Slashdot Mirror

https://www.grassrootshealth.n...

And for decades the recommended supplementation level has been too low.

Assange may well not be around for much longer without access to sunlight or at least supplementing with vitamin D. The article says: "Asked about his health, Assange said anyone would be affected by spending two years in a building with no outside areas or direct sunlight, a complaint he has made several times before."

According to these, he probably needs on the order of 2000-5000 IU Vitamin D3 daily as supplements:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...
https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...

He might need more for a while to catch up if he is already severely vitamin D deficient. The US RDA for vitamin D for most adults is about 5X-10X too low, so generally you don't get enough from food. Many indoor workers are vitamin D deficient these days, given we usually work, play, and commute inside something with windows that block UV-B radiation. Our carpets maybe won't fade from filtered sunlight, but our health will.

However, we don't know all the compounds that the human skin makes in response to sunlight. He might want to look into using special purpose UV-B lamps as well. Mercola talks about that:
http://articles.mercola.com/si...

There are some rare health conditions like sarcoidosis that make vitamin D supplements problematical, so if he has any special health issues like that, he should talk to a knowledgeable doctor before supplementing.

Yes, good points about the importance of good nutrition for recovery (although now might not be the best time to focus on cleaning out sequestered toxins, although a good long-term goal). Most mainstream medicine pays at best lip service to nutrition. Omega 3 fatty acids might help rebuild the brain, given the brain is mostly fat. Eggs have some as you say, but there are probably better choices. This is worthy of lot of further research to learn all that is needed. Don't count on a typical MD including even a brain specialist to know much about this.

Bear in mind there are different kinds of strokes which might need somewhat different nutrition depending on the causes and other complications. Specifically, clogged arteries causing one kind of stroke probably need a somewhat different approach than rebuilding damaged arteries that caused a different kind of bleeding stroke, since there is a balance of processes going on to strengthen or tear down the walls of arteries. But in either case, the body can't do the right thing without the needed building blocks and the control of inflammation caused by poor nutrition.

Places to start from my searching just now, but do a lot of research yourself (a long path for most US Americans to learn about eating healthy despite all the misinformaiton out there...):
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/...
(Different stroke type, but maybe some overlap:) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.stroke.org/site/Doc...
http://www.strokeassociation.o...

Other things can help too to reduce inflammation and then physical therapy: http://healyourbrain.wordpress...

Check her vitamin D level regularly as that is involved with inflammation management. Here is a good standard to work towards:
http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...

I've posted lots of other general nutrition links in the past, especially by Dr. Fuhrman. But again do your own research on what is best since a lot of his general diet advice is more for people with clogged arteries and at risk of ischemic stroke than for those with weakened arteries as he focuses on salt-restriction instead to minimize the risk of hemorrhagic stroke. There are processes in the body that both tear down and build up arteries, and they probably must be kept in balance to avoid both kinds of strokes, even though most US Americans are far more at risk of strokes from clogged arteries of the building up process going too far (from both inflammation and bad fats). Links about stroke from him though:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disea...
http://www.diseaseproof.com/ar...
http://www.diseaseproof.com/ar...

I see a whole bunch of books on Amazon on "Stroke Recovery". Probably all sorts of good stuff there.

I agree with Richo's comment here that it is too soon to focus on fancy communications gear and you need to focus on just the basics (like yes. no, pain, thirsty, etc.):
http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...

That said, here is what Hawking uses:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-...

Also other tools discussed previously on Slashdot may be helpful in the long term:

http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...

Of course, that goes for most indoor workers in general, from lack of direct sunlight. But it might be a bit more extreme for those working underground, who might be less likely to take lunch breaks up in the sunlight.

And people are dying early now due to the rich-poor divide. So why not fix that now?
http://overpopulationisamyth.c...

Also, such research ignores the low-hanging fruit of better nutrition as I mention here: http://science.slashdot.org/co...

How to get healthier for most people in the Western world: https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...
http://www.bluezones.com/
http://www.motherjones.com/env...
http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...
https://www.lef.org/magazine/m...

But it is hard to make huge profits from suggesting people live well and clean up their environment and thus prevent and cure disease... There are a lot more profits to keeping people on patented drugs by just treating chronic "conditions" or reducing the pains associated with them.

To be clear, I'm not against anti-aging research or genomics. I'm just saying, we as a society and scientific community are often ignoring the obvious well-proven paths to better health and extended life-span and diminished "frail span" for most people.

Of course, genomics also has a dark side -- the potential for customized plagues that may destroy humanity in the next few decades, like I worry about here: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

So, I'd suggest we build healthier and more secure and equitable communities for everyone right now, before the plague potential of genomics fully emerges, in order to have the community spirit needed to deal with the dark side of such innovation.

That all may well have some truth. Also, many decades ago, social roles and courtship procedures were more clearly defined (as "manners", and also religious systems). So, it may have been easier back then for Aspies to marry at a younger age with less unstructured social situations to navigate?

Still, another factor could be that vitamin D deficiency may also cause autism, and I wonder if older parents may spend less time outdoors in the sun and so have their young child outdoors less? Older skin also has more trouble making vitamin D. And certainly many Aspies may have intense indoor hobbies and jobs.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
http://www.psychologytoday.com...

This recent study somewhat questions the link through for mothers and kids though (except they cite the population mean which itself seems to be low, which may confound the study IMHO):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Contrast with supplements needed to adjust for our indoor lifestyle:
http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...

Maybe also of interest on the implications of living in a world with so many artificial toxins in the air and food (like lead and artificial colors) -- where a lack of things like vitamin D and iodine make it harder for kids to deal with the toxins:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Anyway, a complex topic, with pros and cons about everything relative to different situations.

If you are dealing with cancer recovery, some ideas:

"Ketogenic Diet May Be Key to Cancer Recovery"
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/03/10/ketogenic-diet.aspx
"The premise is that since cancer cells need glucose to thrive, and carbohydrates turn into glucose in your body, then cutting out carbs literally starves the cancer cells."

People who live in traditional societies eating a traditional vegetable heavy diet and getting lots of sunlight and exercise also seem to have less lung cancer even when they smoke.
"Eat For Health - The Anti-Cancer Diet"
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx

Also look into vitamin D:
http://www.naturalnews.com/036597_vitamin_D_anti-cancer_drug.html
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

And iodine:
http://theiodineproject.webs.com/cancerandiodine.htm

Making these sorts of changes is not quite the same as an Android body btw, mentioned in Star Trek episode "I, Mudd" as something Uhura wants), but at least it might help get to the point where you could have one if you wanted -- related to out other conversation:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3892785&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=44082521

I can see you project an optimistic sense of humor about it all, which can be a healthful thing:
http://www.humorproject.com/bookstore/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10116744
"Laughter has many clinical benefits, promoting beneficial physiological changes and an overall sense of well-being. Humor even has long-term effects that strengthen the effectiveness of the immune system."

So, laughing is probably better healthwise than a buzz from a "droud"? :-)
http://laughteryoga.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEfjVnYkqM

For nerve damage, vitamin B12 and omegas 3s. See also my comments here on mercury and herbs:
http://aaronwinborn.com/blogs/aaron/monday-was-my-46th-birthday-and-likely-my-last-anything-awesome-i-should-try-after-i-die

Yeah, stairs can be a real life-saver for many -- to get some regular exercise, which moves the lymph around, which boosts the immune system and the body's natural self-cleaning mechanisms. Walking outside in the sunshine helps, too (although of course how you need to manage your DVT and clot risks however competent doctors recommend):
http://www.bluezones.com/

For some inspiration, a movie that is up for free on YouTube for a while for the two year anniversary (again, adjusted for DVT):
http://www.fatsickandnearlydead.com/
http://www.rebootwithjoe.com/

And also, here is a movie (and book) on how clogged arteries can limit blood flow to the body's cells, creating a huge variety of health issues from that common cause (perhaps the root cause of most chronic illnesses in the US today as "diseases of affluence" such as you may be experiencing):
http://www.ravediet.com/

Also ask, "What Color is Your Diet?"
http://www.amazon.com/W

unless they have a contraindication like sarcoidosis: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/

Humans are adapted to live in the sunshine. The US RDA for vitamin D is way too low for most adults, especially ones who spend most of their time indoors these days (which is most everyone in the USA): http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation

It's not surprise Assange has lung issues if he has become vitamin D deficient: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/pneumonia/

If you have allergies, look into adding more phytonutrients to your diet along with the vitamin D.
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/Other.aspx
"If allergies are the problem, have you ever thought why your immune system is so sensitive and reactive to normal environmental substances?
    Patients often state, “I struggled for years with pain and fatigue, until I finally found out fibromyalgia was my problem.” Does giving it a name establish a cause? Of course not. If you give the problem a name, patients may feel a little relieved that they now know what is wrong, but it usually does not help or solve their condition. The accuracy of the diagnosis is not as important when compared to the accuracy and effectiveness of the therapeutic recommendations for the problem.
    On a practical level, the name of a disease doesn’t even matter that much. It is uncovering the cause of the disease that matters. When most of the causes are uncovered and removed, the body can manifest a recovery, all by itself. Most people are not taught, and they fail to realize that the vast majority of diseases occur because they are earned. They are earned by the causes of disease that stress their body to the point where their genetic weaknesses have a chance to be expressed."

I used to believe stuff like that about vitamin D and minimal sun exposure of hands in the winter, which I was taught in grade school. It turns out to be wrong. You may want to do some more research on this topic before making such confident (and incorrect) pronouncements on this topic in the future. See for example: http://gizmodo.com/5823058/tanning-can-cause-cancer-but-not-tanning-could-cause-a-lot-worse

Or from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2839537
"Sunlight has long been recognized as a major provider of vitamin D for humans; radiation in the UVB (290-315 nm) portion of the solar spectrum photolyzes 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin to previtamin D3, which, in turn, is converted by a thermal process to vitamin D3. Latitude and season affect both the quantity and quality of solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, especially in the UVB region of the spectrum, but little is known about how these influence the ability of sunlight to synthesize vitamin D3 in skin. A model has been developed to evaluate the effect of seasonal and latitudinal changes on the potential of sunlight to initiate cutaneous production of vitamin D3. Human skin or [3 alpha-3H]7-dehydrocholesterol exposed to sunlight on cloudless days in Boston (42.2 degrees N) from November through February produced no previtamin D3. In Edmonton (52 degrees N) this ineffective winter period extended from October through March. Further south (34 degrees N and 18 degrees N), sunlight effectively photoconverted 7-dehydrocholesterol to previtamin D3 in the middle of winter. These results quantify the dramatic influence of changes in solar UVB radiation on cutaneous vitamin D3 synthesis and indicate the latitudinal increase in the length of the "vitamin D winter" during which dietary supplementation of the vitamin may be advisable."

A fair-skinned person in a skimpy bathing suit under noon-day near-equatorial summer sun can produce on the order of 20,000 IU vitamin D (which self-limits in the skin when from UV) in about twenty minutes. A dark-skinned person will take a couple of hours to reach that level under those conditions. As the above paper suggests, in winter father from the equator, your skin will produce essentially no vitamin D. Reference:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-us/our-staff0/john-j-cannell-md/

Given the above, the US RDA of about 600 IU D3 per day for an adult of any size is just bad medicine, as is setting a tolerable upper limit of 4000 IU D3 daily (when that "limit" is closer to what the avergae adult needs). That is why you won't get enough vitamin D from food, because the RDA is about 10X too low for most people. A better recommendation:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation

With our increasing indoors lifestyle, people became more and more vitamin D deficient -- even living in sunny places like Arizona or Texas. That was made worse by the fear mongering by the dermatology profession (with dermatologists as whole causing on the order of 10X the cancer they prevented plus a host of other health issues like autism with their well-meant but terrible advice).

Studies have shown a link between nutrition and depression. See, as one example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738337/
"Few people are aware of the connection between nutrition and depression while they easily understand the connection between nutritional deficiencies and physical illness. Depression is more typically thought of as strictly biochemical-based or emotionally-rooted. On the contrary, nutrition can play a key role in the onset as well as severity and duration of depression. Many of the easily noticeable food patterns that p

Interesting points, thanks. I replied to another of your replies suggesting it is harder to globally escape the US ideological influence than the NK ideological influence, so I won't repeat that here.

But I am curious, what do people in the USA you know think about your move? Do they understand it? Do they accept that the day-to-day quality of life (overall happiness) is better for most people in Sweden than the USA? When you talk about the Swedish policies about work or health care, do they accept that the USA is messed up in those areas? Or do they just politely not understand what you are talking about (perhaps because they are in a US ideological bubble)? And if, for some reason they do understand what you are saying, what do they think of the prospects for similar proven successful policies in the USA?

Still, there are fundamental demographic differences between Sweden and the USA, so no doubt there are arguments for differences. BTW, look into supplemental vitamin D living so far north of the equator:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation

Example: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/research-reveals-link-between-low-vitamin-d-and-military-suicide/
"Research published this past week is the first to report that low vitamin D levels are associated with an increased risk for suicide in US military personnel."

Seasonal Affective Disorder is well known to be correlated with low sunlight levels:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/mental-health-and-learning-disorders/depression/

So, I can believe blue morning and red evening would help as mentioned in the article, but I would expect that the participants are getting vitamin d deficient too, because the RDAs are generally several times too low (at least in the USA, not sure about Russia). See also: http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation

You might want to look into vitamin D deficiency. Your body uses vitamin D to help regulate the inflammatory process, both to start it up and, more importantly in this case, to shut it down.

Example anecdote: http://www.healthboards.com/boards/irritable-bowel-syndrome-ibs/824836-vitamin-d-helped-my-ibs-read-please.html

Note that what that person called "high dose" vitamin D may actually be closer to what people really need because the RDA may be 5X-10X too low for many adults; see:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

So, your restricted diet style may be compensating for vitamin D deficiency, and so put you at risk of getting other nutrient deficiencies? With that said, I could also readily believe your gut bacteria has adapted to such a diet and complain if you changed it.

However, you may also have something like a sulfur-related allergy that might lead to problems with brassicas like cabbage (which may be somewhat independent of other issues). Even if you can't eat the fiber, you might also want to look into vegetable juicing to at least get the phytonutrients. There are also powdered formulations of phytonutrients, but I doubt they are as good.

You might want to also consider a pro-biotic of some sort, perhaps even something like "Primal Defense" if your doctor OKs it (that particular one is a bit controversial, so do your own research on it, and there are certainly less controversial ones). Gross as it may sound, you could also look into "fecal transplants".

Good luck!

"And you only need five minutes of sun light to completely restore vitamin D levels in the body. kids stand outside waiting on the bus longer than that."

I know that is what we have all been taught in school in past years. The problem is it is not true. Following that advice will lead to severe health problems. Here are better recommendations:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation

The following is closer to the truth, based roughly on what Dr. John Cannell writes on his website:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-us/our-staff0/john-j-cannell-md/john-cannell/

For a light skinned adult human in a (skimpy) bathing suit under peak noon-day sun, that person will produce about 20,000 IU vitamin D (about 30X the US RDA) in about twenty minutes. For someone with dark skin, that will take two to four hours in a bathing suit. Any excess vitamin D beyond that will be broken down into other compounds that we don't yet fully understand the significance of (but may have health value). Meanwhile, the body slowly charges its fat soluble stores of vitamin D. But you may need to do that for months to saturate the body to the point where it will have a six to nine months supply (maybe longer or shorter) where you could go the winter without supplements.

For about half the year in more Northern latitudes, your body will not make any vitamin D at any time of day because the angle of the sun through the atmosphere means too much UV-B is absorbed for it to have much affect on your skin. Similarly, outside of peak sun hours, there is much less vitamin D produced.

So, while I was taught the same thing you said growing up, that even in winter your face or hands would produce enough vitamin D to get by, it just is not true. And that has serious implications. For example:
"Blacks more likely to die from cancer because of vitamin D deficiency, study finally admits"
http://www.naturalnews.com/036181_blacks_vitamin_D_deficiency_cancer.html

And also:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/introduction/

And on top of that, dermatologists and those who would sell cosmetics and sun screens scare people about sun exposure without telling them to supplement with vitamin D if they avoid the sun. And even if they told them to supplement, the US RDA is about ten times too low for adults (and in any case, you need a blood test to be sure of levels as different people respond differently to supplements). For children the RDA is also fairly low. For infants the RDA is OK. Basically, the RDA is almost the same for all these ages, but since vitamin D needs correspond somewhat to weight, that is why the child and adult levels are too low.

Conflict-of-interest is one reason the US government RDAs and other nutritional recommendations are often (but not always) so wrong, as discussed here with the USDA's recent absurd recommendations to eat meat every day:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/news-usda-dont-go-meatless-not-even-one-day-a-week.html

So that is why keeping kids indoor more will destroy their health (unless they take supplemental vitamin D, and even then, we don't fully understand all the supplementation issues). Many schools have already removed recess outdoors in order to have more time for in-chair paper-pushing academic work, and yet ironically the lack of exercise and sunlight may have decreased test scores as it decreases a child's general physical and mental health.

"Schools are not going anywhere. The need for social interaction while learning is common to all peop

I'll copy it here:

By the way, here are some key useful health related links, and these are some of the issues I'd like to use such a system to discuss, refine, rebut, or promote.

On healthy diet:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
http://www.amazon.com/Food-Revolution-Your-Diet-World/dp/1573244872
http://www.amazon.com/Diet-New-America-John-Robbins/dp/0915811812

Knife and blender skills for eating better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RhfAE6McrM
http://greensmoothierevolution.com/

On medically supervised fasting (both water and juice) and health:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/healthy-food-dr-fuhrman-on-fasting....
http://www.healthpromoting.com/why-water-fasting
http://www.fatsickandnearlydead.com/

And on getting enough vitamin D (in decreasing levels of recommended supplements):
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-to-get-your-vitamin-d...
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/vitamin_D_recommendations.aspx

On vitamin D and pregnancy:
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20100504/high-doses-of-vitamin-d-may-cut-...
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions...

On autism and health care in general:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_...

Understanding about good and bad fats:
http://peakperformance.runnersworld.com/2011/05/may-9-the-great-fat-deba...
http://nutsci.org/2011/05/04/the-great-fat-debate/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21515108

Mental health:
http://books.google.com/books?id=bCuC2H-6k_8C
http://books.google.com/books?id=RKZreNYKNHQC
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/06/what-makes-us-happy/...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/dobbs-orchid-gene

Treadmill workstations for computer users (but be sure to get vitamin D being indoors so much):
http://www.engadget.com/2005/06/08/the-treadmill-workstation/
http://www.squidoo.com/wal

Another relative here, in the USA. :-) Send me an email if you want, my address is easy to find.

She was my father's aunt IIRC. I only met her once that I can recall, when my father and I visited her home around 1985. But she might have been at some get together or other other times we visited that does not stick out in my mind. I don't remember her speaking English and I do not know that much Dutch. They talked and I went for a walk around the area. I was overdressed in a overcoat and hat, and some neighborhood kids pointed at me and said "gangster" and chased me a bit, and I went into a store to avoid them. So, that's mostly what I remember of that visit. :-)

I feel diet and lifestyle (and the extent to which genes may interact with interests and habits) have a lot to do with this though. So does very early life experiences. Even being born premature might have had some value, in that the slower we grow perhaps the slower we age? Not having kids may have been a factor too? Also, there is a lot to be said for a positive outlook on life however you get that.

Related resources on healthy diet:
http://www.amazon.com/Food-Revolution-Your-Diet-World/dp/1573244872
http://www.amazon.com/Diet-New-America-John-Robbins/dp/0915811812
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

Fasting (like for lent) which often connects to religion (and eating less in the past from being less wealthy) can also help:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/healthy-food-dr-fuhrman-on-fasting.html

And on getting enough vitamin D (and she was out and about plus maybe got some from herring she liked):
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-to-get-your-vitamin-d/vitamin-d-supplementation/
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/vitamin_D_recommendations.aspx

Understanding about good and bad fats:
http://peakperformance.runnersworld.com/2011/05/may-9-the-great-fat-debate-does-the-total-fat-in-your-diet-matter.html
http://nutsci.org/2011/05/04/the-great-fat-debate/
http://www.adajournal.org/article/S0002-8223(11)00291-4/fulltext

Mental health:
http://books.google.com/books?id=bCuC2H-6k_8C
http://books.google.com/books?id=RKZreNYKNHQC
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/06/what-makes-us-happy/7439/
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/dobbs-orchid-gene

Treadmill workstations for computer users (but be sure to get vitamin D being indoors so much):
http://www.engadget.com/2005/06/08/the-treadmill-workstation/
http://www.squidoo.com/walkingwhileworking

Community level ideas for health:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-fuhrman-md/vitamin-d-recommendations_b_800468.html
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/vitamin_D_recommendations.aspx
http://grassrootshealth.net/
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/

And on escaping from a "pleasure trap":
http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

And on walking while using the computer:
http://www.squidoo.com/walkingwhileworking

"I thought that if I could just bring free or very low cost t'ai chi classes to less affluent communities, it would help with some of those readily treatable diseases that were going for the most part untreated because of the expense of drugs and lack of access to health care."

Wow, that all sounds wonderful. My wife (who likes Taoism) and I tried some Tai Chi classes a long time ago and my wife liked them especially (they were a little hard for us to get to though at the time). I used to do Aikido and first had a Tai Chi class at a university, like you say. There is one local Tai Chi class not too far from where we live now, but they meet are too early in the morning for her unfortunately. She does Yoga instead though.

On health, while exercise is great for improving health overall, it has mixed results for weight loss, as active exercise tends to make people hungry. But I could imagine Tai Chi is different because it is getting you more in touch with your body, and that is one key to health and eating well.

I lost about fifty pounds (and 20+ BP points) over the last year and a half through a combination of advice similar to what Dr. Joel Fuhrman suggests (eat more vegetables fruits, and beans mainly), plus 5000 IU Vitamin D3 daily. I also much earlier did some fasting (both juice and water fasts) which Dr. Fuhrman also wrote about. But fasting really involves changing your diet to be useful, although it can be useful for resensitizing taste buds (one reasons successful major religions tend to have regular periods of fasting perhaps). I also used a treadmill workstation more in front of the computer (the treadmill sadly shorted out recently though).

Here are related links about stuff that helped me:

"How to escape The Pleasure Trap"
http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

"Dr. Fuhrman's Nutritarian Pyramid"
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

"About vitamin D"
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/
http://grassrootshealth.net/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-fuhrman-md/vitamin-d-recommendations_b_800468.html

While almost everyone agrees most people in the USA need more vitamin D, there is some disagreement about optimal blood levels, and whether that would differ based on ethnicity -- it's a field that needs more research. The three vitamin D links above go from high to low recommendations (all are higher than the new US RDA for adults though).

Iodine has helped my health too (eating more seaweed especially), and supplemental omega-3s, and making green smoothies, and a good multivitamin.

Unfortunately, it can be a bit more expensive to eat this way with fruits and vegetables year round (especially organic ones, but organic is not essential even if good compared to the health benefits of vegetables over refined foods). I talked with one person working at a grocery store who was about to go in for a second heart operation about eating more vegetables, but he said they were too expensive. But insurance pays big bucks for the heart operations. It's a crazy system.

Related:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/treating-the-cause-not-the-illness/
"In 1965, in an impoverished rural county in the Mississippi Delta, the pioneering physician Jack Geiger helped found one of the nationâ(TM)s first community health centers. Many of the children Geiger treated were seriously malnourished, so he began writing âoeprescriptionsâ for food â

I applaud your caution, but I lost about 50 pounds following that sort of advice, and feel a lot better, and have kept it off easily. His book is probably the most scientifically based one out there... YMMV.
"Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss"
http://books.google.com/books?id=CX8huSU0n8AC

Getting a good blender and making green smoothies helped a lot too.
http://greensmoothierevolution.com/

Dr. Fuhrman's approach can cure most type 2 diabetes too, but I doubt you will believe that either: :-)
"Dr. Fuhrman Cures Diabetes - But Drug Companies Object "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46_GInjBeQU

But that is more and more common knowledge, except among most doctors and CEOs of drug companies:
http://www.rawfor30days.com/index4.html

His approach can also reverse most heart disease... Although others can do that too, as well. Just Google on reverse heart disease.

Is Dr. Fuhrman's approach perfect? No, I think it could be improved in a couple of ways. For example, I think he is a bit low on Vitamin D and quite a bit low on iodine. Others on that:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation
http://www.iodine4health.com/

Iodine especially is a potentially big issue because if you eliminate salt and dairy as he suggests, those are two major sources of iodine in the US diet, and you need to replace that with a multivitamin or eating seaweed or other things. If you were under his care, he would no doubt check for that, but for someone following his advice from a book (myself included) it is easy to mess up on iodine. I brought that to his attention through his forum but he was somewhat dismissive of it, sadly.

I also think Dr. Fuhrman could prioritize his approach a bit better, and also that there may be issues about metabolic types and individual biochemistry that may come into play. It's also not clear if salt is quite as bad as he says it is.

In general, I think he has done a great job, but no one knows everything about such a complex topic. And his active practice probably also limits his time for additional study. I also agree with you that financial conflicts (he sells branded food products, even though he gives some of the proceeds to nutritional research) muddy the water. But that is also a big issue in our society in general, and we need something like some mix of a gift economy or basic income or 3D printing and/or great central planning to move beyond it.

But overall, he's probably one of the best out there, after having read tons of stuff by different people in my own quest for health for myself and my family.

Dr. Andrew Weil has better holistic advice, but not quite so good nutrition advice. He is also more knowledgeable on herbal remedies:
http://www.drweil.com/

Dr. Mark Hyman probably has better overall advice about autism:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html

We are in the midst of a revolution in nutritional knowledge and the connection to health, but sadly most people are in denial about it. And there are, as you say, so many vested interests and conflicts of interest that it is hard to know who to trust.

But as I quote here from Marcia Angell, the problem may be even worse in mainstream science:

And get probably 75% of medical issues diagnosed and cured, as they are mostly nutritional deficiencies... :-)
    http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
    http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
    http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

Sure, Omega-3s and Iodine are important too:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/oct/17/prisonsandprobation.ukcrime
    http://www.iodine4health.com/
    http://www.bluezones.com/

As is a good night's sleep, friends, family, a connection to that which is beyond us, meaningful work, daily exercise walking and such, and that kind of stuff. And obviously avoid smoking, excessive alcohol, and obvious environmental toxins at work and play.

The focus on magic bullets is unfortunate. As is a focus on diagnosing things like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes that are mainly signs of vegetable deficiency disease and lack of vitamin D (and to a lesser extent those other issues). Most health rests on the basics. It's true that there are exotic genetic diseases and so on, but what causes the most chronic misery and early death in the industrialized words is these basic nutritional (and sunlight) problems.

Still, for cheap testing, this may be the future through using a paper-with-chemicals test and a cell phone, and such tests could help detect nutritional deficiencies:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/george_whitesides_a_lab_the_size_of_a_postage_stamp.html

Of course, there is not much profit in actually preventing or curing disease, so most of the money pours into diagnosing and treating what are really symptoms of nutritional and lifestyle disorders... It's been that way in part since the misguided Flexner Report:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report

But yes, this is still a great initiative -- even if it misses the obvious. But there is so little that is obvious (as is said in the Skills of Xanadu): :-)
    http://books.google.com/books?id=wpuJQrxHZXAC&pg=PA51

And of course, in our widely dysfunctional and dying culture, where people mostly eat either long dead carrion (aged factory farmed meat) or ground up long-dead plants (flour and sugar), and much of our entire cultural socio-economic infrastructure is geared around getting everyone to embrace this death-eater cult, it is no metaphorical surprise that the result of being a death eater is that you die early... Related:
    http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
    http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-the-food-pyramid-of-the-insane.html

Do you really need a "tricorder" to diagnose death-eater disease?

Thanks for the reply. Putting in VItamin D and CVID into Google gets me this as a top result:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18451650
"Patients with CVID may present asymptomatic vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D and VDRs play an important role in the innate immune system and modulate Toll-like receptor-related responses. Delay in diagnosis may predispose these patients not only to irreparable bone loss but also to infections, and autoimmune and malignant disorders, thus emphasizing the importance of prompt intervention."

As a start, be sure to get your Vitamin D level checked, and get the actual number, and compare it against these two suggestions (the 40-60 ng/mL range):
    http://www.grassrootshealth.net/
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
    http://www.heartscanblog.org/2009/01/why-rda-for-vitamin-d.html

A slightly lower target:
    http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/vitamin_D_recommendations.aspx

Basically, your immune system needs vitamin D to "trigger and arm" the immune system:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7379094/Vitamin-D-triggers-and-arms-the-immune-system.html

But, it also needs vitamin D to shut down an excessive immune response too (thus it can be involved in both too little and too much immune response). More on that:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/h1n1-flu-and-vitamin-d.shtml

And of course you need the basic phytonutrients from plants (many as yet undiscovered) for your body to be at its best.

Anyway, your health may well involve other issues. Still, what people often call "genetic" is really an issue of how genes interact with an environment (including what we eat and how much sunlight we get) and if we can change the environment, sometimes we can keep our weak links from ever being exposed (Dr. Fuhrman says that in his book "Eat to Live").

If I said anything helpful to you, I'm glad, and you can pay me back by helping someone else with such information or something else someday. :-)

After you get your level checked, you'll have to then decide what level is a good thing.

Here are four different recommendations for optimal levels in increasing order

IOM:
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D/DRI-Values.aspx
>20 ng/mL (but their recommendations sort of imply not much more than that is important)

Dr. Fuhrman:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/vitamin_D_recommendations.aspx
35–55 ng/mL

Grassroots Health:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation
40–60 ng/mL

Vitamin D Council:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
50–80 ng/mL (or higher for some specific conditions)

So, it's great to have a level. But even then there are disagreements about what is best.

Remember, parents have been warned heavily over the last decade or two to keep their kids out of the sun.

The vitamin D hpothesis easily explains stuff like the high rate (5X) of autism among Somali children or the high rate (9X) of schizophrenia among second generation Afro-Caribbeans in the UK.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/minneapolis-and-the-somal_b_143967.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2418996/
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/3/362

No doubt there are socieconomic issues at play in the disparity, but 5X and 9X?

Note that in the link you provide, the units were different (nmol/L which requires a higher level to be in the right range).

I'm still not following their logic to dismiss what they found: "Age-standardized means based on observed serum 25(OH)D concentrations were significantly (P http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/07/22/pregnant-women-advised-to-get-more-vitamin-d.aspx
"Please do not assume your levels are fine, as Drs. Hollis and Wagner found that over 87 percent of all newborns and over 67 percent of all mothers had vitamin D levels lower than 20 ng/ml, which is a severe deficiency state. As a result, the researchers recommended that all mothers optimize their vitamin D levels during pregnancy, especially in the winter months, to safeguard their babies' health. This finding could easily help to explain the disproportionately high numbers of poor outcomes among African American births, as deficiency is extremely common among people with darker skin colors."

However, another variable is how much vitamin D do people with different ethnicities or skin color need? So, even the general ranges above, are they appropriate for all ethnicities? Maybe people with darker skin have other adaptations to function well on less? So, there remains more to research about all this. But with that said, just look at how much sun people got 1000 years ago, and look at how much people get now, and considering how melanoma is one of the easiest to detect and treat cancers, how much sun or vitamin D supplements seems "conservative" considering the conditions human are adapted for? Pretty much no humans in the past spent all their lives in caves that I'm aware of (except maybe rich ones, but they probably got diseases of affluence like diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and so on).

We got hit by this ourselves with health issues with our kid (as well as a C-section, which turns out to also be at increased risk with vitamin D deficiency). We just naively followed all the advice to stay out of the sun, etc.. I actually asked our pediatrician if we should be giving vitamin D sup

http://www.naturalnews.com/z030209_placebo_medical_fraud.html
http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/03/press.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL9910/S00096/rankin-on-thursday-where-communism-succeeded.htm
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-truth-about-the-drug-companies/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/glaxo-said-to-settle-u-s-drug-manufacturing-lawsuit-for-750-million.html

Wired on the orginal article:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/the-truth-wears-off/

Anyway, this New Yorker article once again underscores the folly of going to extremes against common sense or long standing cultural traditions, based on some new scientific report or another, without looking at the broad big picture on overall weight of all the evidence we have from a variety of perspectives.

But even when there is a wide variety of good science, often policy ignores it.
Problems with the recent timid vitamin D recommendation:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation
Dr. Joel Fuhrman on how much money the USA spends on sick care for very poor outcomes:
http://vimeo.com/16682935

Thanks for the reply. You make a lot of good points. Still, the availability of such tools might help more people in the general public develop better analytical skills and learn more about context for various issues, so, the fact that most of the public could not make great use of such tools now does not mean they might not change that by their availability, or that the few who could use such tools might not use them to good advantage in all sorts of areas, building on tax-funded research.

Consider, what would it be like to apply this to, say, medical information research information, first?

Here is derived from something I just posted to a (private) forum on Dr. Fuhrman's site ( http://drfuhrman.com/ ), in reply to something he wrote including a mention of limited time (in a reply to some posts I made about vitamin D issues). You can think of what I suggest here as an example of how the same sorts of tools created for intelligence analysts might be very useful in other contexts. I just joined that forum a couple of days ago (there was an offer for a free six weeks, since expired), but I feel a bit frustrated to be writing stuff that gets stuck behind paywalls (same as when I post to private mailing lists), so it is probably not a place I will keep up with that much. (I'm not necessarily opposed to private-seeming spaces for people to discuss medical issues, but it is sad to think of all the information lost from them to general knowledge. There is also potentially the issue of financial obesity being as serious a problem as physical obesity. :-)

=== Better open tools for nutritional research communities

Dr. Fuhrman, thanks for the reply, and thanks for creating so many great resources and helping so many people, including me and my family.

[Comments snipped on vitamin D issues, linking to: http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation ]

On having time for combing through the conflicting medical literature and conflicting models, I might suggest that addressing that issue with better tools may be even more important than doing more nutritional studies with the Nutritional Research Project [that Dr. Fuhrman is involved in http://www.nutritionalresearch.org/ ]. Sometimes we don't know what we know. :-)

Basically, in your mind you were able to integrate all these studies leading up to your books. How can you make it possible for everyone to look at the literature and come to similar conclusions for themselves, in an open way?

One possibility is with structured arguments about health topics, and also including a way people could look at the information from multiple perspectives, and so on. This vitamin D issue is an obvious starter issue, but there are many others where, without necessarily taking sides, one could encourage free form discussions like in these member forums, as well as more structured ones, and somehow have the result be like a Wikipedia of progressive medicine. Wikipedia is not the right model, but I mention it as it is well known, and it is a success to some degree, even with a lot of controversy.

Here are some other examples from SRI (my wife helped a bit with them).

From:
http://www.ai.sri.com/~seas/
"EAS is a software tool developed for intelligence analysts that records analytic reasoning and methods, that supports collaborative analysis across contemporary and historical situations and analysts and has broad applicability beyond intelligence analysis."

From:
http://www.ai.sri.com/~angler/
"Angler is a tool that helps intelligence/policy professionals Explore, understand, and overcome cognitive biases, and Collaboratively expand their joint cognitive vision Through use of divergent & convergent thinking techniques (such as brainstorming and clusterin

I'd second this; from: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
"We predict that treatment with physiological doses of vitamin D3 (between 4,000–10,000 IU/day from all sources, including sun, food and supplements) along with periodic monitoring of blood calcidiol and calcium levels will become routine. [Zittermann A. Vitamin D in preventive medicine: are we ignoring the evidence? Br J of Nutr. 2003;89:552–572. Holick M. Vitamin D: A Millennium Perspective. J Cell Biochem. 2003;88:296–307.] Research indicates it will help several vitamin D deficiency-associated diseases such as: autism, autoimmune illness, cancer, chronic pain, depression, diabetes, heart disease, hyperparathyroidism, hypertension, influenza, myopathy (neuromuscular disorders), and osteoporosis.
    At this time, we advise even healthy people (those without the diseases of vitamin D deficiency) to seek a knowledgeable physician and have your 25(OH)D level measured. If your levels are below 50 ng/mL you need enough sun, artificial light, oral vitamin D3 supplements, or some combination of the three, to maintain your 25(OH)D levels between 50–80 ng/mL year-round.
How Much Vitamin D?
    If you refuse to see a physician, or can't find a knowledgeable one, purchase the 1000 IU/day vitamin D3 cholecalciferol pills that are available over-the-counter in North America or a 5,000 IU capsule. Take an average of 5,000 IU a day, year-round, if you have some sun exposure. If you have little, or no, sun exposure you will need to take at least 5,000 IU per day. How much more depends on your latitude of residence, skin pigmentation, and body weight. Generally speaking, the further you live away from the equator, the darker your skin, and/or the more you weigh, the more you will have to take to maintain healthy blood levels.
    For example, Dr. Cannell lives at latitude 32 degrees, weighs 220 pounds, and has fair skin. In the late fall and winter he takes 5,000 IU per day. In the early fall and spring he takes 2,000 IU per day. In the summer he regularly sunbathes for a few minutes most days and thus takes no vitamin D on those days in the summer. The only way you can know how much you vitamin D you need to take is by repeatedly getting your blood tested—known as a 25(OH)D test—and seeing what you need to do to keep your level around 50 ng/mL."

Another site with somewhat lower recommendations:
    http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

Eating a lot of vegetables and fruits can help too, as can other good lifestyle things like exercise and sleeping well and thinking positive, having friends, having a sense of humor, communing periodically with nature and the inifinite, and so on. Example on food, related to Dr. Joel Fuhrman:
    http://www.alternativeratreatments.com/eat-to-live.html

That's a good point. However, think about the consequences to materially poorer nations of industrialized nations armed with nuclear weapons controlled by people with widespread mental illness due to vitamin D deficiency. Or, what about depressed and unbalanced world bankers making crazy financial policies effecting poor countries?
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/mentalIllness.shtml
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/depression.shtml

And what of people from poor countries who go live abroad in the North to send back money, but then get vitamin D deficient?

And what of health care researchers who are less productive because they are vitamin D deficient?

Also, even in materially poorer nations at the equator, you can be vitamin D deficient if you need to work indoors all day at a low wage job, or even if you are a professional, like a doctor or bureaucraty, who works indoors all day. So, even poor countries may be facing this problem.

Also, even in poor countries near the equator, there is often a rainy season when people spend a lot of time indoors and may become vitamin D deficient (that is when flus and colds tend to strike in tropical areas, in the rainy season, which shows what bunk the common explanation for getting more colds and flus in the winter in the USA is, suggested due to "dry air" in the winter, but then why do people in the tropics get the flu when the air is 100% humidity endlessly).

It's true that a sedentary lifestyle plays a role, especially as people like most slashdotters like myself have made it ever more interesting to be inside with computer media. But, there is specific medical advice (well intended, but harmful) by dermatologists to avoid the sun. It might have not been bad if dermatologist had said, and also you need to take 5000 IU D3 daily and have your blood tested regularly to make up for not being in the sun. But they did not. So, are dematologists all liable for such advice?

Anyway, this vitamin D issue is really a global one, with a much bigger impact than any vaccine, even a vaccine for malaria, as bad as that problem is. Of course, like all things, different people may get the immediate costs and benefits of different health approaches. And no doubt some few people will be harmed by too much vitamin D (even if it is much fewer than commonly thought, but that's why a blood test is a good idea if you supplement):
    "The Truth About Vitamin D Toxicity"
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/vitaminDToxicity.shtml

Luckily, there are some grassroots campaigns about these issues:
    http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

And many individual efforts:
    http://curtisduncan.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-michelle-obama-is-more-likely-to.html
    http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-rda-for-vitamin-d.html

But it is such a big issue, more should be done IMHO. Vitamin D deficiency is just a widespread epidemic that is a consequence of and indoors and sun-avoiding lifestyle centered around technology. It is the thing every slashdotter should be aware of at least for themselves and their family.

I agree that the OP point on sunlight not being good enough is fishy, although on a practical basis you are just not going to get enough vitamin D from sunlight living the typical mostly indoor life in the Western world. But, the OP does indirectly bring up a cutting edge area of research about what is normal vitamin D levels and how have humans evolved in different settings to process different levels of vitamin D (like in the plains, the forest, the seashore, and the frozen icy wastes of the ice ages, and with different skin pigmentation in each setting). So, there remain a lot of unknowns.

But, the rest of it as far as recommendations is legitimate according to the emerging science, even if there are, as you suggest, caveats that for some few people with rare diseases issue that may be made worse by supplementing.

You can find a vast amount of scientific papers at this site:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

Here is one 2009 study that is there:
"Vitamin D for Cancer Prevention: Global Perspective"
http://www.oncologystat.com/journals/review_articles/AEP/Vitamin_D_for_Cancer_Prevention_Global_Perspective.html
"RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: It is projected that raising the minimum year- round serum 25(OH)D level to 40 to 60 ng/mL (100–150 nmol/L) would prevent approximately 58,000 new cases of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer each year, and three fourths of deaths from these diseases in the United States and Canada, based on observational studies combined with a randomized trial. Such intakes also are expected to reduce case-fatality rates of patients who have breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer by half. There are no unreasonable risks from intake of 2000 IU per day of vitamin D3, or from a population serum 25(OH)D level of 40 to 60 ng/mL. The time has arrived for nationally coordinated action to substantially increase intake of vitamin D and calcium."

For most people in industrialized countries who spend most of their time indoors, to get that level, you have to supplement in the range the OP mentioned. However, as Dr. Cannell of the Vitamin D Council suggests,
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
you need periodic blood testing to be sure you are getting the right amount. Here is another blog entry from the blog the OP mentioned on this too;
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-rda-for-vitamin-d.html

Another resource:
"A Consortium of Scientists, Institutions and Individuals Committed to Solving the Worldwide Vitamin D Deficiency Epidemic"
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/
They have been coordinating blood test results with supplementation levels.

Experts still disagree about the best level for vitamin D in the blood, but in general, it is way higher than what most people have. Here are Dr. Mercola's suggestions, which are close to Dr. Cannell's , but higher than the Grass Roots Health groups:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/02/23/vitamin-d-deficiency-part-one.aspx
Dr. Mercola suggests sunlight is the best source.

An audio interview with Dr. Cannell on some of these issues:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/audio/dr-cannell-one-radio-network-interview-11-12-09.mp3

Like everything, there are probably limits to this advice. In that radio interview Dr. Cannell mentions one person (Trevor Marshall) who disagrees. Here

Most people in the USA are vitamin D deficient, and it has been linked to depression, schizophrenia, obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, autism, influenza, and more. More on getting the right level of vitamin D through using D3 gelcaps or other means:
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

Or another item on that blog on blood testing if you supplement:
  http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-rda-for-vitamin-d.html

Another site:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

A quiz on vitamin D:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/09/06/test-your-vitamin-d-knowledge.aspx

"Might Influenza be Little More Than a Symptom of Vitamin D Deficiency?"
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/10/21/avoid-flu-shots-vitamin-d-is-a-better-way.aspx

Many people suggest the right amount of sun exposure may still be best, but it is hard to get. If you have darker skin and work indoors, it may be almost impossible even in summer to get enough sunlight far from the equator:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/the-black-community.shtml
http://curtisduncan.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-michelle-obama-is-more-likely-to.html