Vitamin D efficiency study referenced in NYT article

lynninnj wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 8:59 am

This particular source has a chart but to be honest, I am not sure if there is an overlap.

https://www.herschel-infrared.co.uk/how ... ared-heat/

It would appear that a quality IR heater emits all wavelengths of IR including NIR. But I would want a physicist to verify this before I sat near one to get NIR.

The sure source is the sun, even if you can only get outside 10 minutes per day on a sunny day during your lunch hour.

Developed countries are in the midst of a great experiment. Non-tungsten lighting and E-glass have eliminated the major source of NIR for most people. In the US, the average time spent indoors is 93%. A mere 7% of the population's time is spent outdoors. Time will tell whether this has a major impact on the rate of chronic diseases.

I've always been a person who loved being outdoors. Since this information was brought to my attention, I am making an effort to get sunshine every day.

So, without sufficient exposure to NIR from the sun, cells have a deficit of melatonin. The body also produces less vitamin D due to lack of exposure to the sun, but this is only a marker for the real problem - insufficient intracellular melatonin.

This is really interesting! The one thing it makes me wonder about, though, is the people near the North Pole, such as the Inuit. It's been long assumed that they're able to go without much sun exposure because they get Vitamin D from eating so much fatty meat... but would they be getting melatonin for their cellular function that way as well? If not, how are they not struggling from lack of NIR exposure?

latskogkatt wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:19 pm

but would they be getting melatonin for their cellular function that way as well?

No.

latskogkatt wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:19 pm

If not, how are they not struggling from lack of NIR exposure?

Ever been to Alaska in the summer?

But you bring up a good point. People living in far northern and southern latitudes should make sure their artificial light sources provide NIR in winter months. As well as US citizens living at other latitudes because they are on average outdoors only 7% of the time.

ChicagoGranny wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 7:14 am

lynninnj wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 28, 2022 5:30 pm

So Granny- I should get out the infrared space heaters this winter?

You would need to check the wavelengths of the light. Near-infrared light is wavelengths from 800 to 2,500 nm. The part of the light you can see (visible light) is not NIR.

Infrared light is, by definition, .... infrared, near or far, they're both invisible to the human eye, though there's some far red in most IR space heaters.
NearIR s more commonly defined as 750-1400nm far IR is the heat that FLIR cameras see, in the 3-8 micrometer range range.
And just for 'reference sake, : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared

ChicagoGranny wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:44 am

I studied this science early this year and write by memory. The basic principle is correct, but some of my details may be a bit off. If you have an interest and time, MedCram has some good information on these processes. It's deeply scientific, but they do a good job of summarizing for laymen.

Is this what you're on about?

AUTHORSHIP

S. Zimmerman contributed to the conception and drafting of the manuscript. R.J. Reiter contributed to discussion and editing of the manuscript.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Scott Zimmerman is CEO of Silas Inc. which is developing lighting solutions based at least in part on the models discussed in this review. Prof. Reiter has no conflict of interest.

https://www.melatonin-research.net/inde ... iew/19/208
or maybe https://lifespa.com/health-topics/aging ... melatonin/

Got any peer reviewed studies from pubmed, NIH, etc?

Ugh

It’s unfortunate when such blatent conflicts of interest are present. Most folks don’t notice that sort of info.

Thank you, PR, for pointing out that important little tidbit.
Once again, we have confirmation of the huge proportion of "medical
research" that is based more on profit than on science.

palerider wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 7:54 pm

Is this what you're on about?

https://www.melatonin-research.net/inde ... iew/19/208
or maybe https://lifespa.com/health-topics/aging ... melatonin/

Got any peer reviewed studies from pubmed, NIH, etc?

Nope, I've never seen those two articles.

My information comes from MedCram. They list all the peer-reviewed articles their information is based on. Occasionally, they refer to a study on a preprint server. They point this out and issue a caution.

(I see the anti-capitalism cynics are here in force. Too bad, many could learn some things to improve their health.)

Well, I've already set my circadian rhythm for the day with a dawn walk letting UV photons hit my suprachiasmatic nucleus. Now, I'm going out in the sun for twenty minutes to let NIR beef up my intracellular melatonin. Y'all have a nice day.

For those with sensitive skin, you do not have to be in direct sunlight to absorb NIR. Green plants reflect NIR very well. You can sit in the shade.

This fact is now thought to be the reason people who sit or walk through greenery feel better. It's not the greenery per se. It's the NIR reflected from the greenery.

lynninnj wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 8:02 pm

Ugh

It’s unfortunate when such blatent conflicts of interest are present. Most folks don’t notice that sort of info.

I don't see this as an "ugh" at all. I see it as a big positive. What takes scientific discoveries and turns them into positives for humans? Capitalism.

Would you rather that NO products come onto the market to help us improve our health?

I guess I am just naturally suspicious of those who are set to make a buck on research.

You are right about capitalism but still it should be basically the first thing you read, not scribbled at the bottom. I wouldn't have noticed the conflict of interest were it not for the previous poster.

lynninnj wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:10 am

You are right about capitalism but still it should be basically the first thing you read, not scribbled at the bottom. I wouldn't have noticed the conflict of interest were it not for the previous poster.

Just to be perfectly clear, those two links were posted by Pale Rider.

I only post links to studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Thanks.

And to be honest I don’t have access to the New York Times article to have found the pup med.

I still greatly appreciate your input.

Sounds like an interesting article. Unfortunately I can't read it bc I don't have a NYT subscription.

sleepyhead22 wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 3:33 pm

Sounds like an interesting article. Unfortunately I can't read it bc I don't have a NYT subscription.

You don't need a subscription to read it. They use some simple paywall (in your browser or IP address, etc.) to limit you to some number of articles per some period of time (e.g., 3 articles per day). So, just try clearing your cookies or renew your DHCP request to your provider, or something like that, and you should be able to see it.

McSleepy