osteoporosis, a disease affecting 25 million Americans which leads to 1 million hip and bone fractures every year. In elderly individuals, such fractures are often deadly. Encouraging everyone to wear sunscreen all year long in any climate undoubtedly is contributing to this problem, as vitamin D is necessary for the body to properly process calcium.
• While environmental correlations have established for years that people in sunny climates have lower risks of many forms of cancer, in recent years the mechanism by which Vitamin D slows or retards the growth of tumor cells has been researched and identified. It was once thought that only the kidneys could produce active vitamin D, but we now know that many cells in the body perform this function, including cells in the breast, prostate, colon, brain and skin.
• Research has shown that the active form of vitamin D, when present in cells throughout the body, inhibits the growth and spread of abnormal cells, including cancer cells.

What Does Indoor Tanning Have To Do With Vitamin D?

Exposure to UVB from sunshine is the body’s natural way to produce vitamin D, accounting for 90 percent of vitamin D production. Dietary “supplements” are just that: Supplemental ways to produce vitamin D.

Research has shown that people who utilize indoor tanning equipment that emits UVB – which most tanning equipment does – also produce vitamin D. And studies have also shown that indoor tanning clients have higher vitamin D blood levels than non-tanners.

While the North American indoor tanning industry promotes itself as a cosmetic service, one undeniable side-effect of that cosmetic service is vitamin D production. Even though it is not necessary to develop a tan to produce vitamin D, this should be considered: Because research suggests that the risks associated with sun exposure are related to intermittent sunburns, it is credible to believe that the benefits of regular, moderate non-burning exposure outweigh the easily manageable risks associated with overexposure.

Tanning is a Natural Body Process – It is Not Damage

Tanning is your body’s natural protection against sunburn — it is what your body is designed to do. Many have referred to this process as “damage” to your skin, but calling a tan “damage” is a dangerous oversimplification. Here is why:

• Calling a tan damage to your skin is like calling exercise damage to your muscles. Consider, when one exercises you are actually tearing tiny muscle fibers in your body. On the surface, examined at the micro-level, that could be called “damage.” But that damage on the micro-level is your body’s natural way on the macro-level of building stronger muscle tissue. So to call exercise “damaging” to muscles would be terribly deceiving. The same can be said of sun exposure: Your body is designed to repair any damage to the skin caused by ultraviolet light exposure. Developing a tan is its natural way to protect against the dangers of sunburn and further exposure.
• Saying that any ultraviolet light exposure causes skin damage is a dangerous oversimplification. It would be like saying that since water causes drowning, humans should avoid all water. Yes, water causes drowning, but our bodies also need water; we would die without it. Similarly, we need sun exposure; we would die without it.

It is the professional indoor tanning industry’s position that sunburn prevention is a more effective message than sun avoidance, which ultimately encourages abuse. It is a responsible, honest approach to the issue.

But What About Skin Cancer?

There arguably is more misinformation about skin cancer than any other form of cancer, and most of it involves distorting the nature of skin cancer’s complex relationship with sun exposure. Consider:

• Melanoma skin cancer is most common in people who work indoors – not in those who work outdoors.
• Melanoma skin cancer occurs most often on parts of the body that are not regularly exposed to the sun.
• 18 of 22 studies examining melanoma and indoor tanning have shown no statistically significant association, including the most recent and largest study, which showed no connection at all. The four older studies that alleged a connection did not adequately control for important confounding variables such as the subjects’ outdoor exposure to sunlight, childhood sunburns, type of tanning equipment utilized (many of which were unsupervised home units) and duration and quantity of exposures.
• Melanoma mortality rates in the United States are not rising among young women, but are increasing dramatically among older men, according to National Cancer Institute data. (In Canada, melanoma rates for women under 50 have actually declined in the past 20 years). Yet the majority of the marketing message about this disease is directed at young women, who are the highest consumers of dermatological services.
• The photobiology research community has determined that most skin cancers are most likely related to a strong pattern of burning and intermittent sun exposure in those people who are genetically predisposed to skin cancer and not simply to cumulative exposure. That suggests that a pattern of repeated sunburning is what we need to prevent. And that kind of prevention is exactly what the indoor tanning industry is doing effectively.
• Skin cancer generally has a 20- to 30-year latency period. The rates of skin cancer we are seeing today in older individuals mostly are a function of the ignorant misbehavior of the 1970s and early 1980s. Recall: Society used to view sunburns as an inconvenient right of spring, or as a “precursor” to developing a summer tan. Severe burns were commonplace. Today we know how reckless that approach was, and the incidence rates of skin cancer today in those over 50 years of age reflect that ignorance.

The indoor tanning industry believes that our role in teaching sunburn prevention will help to reverse the increases that largely are a result of misbehavior that took place years ago before the professional tanning industry existed and before we were organized to teach sunburn prevention.

How Do You Define Moderate Tanning?

The term “moderate tanning” means something different for every different individual, and that is an important point. The bottom line is what we call “The Golden Rule of Smart Tanning” – Don’t EVER sunburn. A fair-skinned, red-headed, green-eyed person may not have the ability to develop a tan without sunburning. This person should not attempt to tan then. On the other hand, most of us have the ability to develop a tan, and the majority of us tan very easily. Moderation, in our view, means avoiding sunburn at all costs. Going about that agenda will mean something different to every different person.

What About Teenage Tanning?

In the past few years the dermatology industry’s lobbyists have argued that teenagers should be totally prohibited from tanning in salons despite having no solid evidence that tanning in a non-burning fashion results in any significant risk. In fact, such prohibitions would likely do more harm than good. Consider:

1. Studies have shown that teens who tan in salons are less likely to sunburn outdoors compared to non-tanners.
2. 83 percent of teenagers who tan indoors prior to taking sunny vacations report that their indoor tan, combined with the proper use of sunscreen, helped them to prevent sunburn.
3. Further, 72 percent of teenagers who currently tan indoors say they would simply tan more aggressively outdoors or purchase home tanning units – both of which are more likely to produce sunburns – if they were unable to utilize indoor tanning salons. If teenagers are unable to tan in salons, sunburn incidence actually will increase, and it is likely that total UV exposure in this age group will increase. This would be hurting people, not helping them.
4. There is no data to suggest that tanning is more dangerous for any specific age group. Photobiology suggests that burning (not tanning) at an early age could increase risk later in life. As we just discussed, it appears that indoor tanners sunburn less than non-tanners, including teen-agers who tan outdoors.
5. Indoor tanning facilities today are at the forefront in teaching teenagers outdoor sunburn prevention, including the proper use of sunscreens to prevent sunburn outdoors. If teenagers are denied access to indoor tanning, sunburn incidence will increase.

The tanning industry supports existing laws requiring parental consent for minors who wish to tan in salons, and would support constructive efforts to bolster enforcement of this standard.

Are All Dermatologists Against Indoor Tanning?

While most of the dermatology profession has an inexplicably myopic view about tanning, some enlightened dermatologists have broken ranks with their peers in recent years, urging their profession to re-think its one-sided dogma about sun exposure. Two of the most recent:

• Research dermatologist Dr. Sam Shuster, professor emeritus to the Department of Dermatology at Newcastle University in northern England, challenged his peers to quantify the alleged increase in skin cancer incidence, which is not based on actual numbers but only estimates. In the book, “Panic Nation: Unpicking the Myths We’re Told About Food and Health” Shuster calls his peers to acknowledge that a tan is the body’s natural protection against sunburn – a reality that has been all but stampeded under the establishment’s rhetoric. “Unfortunately our attitude to sun and ultra-violet (UV) light is subject to much perverse and dubious technical ‘advice’, which society has passively accepted without questioning its provenance,” Shuster writes.
• Boston University Professor Dr. Michael Holick – the scientist who was involved in the discovery of the active form of vitamin D in the early 1970s – wrote the book “The UV Advantage” in 2004, urging people to embrace moderate exposure to ultraviolet light as the body’s natural way to produce Vitamin D. Holick is one of the world’s leading authorities on vitamin D production. “Since some exposure to sunlight is beneficial to your health, it is reasonable that if you wish to be exposed to sunlight, that you can do so with relative safety if you make sure that you do not receive a sunburn,” Holick says.
• Many rank-and-file dermatologists have more moderate views about sensible sun exposure, but have been intimidated by their peers not to discuss these views publicly. Indeed, upon publishing “The UV Advantage” in 2004, Holick was forced to resign his post at Boston University as a professor of dermatology, with the chair of that department calling his work “schlock science.” In spite of such rhetoric, in the two years since publishing his book, most of Holick’s positions have become mainstream thinking.

Source: http://www.tanningtruth.com/index.php/category/headline/

"Maximize the benefits while minimizing the risk..."

Report slammed Sat, August 1, 2009
By SUN MEDIA

The head of Calgary-based Fabutan is slamming an international report released this week that labels tanning beds as a definite cause of cancer alongside tobacco.

Fabutan president Doug McNabb said comparing tanning beds to tobacco and mustard gas is "over the top." "To me, that means the advice is that we should never, ever go outside and get unprotected sunlight and I think that's a very dangerous message -- it contributes to vitamin D deficiency," he said. "The bottom line is we think there is an intelligent way to use moderation and UV light."

McNabb said it's unlikely the report condemning tanning beds will prompt his clients to abandon their quest for bronzed summer skin.

"We like to say there's such a thing as smart tanning -- maximizing the benefits while minimizing the risks," he said.

"We make sure they avoid overexposure (and) we skin type every customer so we aware of how much exposure they should receive."

Source: http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Today/2009/08/01/10332681-sun.html

Great Information about the Benefits of Vitamin D

The following is from an interview on News-leader.com, which features a discussion of vitamin D with Lance Luria, an internal medicine physician and the associate medical director of St. John's Health Plans.

Q. Over the past few years, vitamin D has been making headlines. Why is that?

A. Vitamin D was discovered in the early part of the 20th century when it was found that adding a fat-soluble factor "D" to the diet prevented rickets, a disease that results in defective bone growth and bowed legs. More recently, numerous large studies have raised questions as to whether the standard recommendations assure optimal vitamin D levels. These questions come on the heels of mounting evidence pointing to the important role vitamin D plays in promoting bone health, in addition to preventing osteoarthritis, diabetes and cancer, as well as mental, cardiovascular and neuromuscular diseases.

Q. Where does vitamin D come from?

A. Since our bodies have the ability to make vitamin D, it is not technically a vitamin, but falls more in the category of a steroid-like hormone that just needs a jumpstart from sunshine. The problem is that most of us aren't getting enough UVB rays to generate sufficient vitamin D. Here are some interesting points:

• During the summer, 10 minutes of exposure of your hands and face (without sunscreen) provides about 400 international units (IU) of vitamin D3. A young person whose entire body is exposed to simulated sunlight produces the equivalent of 10,000-25,000 IU of vitamin D taken orally.
• Don't worry about getting too much vitamin D from sunlight. The same UVB rays that help make vitamin D will also destroy what is not absorbed quickly enough.
• Wearing sunscreen blocks your body's ability to make vitamin D.
• People living north of the 37th degree-latitude line don't get enough UVB rays in winter. A good rule of thumb is that you don't get enough during the seasons when your shadow at noon is taller than you are.
• Your ability to make vitamin D decreases as you reach old age.
• Darker-pigmented people have more melanin in their skin, and since melanin acts like sunblock, less vitamin D is made. In fact, a black person with very dark skin pigmentation will require about a tenfold longer exposure to make the same amount of vitamin D as a light-skinned white person.
• Vitamin D is stored in fat cells, which can act as a reservoir for the winter months. Paradoxically, obese people have about one-half the levels of circulating vitamin D levels as people of normal weight. It is thought that large fat deposits act as a sort of sinkhole for vitamin D.

Q. How much vitamin D is needed?

A. Current recommendations call for 200 IU for children and adults up to age 50, 400 IU from age 51 to 70 and 600 IU for adults 71 and older. However, based on more recent studies, most authorities are now recommending at least 800 IU of vitamin D3 daily for children and adults if you're not getting enough UVB exposure and at least 1,000 IU daily for those that do not get any UVB exposure. A safe upper limit is 2,000 IU daily. Although a number of studies have shown that higher daily intakes do not result in toxic effects, these higher doses are not routinely recommended. If you're not sure that your intake is adequate, taking a daily supplement of 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 is currently recommended by a number of authorities. Tests to show vitamin D blood levels are available but costly, but they can resolve those situations where there remains a question as to whether you are getting enough.

Q. Why is vitamin D needed?

A. Maintaining adequate blood levels of vitamin D is important not only for bone health but also in the prevention of a number of chronic diseases, including osteoporosis, hypertension and prostate, breast and colon cancers.

Q. Are there food sources of vitamin D?

A. Naturally occurring vitamin D is relatively rare in foods. Oily fish and egg yolks contain significant amounts, as do mushrooms.

Q. What's the difference between vitamin D2 and D3?

A. Supplemental vitamin D comes in two forms: D2 (ergocalciferol) or D3 (cholecalciferol). Vitamin D2 comes from UVB-irradiated yeast and plants; vitamin D3 comes from UVB-irradiated lanolin from animal sources. It was originally thought that vitamins D2 and D3 were pretty much the same, but now we know that the D2 form is only about 20 percent to 40 percent as effective as D3. Vitamin D2 also doesn't last as long in our circulation and may even cause premature breakdown of circulating D3. Fortified foods can contain either vitamin D2 or D3, but recent studies in the United States and western Canada noted that up to 80 percent of milk did not contain the advertised amount of vitamin D and half the milk tested contained less than 50 percent of the advertised amount. Remarkably, 15 percent of the skim milk samples contained no detectable vitamin D at all.

Q. How common is vitamin D deficiency?

A. It is estimated that 1 billion people worldwide don't get enough vitamin D. That includes vitamin D deficiency among 40 percent to 100 percent of independently living elderly Americans and Europeans. Further, in the United States, half of women receiving treatment for osteoporosis, 73 percent of pregnant women (and 80 percent of their infants at birth) and between 48 and 52 percent of adolescent girls in the Northeast show vitamin D deficiency. This is a problem because, without vitamin D, only 10 percent to 15 percent of dietary calcium is absorbed, and bone mineral density is directly correlated with vitamin D levels.

Q. How can you get enough vitamin D?

A. If you believe you need to increase your vitamin D levels, here are some tips:

• During the spring, summer and fall, 5 to 15 minutes of sunshine between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., two or three times weekly, should do the trick. (Note: If your skin becomes slightly pink, you've gotten too much sun.)
• Tanning beds, when used in moderation, provide ample vitamin D and may be particularly helpful in the winter months.
• Milk, cereals and bread products that contain vitamin D may be highly variable in their vitamin D content and should not be depended upon as a reliable source.
• Don't forget that vitamin D2 (from yeast and plants) is probably only one-third as effective as vitamin D3 (from animals). So when you go shopping for supplements, remember that 1,000 IU of D3 is comparable to 3,000 IU of D2.

Source: http://www.lookingfit.com/hotnews/vitamin-d-medical-expert-doctor-tanning,p2.html

Don't fall for media scare tactics.

The Indoor Tanning Association will not stand by and allow some members of the media to unfairly malign our product and the thousands of small business owners who are our members, by grossly exaggerating the risks associated with tanning beds. Because tanning beds produce the same UV light as the sun, OVEREXPOSURE and abuse of our product—just like OVEREXPOSURE to sunlight—is associated with an increased risk for some types of skin cancer. Other items in this category are red wine and salted fish. According to IARC’s report on alcohol, drinking red wine or other alcoholic beverages carries a greater cancer risk than tanning. It is completely irresponsible to compare indoor tanning with mustard gas or arsenic as so many media reports today have done.


· Tanning beds have been categorized as “Group 1” by a group of scientists in France. “Group 1” means there is evidence that the use of tanning beds can increase the risk of skin cancer.



· The information is not very new: sunlight is in the same category as tanning beds, and has been in that category since 1992. Just like sunlight, the light from tanning beds has UV rays that cause your skin to produce melanin.



· Since 1992, thousands of doctors have recommended moderate exposure to sunlight for a variety of health benefits. Oprah guest Dr. Oz Mehmet and Dr. Andrew Weil are two prominent examples.



· Being in the “Group 1” category does not say anything about the size of the risk, just that there is any risk at all. Some things in the category are very dangerous, like arsenic and mustard gas. Other substances only carry a very small risk, like red wine, beer, and salted fish.



· News stories that say things like “tanning is as dangerous as arsenic” are flat-out wrong. The scientists have not made that kind of comparison at all, only reporters looking for a scary headline.



· The report itself has not been made available. All the news stories are working off of a press release, and no reporters have actually read the report.



· The IARC is a group of scientists that works with the United Nations. Their report is not a new study; it is a review of a paper from 2006, which itself was a review of 23 studies, some dating to the early 1980s. Those studies had a wide range of findings.



· Of the 23 studies:

- 5 were excluded for unusable data

- 6 had results suggesting that tanning beds actually reduce the risk of skin cancer

- 16 had results within the margin of error – In an election, experts will say that you shouldn’t trust a poll that shows one candidate ahead by 1%, with a margin of error of 5%.



· Some news stories are including a misleading statistic: that tanning beds increase the risk of melanoma by 75%. This number comes from a study with questionable methods. The study’s authors admit that they did not adjust for factors like outside sun exposure and sun sensitivity. Even if the study is accurate, it does not mean that 75% of tanning bed users will get melanoma, it means that their relative risk is higher. Because the issue is relative risk, when the original risk is very small, a percentage increase that looks big actually translates into a very small added risk.


· To use another example, your annual risk of a fatal car accident is about 0.013%. If that risk were increased by 75%, it would be 0.023%, or about 1 in 4,500. To put that number in perspective, the increase is 10 times smaller than the OSHA guideline for “acceptable risk.”

Vitamin D Helps With Weight Loss

People whose vitamin D levels test high before they go on a diet experience significantly better results on that diet than people with low levels of vitamin D, according to a new study, suggesting that vitamin D plays a part in weight loss and that increasing your intake of this incredibly important nutrient just might help you drop additional pounds.

We already know that vitamin D deficiency is associated with obesity, but it's not clear which comes first -- are people obese because of inadequate vitamin D or does obesity cause vitamin D levels in the body to somehow drop?

In the current study, presented at the Endocrine Society's 91st annual meeting in Washington DC, researchers measured blood levels of vitamin D in 38 overweight men and women before putting them on a calorie-restricted diet for 11 weeks. Here's what they found: Higher levels of vitamin D predicted greater success on the weight-loss diet.

In general, most of the subjects had insufficient levels of vitamin D in the first place. But for each 1-ng/mL increase in the active form of vitamin D, subjects lost nearly one-fourth pound more weight. Baseline levels of vitamin D -- the levels measured before the subjects went on a diet -- actually predicted how much weight they would lose on the diet itself, with those with the least vitamin D losing the least amount of weight on the diet, and those with the most vitamin D losing the most.

In addition, the researchers measured body fat distribution on all the subjects using a DXA (bone densitometry) scan. Higher baseline levels of vitamin D also predicted greater loss in troublesome (and more dangerous) abdominal fat.

"Our results suggest the possibility that the addition of vitamin D to a reduced-calorie diet will lead to better weight loss," said Shalamar Sibley, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota.

Source: http://www.thatsfit.com/2009/07/20/vitamin-d-helps-with-weight-loss/

Sunshine vitamin may make you brighter

LONDON - Getting more of the "sunshine vitamin" may make you brighter later in life, according to a study published on Thursday that bolsters evidence vitamin D may help older people stay mentally fit.

The findings also raise the prospect that people who do not get enough of the vitamin could use supplements to keep the brain fully functioning as they age, David Lee and colleagues at the University of Manchester reported.

"At the population level, we are talking about large numbers of people. If there is a link it could potentially have a significant effect," Lee, who led the study, said in a telephone interview. "It is so easy to rectify with supplementation."

Vitamin D, produced by the body when skin is exposed to sunlight, is also found in certain foods such as oily fish. It helps cells absorb calcium and is important for bone health.

Recent studies have also indicated vitamin D may protect against cancer, artery disease and tuberculosis.

While others have suggested a link with mental ability, the findings so far have been inconsistent, Lee and colleagues reported in the Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry.

The researchers compared the cognitive performance of more than 3,000 European men aged 40 to 79 and found those with low vitamin D levels did more poorly on a task designed to test mental agility.

The findings are some of the strongest evidence yet of such a link because of the size of the study and because the researchers adjusted for a number of lifestyle factors believed to affect mental ability when older, Lee said.

"We were able to take into account their educational level, their depression, their levels of physical activity and measures of physical performance," he said.

"When we adjusted for all these other health and lifestyle factors we still found that there was a link between vitamin D and the cognitive outcome."

The researchers do not know exactly how vitamin D and mental agility may be connected but said possible suggestions include the vitamin's role in increasing certain hormonal activity or the protection of neurons in the brain.

They also stressed their findings should not spur people to bask in the sun, which can increase the risk of skin cancer.

Source: msnbc

IOM studies boost in vitamin D requirements

Researchers suggest a huge bump in recommended daily levels as the vitamin's benefits extend to helping fight diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease.

By Susan J. Landers, AMNews staff. Posted April 20, 2009.

---

Vitamin D's star is on the rise and physicians who have studied it say it's about time.

Recent research has found that higher D levels are beneficial in fighting ills ranging from colds to cancer. And, on March 26, the Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board began reviewing those studies and many others with an eye to revising the recommended dietary intake of vitamin D and its close companion in maintaining bone health -- calcium. A report is expected within two years.

Vitamin D has long been recognized as essential to promoting calcium absorption to allow for bone growth and remodeling. Now, its role in health maintenance is expanding in other directions. Some researchers say if we dramatically increase amounts either absorbed from the sun, or ingested in supplements or fortified foods, a corresponding drop could occur in many rapidly proliferating illnesses, including diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Since sun exposure is itself considered a cancer risk and people often use sunscreen to block it, supplements and fortified foods may be the best routes. So food manufacturers also have their eyes on the IOM Board's work to see whether a boost in fortification will be allowed.

But you would have to eat a lot of fortified foods to get the amounts of D urged by its fans. For example, some physicians who study the vitamin consume 2,000 International Units daily, well beyond the 200 to 400 units per day currently recommended for older teens and adults up to age 70.

Last fall the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended infants, children and adolescents double the amount of D they ingest each day from 200 IUs to 400 IUs. New research shows the higher amount would not only prevent rickets but treat it, said the AAP recommendation.

Is "D" even a vitamin?

Still, a lot is not known about vitamin D. First, it's actually a hormone. "Vitamin D is probably one of the oldest hormones on earth," said Michael Holick, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, physiology and biophysics at Boston University Medical Center.

"Back in the 1970s we realized we could make it in our skin so it couldn't be a vitamin," he added. But Dr. Holick is OK with calling it a vitamin. "People are afraid of hormones."

Vitamin D is actually a hormone.

And the last thing he wants is for people to neglect their vitamin D. His hope is the IOM board will conclude its current Dietary Reference Intakes -- and those for calcium -- are woefully inadequate. He would like to see a minimum daily intake of 1,000 units per day for adults, with 1,500 to 2,000 units preferable.

It is difficult to get too much D, he said, noting that mankind evolved in the sun, thus ensuring adequate amounts before its rays' harmful effects were noted.

The last time the IOM set the intake limits was in 1997 and Dr. Holick was on the panel. "Even then we knew they were inadequate, but there was no literature to support a higher recommendation," he said -- a circumstance that has since changed.

David Klurfeld, PhD, who leads the Human Nutrition Program at the Dept. of Agriculture agrees. Hundreds of studies have been released on vitamin D since the last intake rates were established, he told the board.

The IOM review is being sponsored by the Agriculture Dept., the Dept. of Health and Human Services and the Dept. of Defense as well as Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Danielle Brule, PhD, director of research for Health Canada, told the board the amount of vitamin D people can absorb at her nation's far northern latitudes is too low. Plus, people who have darker skin have more trouble absorbing adequate amounts of sunlight to gain sufficient D.

People with darker skin have trouble absorbing adequate amounts of sunlight to gain sufficient D.

Despite the increased focus on the need for higher vitamin D levels, people are actually getting less, researchers concluded in a March 23 Archives of Internal Medicine study. They compared the vitamin D levels in blood collected from participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1988 and 1994 with the D in blood levels of participants in the 2001-2004 survey.

They found the amount of 25-hydroxyvitamin D had dropped from 30 nanograms per milliliter, the amount generally considered necessary for optimal health, to 24 ng/mL.

The main reason for the drop is that people are less likely to go out in the sun, said lead author Adit Ginde, MD, MPH, assistant professor of emergency medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver.

He and his colleagues also concluded that current recommendations are inadequate to address the "growing epidemic of vitamin D deficiency." They advocate increasing intakes to 1,000 IUs per day or more -- especially during the winter and at higher latitudes -- and allowing for judicious sun exposure. They suggest large randomized controlled trials be conducted to evaluate the effects of the increased dose.

Meanwhile, John Whitcomb, MD, medical director for patient access at Aurora Health Care, a nonprofit Wisconsin health care system based in Milwaukee, isn't waiting for the IOM board to make its decision. He's already an enthusiastic booster of increased vitamin D uptake, recommending that people take 1,000 IUs to 2,000 IUs per day.

He called the evidence supporting this increase, "the most critical public health advance in 30 years. We can reduce diabetes, coronary artery disease and cancer. We can drive down the cost of health care in America." He has spread the word of the virtues of D supplements throughout the Aurora system and beyond. "We want everyone in the state of Wisconsin to take vitamin D during the winter."

The print version of this content appeared in the April 27, 2009 issue of American Medical News.

---

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Who needs more vitamin D

The National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements compiled a list of people who may require dietary supplements to meet their daily allowance. Among them are:

Breastfed infants: Vitamin D requirements cannot be met by human milk alone. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that exclusively and partially breastfed infants be supplemented daily with 400 International Units of this nutrient.

People age 50 and older: This group is at increased risk for vitamin D insufficiency. As people age, their skin is less efficient in synthesizing the vitamin and the kidney is less able to convert it to its active hormone form.

People with limited sun exposure: This population includes the homebound, those living in northern latitudes and individuals who wear long robes and head coverings.

People with dark skin: Greater amounts of the pigment melanin result in darker skin and reduce the skin's ability to produce vitamin D from sunlight.

People with fat malabsorption: Vitamin D requires some dietary fat in the gut for absorption. Individuals who have a reduced ability to absorb dietary fat might require supplements. Fat malabsorption is associated with conditions including pancreatic enzyme deficiency, Crohn's disease, cystic fibrosis, celiac disease, surgical removal of part of the stomach or intestines and some forms of liver disease.

People who are obese: Individuals with a body mass index equal to or greater than 30 typically have a low concentration of the vitamin in the blood.

Source: National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements (ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp)

---

Weblink

"Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin D," National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements (ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp)

"Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin D and Calcium," a project of the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine (www.iom.edu/cms/3788/61170.aspx)

"Demographic Differences and Trends of Vitamin D Insufficiency in the U.S. Population, 1988-2004," abstract, Archives of Internal Medicine, March 23 (archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/169/6/626)