Sun light and buns heavy Sun-screams D-feated I tell you, the sun-haters just won't let up. No matter how much evidence has surfaced exonerating the sun from its wrongful status in the mainstream as a carcinogen rivaling asbestos, dioxin, or red dye #2, some just won't see the light. According to a recent Reuters online article, one shrill Boston University School of Medicine affiliated dermatologist is flatly stating that vitamin supplements alone are all anyone needs for adequate vitamin D intake - and that sun exposure is nothing but harmful and a major cancer risk. This conclusion is based on her own co-authored review of daily vitamin D "requirements" (in other words, the Department of Agriculture's absurdly low RDA estimates) and UV radiation. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a huge fan of vitamin supplementation, even for vitamin D. But of all the vitamins you can take every day, D is probably the least likely to absorb fully and properly into the blood from simple supplementation alone. You NEED sunlight to spur your body's production of it. Need proof? An Australian survey of U.S. data (more than 14000 individuals over the 6-year period from 1988-1994) conducted by the University of Auckland revealed that dietary supplementation of vitamin D - either with pills or through drinking D-fortified milk - had NO discernible effect of serum levels of vitamin D in the blood. Hmmm. How's that stack up to Ms. Boston U's assessment that all you need to do is live in a cave and pop vitamin D pills to avoid all manner of diseases associated with vitamin D deficiency? It doesn't jive at all. And as if vitamin D needed another feather in its cap, the Aussie study revealed a positive correlation between serum (blood-borne) vitamin D and pulmonary health. You do the figuring: If Vitamin D is proven to promote health, yet it doesn't effectively express itself in your body from diet and/or supplementation, then how's it helping the people it's helping? The answer, of course, is sunlight exposure, something our Australian friends should know all about. In some other not-so-good news from Down Under … **************************************************** Seat-beefing for beefier seats? You've heard me talk before about how a lot of ordinary, everyday things in America are being made bigger nowadays in order to accommodate our growing rotundity, right? In past Doses, I've mentioned stretchers, hospital beds - and of course, coffins… But apparently, this trend is not limited to the good ol' U.S. of A. A recent Associated Press article confirms that other nations are being forced to make changes to keep pace with expanding waistlines, too. Case in point: Australia. According to the article, a group called Standards Australia that establishes design parameters for all sorts of high-use items to ensure public safety is taking a long, hard look at the Down Under version of the crapper. Currently, the industry standard weight capacity for Aussie toilet seats is just 100 pounds. Now, this might be sufficient for the average lean-living Aboriginal, but it's clearly not up to snuff for the growing number of Aussies who are "living large." The public-safety group wants this standard changed to 330lbs. In 2005, 60% of Australians were classified as obese. This challenges champion America for the title of "fattest nation on Earth." Sunning my (thin) buns every chance I get, William Campbell Douglass II, MD | 
