Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have a question mark at the end of the title because I'm still reading about this and I'm in shock and I don't really believe it. It's really weird and I never read this anywhere before in all my years of reading about nutrition.

Supposedly, it's possible to add more vitamin D to your food if you just irradiate the food with ultraviolet light. Apparently, substances in the food automatically convert into vitamin D by themselves, passively, even if the material is nonliving. I always believed vitamin D conversions only happened inside living bodies.

I swear, I am not hoaxing.

(Let's see if I can figure out how to make a blockquote.)

http://www.tryphonov.ru/tryphonov5/pic5/VitaminD_Text.htm

Then came a series of experiments that tied together the nutritional research and the findings concerning irradiation, offering a solution to this critical piece of the vitamin D puzzle and paving the way for a widely available cure for rickets. During the course of extensive nutritional research, Harry Goldblatt and Katherine Soames, working in London, discovered that the livers from irradiated rats, when fed to other rats were growth promoting, whereas the livers from unirradiated rats were not. In the early 1920s, two teams of researchers--H. Steenbock and A. Black, and Alfred Hess and Mildred Weinstock--followed up on this strand of research, as well as Huldschinsky's lead, by further experimenting with the effect of ultraviolet light on foods fed to rats.

Independently, the two teams of researchers irradiated excised skin as well as such food substances as vegetable oils, egg yolk, milk, lettuce, or rat chow and found that irradiation produced a substance that seemed to work on rickets much as the vitamin D in cod-liver oil did. Rats that were fed irradiated foods or irradiated skin were protected against rickets, whereas those fed unirradiated foods or skin were not. Recognizing that simply irradiating certain foods that were common in most people's diets could spare large numbers of children from the bone disease, Steenbock patented the food irradiation process using ultraviolet light in 1924, donating all future proceeds to support research at the University of Wisconsin.
http://drmirkin.com/nutrition/9121.html

"In 1913, Hans Steenboick at the University of Wisconsin showed that lactating goats kept indoors got rickets, while those let outside did not. In 1923, Elmer McColum at Johns Hopkins showed that cod liver oil prevented rickets. Harry Goldblatt in London showed that irradiated foods prevented rickets and regular food did not."

Why haven't we heard about this before? Why do we add synthetic vitamin D to our food? Because it makes chemical companies rich. They produce our synthetic vitamin D, and then they tell us that we have no choice but to either take synthetic vitamin D in pills or foods, go out in the sun a lot (which many people can't easily do, especially people with dark skin who need a lot more sunlight to produce vitamin D), or eat special foods that happen to contain a lot of vitamin D.

I don't like synthetic vitamins - long story - and I'm researching the side effects of synthetic vitamin D at the moment. It's not as good as natural vitamin D. That's why this was so interesting and exciting to me. It's a possible way (if it's true) to get more natural, harmless vitamin D, without taking synthetic vitamin D, and without having to eat special foods that may be hard to find or that may have other side effects (cod liver oil, for example, causes bruising and bleeding, if I recall - all fish oils do - and it may be rancid, and it may not be pure).

Anything you can do at home by yourself is a good thing! It means you don't have to buy a special food and import it from a faraway place. You don't need money at all, if this is true - just set the foods in the sun, or irradiate them with ultraviolet light. It makes you less dependent on chemical companies and less dependent on buying things from faraway places.

I'll keep reading about this because I still don't really believe that it could be true. I hope this information goes viral.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
Interesting concept. Has the study been duplicated? For it to have any relevancy, it should be able to be duplicated by others. Hope you find more data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,975 Posts
Some studies indicate that you don't absorb Vitamin d through food very well you need sunlight. This is due to the fact your body apparently was designed to absorb vitamin d thru the skin I often wondered why nobody has tried to make a vitamin d patch for areas with little sunlight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
That's why Saudi women have a vitamin D deficiency....wearing the Abaya & Hijab in one of the sunniest countries in the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
http://www.uptodate.com/contents/vitamin-d-deficiency-beyond-the-basics

The responses have been spot-on. There will be no reputable studies replicating the OP's first post. It's brought up now and then to further the "Big Pharma" conspiracy. Many foods have the substances that the body, in the presence of sunlight, convert to Vit. D. The people who may have difficulty with absorption of Vit. D (Crohn's, Cystic Fibrosis, Chronic Kidney disease, Short Bowel Syndrome) may have issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
A few years ago I studied as much I could about vit D. I never ran across anything that led me to think that leaving vegetables in sunlight would make one iota of a difference in its vit D content. I do clearly remember that mammalian livestock that receive more sun exposure have have much more vit D in their tissues than livestock that receive little or no sunlight.

Being that vit D is produced through the hormonal process found in animals (UV + cholesterol = Cholecalciferol a.k.a. vit D3)...... I just can't see how leaving vegetables in sunlight will produce vit D.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top