Can a Lack of Sunshine Lead To Diabetes ?

As the title suggests, some scientists believe a lack of sunshine is more a risk factor for diabetes than obesity ! What are your thoughts ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2965410/Lack-sunshine-increases-risk-diabetes-obese-Low-level-vitamin-D-plays-major-role-disease.html

Sorry I couldn't get the article on-screen so forgive me if I'm just repeating what was in it.

Yes, it makes sense.  I think it's all linked since a deficiency in vitamin D can make it hard to lose weight.  

I was once on a really strong heart drug which meant I burnt very easily (I could blister even through a car windscreen in the Winter when the sky was white ) So I covered up all the time I was taking the drug and for several months afterwards.    This could well have hastened the diabetes along a bit.  

Then there's  the fashion of using sunscreen more nowadays which stops us getting vitamin D from the sun so easily - and vitamin D itself helps to protect the skin from burning!  Getting the balance right can be difficult especially where children are concerned.

Surely lack of exposure to the sun could be down to someone staying indoors and not getting enough exercise though - meaning that vitamin D deficiency and lack of exercise could both be joint causes of someone putting on weight and then being more likely to become diabetic.

Oh and didn't I read somewhere that the NHS no longer provides vitamin D tests?

I guess it makes sense that a lack of sunlight could be linked to staying indoors I guess. On the other hand though, the diabetes capitol of the world, USA, has plenty of sunshine. I believe there is no single factor linked with diabetes which is why it's so prevalent.

Finally got to read the article - thanks

When I was a kid many moons ago there were no sunscreens available, I was just exposed to the sun without any protection.

Same here Graham. I don't recall ever having sun cream in our house at all. I never used it until I was late teens. Even then, only abroad, never in UK.

Well sunscreen is another good way of getting cash out of us, isn't it?

At the other extreme my son forgot to use enough sunscreen when he went to an island off the coast of Brazil for a couple of days last year and came home with blisters that looked like egg yolks (they were the size of egg yolks too). Now that was scary.

This is a study I go back to again and again; a Finnish study on vitamin D and Type 1 diabetes what it says is remarkable;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11705562

"Children who regularly took the recommended dose of vitamin D (2000 IU daily) had a RR of 0.22 (0.05-0.89) compared with those who regularly received less than the recommended amount."

A relative risk of 0.22 means an 78% drop in likelihood of getting Type 1 diabetes; also note the dose these infants were getting 2000 IU daily which is 5 times the adult recommended dose in the US/UK. A 78% drop!

So, of course all children were advised to take that amount of Vitamin D for at least the first 12/18 months of their lives? Right? Nope, in the 70's the Finish government adopted the 'global' recommended level for Vitamin D consumption and guess what? There is no distinction between those who supplement and those who don't.

You'll be pleased to hear both my boys where on 2,000 IUs since they were born. Neither have ever had a day off school due to illness.

This study obviously doesn't deal with Type 2 diabetes and may be particular to Finland with their very low levels of sun but I just keep going back to that 78% reduction; 78%!!!

Best

Dillinger

Wow ! 78% is difficult to argue with. Wish I'd known years ago.