Sunbathing Actually Fights Cancer

John P.

Vitamin DA new study due out in June is going to show that North Americans are suffering from a huge Vitamin D deficiency and that it may be contributing to cancer rates as well as a number of other diseases.

The data suggests that hiding from the sun, or constantly wearing sunscreen could actually bring on really harmful forms of cancer such as breast, prostate, etc. as opposed to the relatively mild risk associated with skin cancer.

Vitamin D casts cancer prevention in new light
April 28, 2007 at 1:20 AM EDT

For decades, researchers have puzzled over why rich northern countries have cancer rates many times higher than those in developing countries — and many have laid the blame on dangerous pollutants spewed out by industry.

But research into vitamin D is suggesting both a plausible answer to this medical puzzle and a heretical notion: that cancers and other disorders in rich countries aren’t caused mainly by pollutants but by a vitamin deficiency known to be less acute or even non-existent in poor nations.

But perhaps the biggest bombshell about vitamin D’s effects is about to go off. In June, U.S. researchers will announce the first direct link between cancer prevention and the sunshine vitamin. Their results are nothing short of astounding.

A four-year clinical trial involving 1,200 women found those taking the vitamin had about a 60-per-cent reduction in cancer incidence, compared with those who didn’t take it, a drop so large — twice the impact on cancer attributed to smoking — it almost looks like a typographical error.

And in an era of pricey medical advances, the reduction seems even more remarkable because it was achieved with an over-the-counter supplement costing pennies a day.

Only brief full-body exposures to bright summer sunshine — of 10 or 15 minutes a day — are needed to make high amounts of the vitamin. But most authorities, including Health Canada, have urged a total avoidance of strong sunlight or, alternatively, heavy use of sunscreen. Both recommendations will block almost all vitamin D synthesis.

Those studying the vitamin say the hide-from-sunlight advice has amounted to the health equivalent of a foolish poker trade. Anyone practising sun avoidance has traded the benefit of a reduced risk of skin cancer — which is easy to detect and treat and seldom fatal — for an increased risk of the scary, high-body-count cancers, such as breast, prostate and colon, that appear linked to vitamin D shortages.

The sun advice has been misguided information “of just breathtaking proportions,” said John Cannell, head of the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit, California-based organization.

“Fifteen hundred Americans die every year from [skin cancers]. Fifteen hundred Americans die every day from the serious cancers.”

Avoiding most bright sunlight wouldn’t be so serious if it weren’t for a second factor: The main determinant of whether sunshine is strong enough to make vitamin D is latitude. Living in the north is bad, the south is better, and near the equator is best of all.

Canadians have drawn the short straw on the world’s latitude lottery: From October to March, sunlight is too feeble for vitamin D production. During this time, our bodies draw down stores built by summer sunshine, and whatever is acquired from supplements or diet.

Government regulations require foods such as milk and margarine to have small amounts of added vitamin D to prevent rickets.

Other foods, such as salmon, naturally contain some, as does the cod liver oil once commonly given to children in the days before milk fortification. But the amounts from food are minuscule compared to what is needed for cancer prevention and what humans naturally can make in their skin.

Dr. Vieth has approached the matter by asking: What vitamin D level would humans have if they were still living outside, in the wild, near the equator, with its attendant year-round bright sunshine? “Picture the natural human as a nudist in environments south of Florida,” he says.

He estimates humans in a state of nature probably had about 125 to 150 nanomoles/litre of vitamin D in their blood all year long — levels now achieved for only a few months a year by the minority of adult Canadians who spend a lot of time in the sun, such as lifeguards or farmers.

For the rest of the population, vitamin D levels tend to be lower, and crash in winter. In testing office workers in Toronto in winter, Dr. Vieth found the average was only about 40 nanomoles/L, or about one-quarter to one-third of what humans would have in the wild.

To achieve the vitamin D doses used for cancer prevention through foods, people would need to drink about three litres of milk a day, which is unrealistic.

If health authorities accept the new research, they would have to order a substantial increase in food fortification or supplement-taking to affect disease trends. As it is, the 400 IU dosage included in most multivitamins is too low to be an effective cancer fighter.

Dr. Vieth said any new recommendations will also have to reflect the racial and cultural factors connected to vitamin D. Blacks, South Asians and women who wear veils are at far higher risks of vitamin D deficiencies than are whites.

Although humans carry a lot of cultural baggage on the subject of skin hue, colour is the way nature dealt with the vagaries of high or low vitamin D production by latitude.

Those with very dark skins, whose ancestors originated in tropical, light-rich environments, have pigmentation that filters out more of the sunshine responsible for vitamin D; in northern latitudes, they need more sun exposure — often 10 times as much — to produce the same amount of the vitamin as whites.

In the body, vitamin D is converted into a steroid hormone, and genes responding to it play a crucial role in fixing damaged cells and maintaining good cell health. “There is no better anti-cancer agent than activated vitamin D. I mean, it does everything you’d want,” said Dr. Cannell of the Vitamin D Council.

Some may view the sunshine-vitamin story as too good to be true, particularly given that the number of previous claims of vitamin cure-alls that subsequently flopped. “The floor of modern medicine is littered with the claims of vitamins that didn’t turn out,” Dr. Cannell allowed.

But the big difference is that vitamin D, unlike other vitamins, is turned into a hormone, making it far more biologically active. As well, it is “operating independently in hundreds of tissues in your body,” Dr. Cannell said.

Referring to Linus Pauling, the famous U.S. advocate of vitamin C use as a cure for many illnesses, he said: “Basically, Linus Pauling was right, but he was off by one letter.”

The entire article can be read at the Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail.


  1. says

    Everything in moderation is the key. I think what is giving suntanning a bad name are those people that really overdo it. The ones that after coming back from the beach, maybe pass out for a bit, then later in the night, they see that their skin is “baked”. Then go to the hospital or later in life find out they have a skin disease or whatever.

    If you do it in moderation, which is the key for most, if not all things in life, you should be fine. After all, who are the ones getting burned the most? It’s the pasties. ;) The darker people have more of a “shield” to the sun. Put two and two together, not rocket science at all.

  2. Nick says

    Vitamin D is very essential for the skin and body. I agree a deficiency of sunlight can cause a lot of skin diseases too. It is very bad for hair also to not get sunlight. The texture of hair and skin changes in the absence of proper sunbathing or exposure to sunlight.

  3. Jimbo says

    Interesting and intriguing…

    I’m a cancer “insect” (to borrow your favorite quote), and “60-per-cent reduction in cancer incidence” by any single measure does sound “too good to be true.”

    Please let me know if the study gets published. I’d like to read it myself.

  4. says

    Yeah, I can’t claim to have a preference between tanned or not either. Actually I don’t really pay attention to that unless it is really extreme – in which case I’m usually not attracted.

    It’s interesting though that doctors keep telling people to basically avoid all sun exposure altogether, and now we’re hearing that this might cause more problems than it solves.

    I’m sure my sister-in-law (the doctor) or my soon to be sister-in-law (the other doctor) will be chiming in shortly to let us all know the real scoop! :-) And yes… we’re going to be overflowing with doctors in the family soon…


  5. skh.pcola says

    Hum. I’ve lived in Florida all of my life, and while sunlight is apparently important to vitamin D synthesis, it makes older chicks shrivel up. Old guys don’t shrivel up because they get rotund, portly, and outright fat.

    Both extremes appeal to me…pale and well-tanned.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *