Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
NEW ORLEANS _ The value of vitamin D is undisputed: It helps strengthen bones, avoid a disease called rickets, and may even prevent muscle weakness and aches and certain types of cancer.
But exposure to vitamin D via the sun has been hotly disputed.
And Dr. Marianne O'Donoghue, of Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, was not about to change the mantra endorsed by her fellow dermatologists when she spoke at their annual meeting.
While relating that she actually had low levels of the vitamin _ and even her colleagues concede that many of us are also deficient _ she turned her speech into an analysis of where to get the vitamin's benefits without increased exposure to the sun _ through diet and taking vitamin D supplements.
(Foods that have good levels of the vitamin are dairy products like cheese, butter, cream, and milk, and sources such as fish, oysters, fortified cereals and margarine.)
But dermatologists adamantly oppose spending even a small amount of time in the sun without sunblock, the recommendation last year of a Boston University researcher and professor, Dr. Michael Holick, in his book, "The UV Advantage" (ibooks, inc., New York.)
In an interview last year on ABC's "Good Morning America," Holick explained his point of view.
"I think that a little bit of safe sun exposure is good for your health. It will provide you with your vitamin D requirement, it will decrease your risk of bone disease, Type I diabetes, many common cancers, and even hypertension and heart disease. And, in fact, in the book that I wrote, I have the Holick's safe formula for sun exposure, so, I could tell you anywhere on the globe, any time of the year, how much safe sun to get to satisfy your body's requirement for vitamin D. You should never get a sunburn and, after that safe sun exposure, wear good sun protection."
He considers up to 10 minutes without sunblock to be safe, up to two to three times a week, without "significantly" increasing the risk of skin cancer.
Vitamin D levels can be evaluated with a blood test, and Holick believes people should be tested annually.
He also thinks that indoor tanning facilities "represent a viable alternative to natural sunshine for stimulating your production of vitamin D," but warns that the radiation exposure is the same as natural sunlight and requires the same precautions.
Interestingly, a paper presented by doctors from the Medical College of Georgia, at the conference where O'Donoghue spoke, advocated the use of sunless tanning products because a survey they conducted found that those using such products decreased the use of tanning bed facilities.
Holick's position, however, led to an enormous backlash against him by colleagues and by his university employer.
And his ties to the tanning industry have been questioned, and were again questioned at the conference, where members of the audience referred to him as a tanning industry "consultant."
Holick has denied that his research is influenced by any financial conflict and told The Scientist that the Indoor Tanning Association is "not telling me the kind of research to do."
And while the American Academy is completely at odds with Holick _ he claims the association is too cozy with the sunscreen industry _ its advocacy of multivitamin supplements and food intake seems an impossible equation, in Holick's estimation.
He says we need 1,000 international units of D daily, and that would mean more than two multivitamin pills a day, which he says would carry an overload of vitamin A. The vitamin D supplements can also be dangerous, he says, if taken in large doses.
Carolyn Susman writes for the Palm Beach Post. E-mail: carolyn_susman@pbpost.com
Cox News Service
