The null hypothesis is these studies would’ve gone something like “there is no association between vitamin D and CVD”. That was rejected.
This below is some statement in the “scientific journal” MDPI
Publishing house not a journal and to just dismiss any article published in an MDPI journal is ridiculous. Look at the authors and their affiliations first, then decide if you trust it.
The second study, figure 1, correlation is at 0.26 which is very low and has obvious confounding factors and talking about vitamin D as if it’s only possible to get it by irradiating your skin.
You’re missing the point, which is that Vitamin D doesn’t appear to be mediating many of these benefits.
Although 25(OH)D concentration was inversely associated with death from cardiovascular disease, cancer and other causes, the authors noted that current scientific evidence does not support any benefit of vitamin D supplementation against these diseases.
A Mendelian randomization analysis by Afzal et al. [11] showed that genotypes associated with low serum 25(OH)D were associated with a 14% increase in all-cause mortality for every decline of 20 nmol/L, but not an increase in cardiovascular disease mortality.
So what’s causing the inverse association between vitamin D and CVD? The MR study suggests that low vitamin D doesn’t increase CVD. So perhaps the vitamin D is a proxy for something else that benefits cardiovascular health, the best guess would be sunlight.
All the causal evidence points to sun exposure being harmful for health as long as enough adequate vitamin D is achieved from other sources.
@AnUser’s MR study showed a causal relationship between low vitamin D levels and higher acm. There’s no causal relationship established by studies between sunlight exposure and cardiovascular disease. The observational trials have very obvious cofounding factors that make it impossible to draw conclusions from them.
genotypes associated with low serum 25(OH)D were associated with a 14% increase in all-cause mortality for every decline of 20 nmol/L, but not an increase in cardiovascular disease mortality.
The burden of proof is not on me to show you that there is no causal effect. That is the expectation until proven otherwise. Else you can believe anything.
It is mixing possible proof of benefit for Vitamin D with sun exposure.
Based on what? It says in the quote only that there is no scientific evidence of benefit of vitamin D supplementation. Besides, your MR study if well done should exclude other factors like sun exposure.
The effect estimate for vitamin D supplementation with or without calcium for myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease (nine trials, 48 647 patients), stroke or cerebrovascular disease (eight trials, 46 431 patients), cancer (seven trials, 48 167 patients), and total fracture (22 trials, 76 497 patients) lay within the futility boundary, indicating that vitamin D supplementation does not alter the relative risk of any of these endpoints by 15% or more.
You’re claiming sun exposure is harmful (given adequate vitamin D levels), and burden of proof, burden of proof that, so wheres’s your proof that sun exposure increases ACM?
At any rate, I’m not disagreeing that sun ages skin and increases skin cancer risk and that sunscreen should be used and sunburn avoided. These are all common sense. I’m just disagreeing with this idea that any amount of sun is bad, and I’ve provided sources why I think getting some sun is good. Like @tfl.phd said, it’s good for your mood, good for your appearance. This shouldn’t be controversial.
I didn’t say sun exposure increases ACM? I said it is harmful for health in causal pathways. Whether skin aging is bad for health I don’t know but probably is.
And I have explained why I think those sources doesn’t support the belief that sun exposure, vitamin D aside is healthy with adequate effect.
I don’t personally care that much about common sense, a couple hundred years ago it was common sense to believe witches existed and that mice came from straw bales. It was only in the 1920’s that tanning became a thing. The common sense about tanning could be from early 20th century marketing and health magazines whereas the latter was rooted in ensuring adequate vitamin D levels.
I said it is harmful for health in causal pathways.
You continue to claim this, but you haven’t provided any evidence that this is the case.
I don’t personally care that much about common sense, a couple hundred years ago it was common sense to believe witches existed and that mice came from straw bales.
And there’s the straw man. Agree to disagree, since you clearly have zero interest in being intellectually honest.
I think @AnUser means that UV radiation is harmful to skin health. I don’t believe there is strong evidence that sunlight exposure affects acm one way or another when adjusted for vitamin D.
I misread, but if that’s what you meant with common sense - why are you asking me to cite skin irradiation effect on health via skin aging and cancer (causal pathways)?
Skin cancer mortality and other conditions, but hard to detect as overall it is small.
@Virilius I never argued against sunscreen. On the contrary, as long as it doesn’t have extra crap in it that gets absorbed through the skin, wearing some zinc oxide sunscreen is a must. I am just saying that Bryan Johnson seems not to go outside even with sunscreen. That’s a boring and terrible life.
Personally, I could care less about his habits and protocols. To each their own. Living until 80 in this new world where the average lifespan is 71 yo, if you’re lucky and don’t die from some external cause, is good enough for me. It’s sad how you can compare a random and poor 80 year old in Sardinia who smokes and drinks and lives vibrantly to a 46 year old depressed vampire billionaire who spends millions a year on his health just to match their lifespan.
