I think that’s a fair point about the title and have changed it in light of that. I’m curious as to what you’d expect the other 50% of effect to come from? (no snarkiness intended)
On the vitamin D side: In I’m pretty skeptical of reductionist viewpoints in general such as here, ~”the single compound of ‘vitamin D’ placed into supplements has nearly the same effect as broad-spectrum UV on skin affects the body”. I wouldn’t be surprised if broad-spectrum UV had plenty of other effects that we have no idea how to look for, or for example if “UV → {this specific compound that is put in supplements}” is a poor approximation (maybe broad-spectrum UV causes the production of plenty of compounds that are also great, and we’re only inclined to supplement one).
E.g. Vitamin D2 could be an easy way to go wrong here (I’ve only ever criticism about the effectiveness of D2). If Vitamin D supplementation works at all, I would bet on D3, but I haven’t seen you make this distinction.
Overall I think this is pretty complex to make such general reductionist prescriptions (e.g. take ’Vitamin D3, X IUs everyday in the morning…”) unfortunately.
((Also, we might live in a world where the supplement Vitamin D3 is fairly ineffective, but it still causes the blood biomarker to increase, confounding all studies everywhere.))
I used to supplement Vitamin D3 for a few years, but I stopped when I heard about all of these subtle ways that it could be ineffective (or harmful). Instead, I took more walks outside, and I took my shirt off while in sunlight more often. I have also noticed I feel much better this way, quite calmer, and I suspect quite a bit more productive on these days, and I’ve never gotten that from a supplement.
On the light exposure side: 10,000 lux is still an order of magnitude less than sunlight! Also, I doubt these lamps emit any UV, and I expect that a lot of the effect of sunlight comes from UV and that which we cannot see.
I think that’s a fair point about the title and have changed it in light of that. I’m curious as to what you’d expect the other 50% of effect to come from? (no snarkiness intended)
On the vitamin D side: In I’m pretty skeptical of reductionist viewpoints in general such as here, ~”the single compound of ‘vitamin D’ placed into supplements has nearly the same effect as broad-spectrum UV on skin affects the body”. I wouldn’t be surprised if broad-spectrum UV had plenty of other effects that we have no idea how to look for, or for example if “UV → {this specific compound that is put in supplements}” is a poor approximation (maybe broad-spectrum UV causes the production of plenty of compounds that are also great, and we’re only inclined to supplement one).
E.g. Vitamin D2 could be an easy way to go wrong here (I’ve only ever criticism about the effectiveness of D2). If Vitamin D supplementation works at all, I would bet on D3, but I haven’t seen you make this distinction.
Overall I think this is pretty complex to make such general reductionist prescriptions (e.g. take ’Vitamin D3, X IUs everyday in the morning…”) unfortunately.
((Also, we might live in a world where the supplement Vitamin D3 is fairly ineffective, but it still causes the blood biomarker to increase, confounding all studies everywhere.))
I used to supplement Vitamin D3 for a few years, but I stopped when I heard about all of these subtle ways that it could be ineffective (or harmful). Instead, I took more walks outside, and I took my shirt off while in sunlight more often. I have also noticed I feel much better this way, quite calmer, and I suspect quite a bit more productive on these days, and I’ve never gotten that from a supplement.
On the light exposure side: 10,000 lux is still an order of magnitude less than sunlight! Also, I doubt these lamps emit any UV, and I expect that a lot of the effect of sunlight comes from UV and that which we cannot see.
The main effect is on training the subconscious to associate certain times of day and places with sleep, and other times/places with activity.