No big surprise, but once again scientific research is contradicting long standing beliefs held by mainstream medicine and most of the population.

With sunlight.

Other sources of Vitamin D are organ meats such as liver, brains, heart, kidney.

Shark liver oil is another rich source of Vitamin D. Seal liver oil is a rich source of vitamin D.

Plenty of options exist for getting adequate Vitamin D without resorting to Sun bathing. Sun exposure is unnecessary. You should wear sunscreen to prevent premature aging and cancer.

A major point was to get sun exposure - but avoid sun burn,

Tom
* See URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=14781

Many types of skin cancer, especially melanoma, are tied to acute burns. And this is very common in a society where office workers toil indoors all year and then take a 2 week vacation in Aruba.

In contrast, a regular, small amount of sun exposure (20 minute sunny walks 3, 4, 5 times per week) slowly builds up the body's defenses against the radiation, aquires the beneficial effects and avoids the acute burns that really mutate the crap out of DNA and jumpstart many skin cancers.

That being said, the body's DNA could/will mutate after awhile of regular, relatively minimal sun exposure, but the acute burns are much, much worse for you. And unfortunately, our modern lifestyle predisposes us to them.

I agree with you that these "reversals" are annoying (as my post indicates), but in this case it's not a lack of research rigor that flaws the recommendations.

Sun damage, premature aging and cancer association are rock solid, irrevocably tied to sun exposure, and this is some of the most validated research in the world.

The first problem is, the recommendations adopted by the medical establishment take on this annoying, one-size-fits-all simplicity, something that's deemed a requisite because patients/doctors apparently lack the ability to absorb, understand and apply complex advice.

The second flaw specifically related to this (sun exposure) scenario, is that dermatologists study the effect of the sun on the skin, and don't give a rats ass of focus to things like increased rates of colon cancer that may be a side effect of underexposure to the sun. When a dermatologist looks at reasearch that displays that sun damage occurs within 15 minutes of sun exposure, and watches as the rates of skin cancer spiral with the depletion of ozone and lifestyle choices to get baked by young people, they tailor their recommendations to their specialty.

So to summarize a couple of the main difficulties with modern med recommendations:

1. Simplified to a ridiculous degree, patronizing the ability of practitioners and patients to understand and correctly apply complex info.

2. An inability for specialized practitioners and researchers to view the results of research within the context of the integrated function of the body.

This second problem will become alleviated as information technology and research advances dramatoically within this next generation, I'd predict. I'd be careful about thinking of it as a dramatic "reversal," as fears about skin damage from the sun are significant; I could write you a paper that'd make you want to dig an underground house.

It's just that a lot of dermatolgists insulted their patients with the overreactionary advice in the first place. And another huge subset of patients ARE burning themselves to death in the sun for an aesthetic.

Ouch. That was brutal.

I think the deal is that skin cancer, which is relatively easy to cure, may not be worth slathering yourself in sunscreen for if it turns out more deaths can be prevented if you DON'T screen out the sun.