Here’s a recent article and recommendations on the tradeoffs of sun exposure for vitamin D versus the risk of skin cancer: www.sciencedirect.com/…/S1326020023052949
tl;dr risk and benefit is based on skin colour primarily. Pale skinned people need very little sun exposure to get sufficient Vitamin D in most cases while being at much higher risk of skin cancer. For dark skinned people, the situation is reversed (need more sun exposure and are at less risk of skin cancer).
ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 day ago
Article suggesting that the body should never have any sort of tan because that’s dangerous
Meanwhile everyone is vitamin d deficient, developing auto immune diseases from low levels
Animals seek out sunlight to sit in, look at your cat or dog
You don’t need to go overboard cooking yourself for more than a few minutes but advocating for literally no sun exposure is so stupid?
dgriffith@aussie.zone 1 day ago
In Australia, to get a sufficient amount of vitamin D you just need to be outside for a few minutes a day.
Incidental exposure is enough. No deliberate cooking or tanning or seeking out the sun is needed.
ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 day ago
That’s the claim atd I used to echo it, but with near daily walks (weather permitting) plus hikes when weekends permit, plus gardening, I’m still deficient. Same story for almost everyone I work and exercise with.
There’s either more to it or the claim doesn’t hold up empirically
hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
Tasmania enters the chat. As repeated on The Health Report some podcats ago, you can lie naked outdoors for hours in winter and not get anough sun exposure to impact D levels.
Australia is a big place
tgxn@lemmy.tgxn.net 1 day ago
Any more than 5 minutes results in third degree burns.