More recently, my own group in collaboration with Rosalind Harding have published a larger study (42) involving a more quantitative mathematical approach based on sequencing of 448 full sequences and have come to different conclusions (Fig. 1). Like Rana et al. (44), we show that whilst there is considerably less diversity in African populations than in European populations, comparison of the divergence between chimp and human sequence, together with allowance for selective ascertainment of functional mutations associated with red hair, suggests that the MC1R data is compatible with neutral theory in Europe but with functional constraint operating in Africa. In other words, whilst the data provide evidence for selective pressure acting to maintain wild-type MC1R status in Africa, in Europe the data are compatible with a removal of constraint rather than selection in favour of loss-of-function mutants.
=====
do you know what the above means?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Hate doing this to your brother. But let's put this Albino thing to bed and move on to other aspects of the Melanin Theory. Let white people make fools of themselves.. . .if they wish. We are better than that.
xyyman - I think you misunderstand:
IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT ALBINISM - THEY JUST CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE!
Quote: In particular, study of the MC1R may provide insights into the lightening of skin colour observed in most European populations. The world wide pattern ofMC1R diversity is compatible with functional constraint oper-ating in Africa, whereas the greater allelic diversity seen in non-African populations is consistent with neutral predictions rather than selection. Whether this conclusion is as a result of weakness in the statistical testing procedures applied, or whether it will be seen in other pigment genes will be of greatinterest for studies of human skin colour evolution.
evolution and migration. In particular, study of the MC1Rmay provide insights into the lightening of skin colour observed in most European populations. The world wide pattern ofMC1R diversity is compatible with functional constraint oper-ating in Africa, whereas the greater allelic diversity seen in non-African populations is consistent with neutral predictions rather than selection. Whether this conclusion is as a result of weakness in the statistical testing procedures applied, or whether it will be seen in other pigment genes will be of great interest for studies of human skin colour evolution.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
what are the details of the 2 points you give to the "albinos" that make the negative less than 10?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thinked I missed my calling. I should have become a special education teacher to assist the dumb mofo with reading impairments. So now to assist their dumbasses in their inability to read within context, I must go slowly and answer by number. Now read all of it you dumb mofo, not a sentence or two.
1) What source are you going by that states the San of southern Africa evolved their lighterskin in heavily forested areas?
Larger than Denmark or Switzerland, and bigger than Lesotho and Swaziland combined, the 52,800 square kilometre Central Kalahari Game Reserve, which was set up in 1961, is the second largest game reserve in the world. Situated right in the centre of Botswana, this reserve is characterised by vast open plains, saltpans and ancient riverbeds. Varying from sand dunes with many species of trees and shrubs in the north, to flat bushveld in the central area, the reserve is more heavily wooded in the south, with mophane forests to the south and east.
The people commonly known throughout the world as Bushmen, but more properly referred to as the Basarwa or San, have been resident in and around the area for probably thousands of years.
Trees, grass and earth all absorb ultra violet rays.
Now let me walk your slow ass through the rest of this- Nature has selected for people with darker skin in tropical latitudes, especially in nonforested regions, where ultraviolet radiation from the sun is usually the most intense.
2) Darken? Are you insinuating these people (south Asians) were originally lighter and became less darker? If so, source please.
Same answer as above, people who evolved in the forested or tree covered areas of South Asia are *less darker* than Africans who evolved in areas not heavily forested like Savannas.
3) Can you further elaborate on this because I don't quite get what you're saying here. How does the cloudy sky enable people to survive without this quality? By "this" I assume you mean melanin.
This time read mofo. Cloud cover can greatly affect the amount of UV radiation received at the earth's surface. Clouds that are dark and heavily burdened with water can absorb up to 80 percent of the radiation.
Now use whatever common sense you have left; If melanin is needed to protect against UV intensity, and Clouds ABSORB 80% of the UV intensity, then people under heavily clouded skies, such as Germans, British, Irish, do not need as much melanin to survive.
4) So the people who reside in the arctics who are in fact Asian to begin with, due to glare of sun off of the snow made them more similar to themselves? Elaborate on this please, thanks.
Light skin complexion typically correlates with higher latitudes, this is more obvious with Europeans, Northern Europeans are typically paler than southern Europeans. However, this correlation does not hold in the case of Asians. Asians in higher latitudes can be just as dark as Asians in much lower latitudes, because they needed to retain their melanin due to the UV intensity being increased when it’s reflected off snow.
Now why is it that everyone can understand this except you, do you really suffer from low comprehension skills. You seem to think that this Vitamin D theory is universally accepted, but it’s not, and it’s time you open up to other explanations, and don’t put all you eggs in one basket. I don’t know if you’re Black or White, but let me tell you as real man, dark, strong healthier than a mofo, I ain’t trying to hear I’m *deficient* in a goddamn thing. And I see you’re avoiding the answer to how humans survived 30,000 years in Europe with dark-skin in every post, but I already peeped it, you don’t have the answers, huh? So you ain’t fooling nobody with that bullsh*t.
Now the evidence is all posted, it's another thing if your lazy ass fail to read it.
Posts: 82 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: For the smarter ones:
quote:
More recently, my own group in collaboration with Rosalind Harding have published a larger study (42) involving a more quantitative mathematical approach based on sequencing of 448 full sequences and have come to different conclusions (Fig. 1). Like Rana et al. (44), we show that whilst there is considerably less diversity in African populations than in European populations, comparison of the divergence between chimp and human sequence, together with allowance for selective ascertainment of functional mutations associated with red hair, suggests that the MC1R data is compatible with neutral theory in Europe but with functional constraint operating in Africa. In other words, whilst the data provide evidence for selective pressure acting to maintain wild-type MC1R status in Africa, in Europe the data are compatible with a removal of constraint rather than selection in favour of loss-of-function mutants.
=====
do you know what the above means?
This means that the selective pressure for red hair is under *less constraint*, although it is still a *recessive* trait, because humans can survive longer with it Europe, than they can in Africa. So it grew at higher frequencies in Europe because the UV intensity in these areas are very weak, due to high latitudes and under constant overcast skies, as I have already shown evidence that dark clouds *overcast skies* absorb 80% of the UV rays, before they ever reach the earth, so these people are not in danger of sunburning as they would be under the high UV intensity in tropical regions, like Equatorial Afica.
Posts: 82 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
THIS IA ACTUALLY A VERY NICE STUDY; TO STUDY A WHITE BOY TRYING TO BULLS1T HIMSELF AND ANYONE ELSE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO PAY ATTENTION!
He is studying The Melanocortin 1 Receptor (MC1R): to find answers as to why White people are White. (He notes that when the MC1R mutates, it often causes a LOSS-of-FUNCTION in Humans. i.e. MC1R whole and UNCHANGED = GOOD. Mutated = BAD!).
The Melanocortin 1 Receptor (MC1R): More Than Just Red Hair JONATHAN L. REES
In man, a number of loss-of-function mutations in the MC1R have been described. The majority of red-heads (red-haired persons) are compound heterozygotes or homozygotes for up to five frequent loss-of-function mutations.
A minority of red- heads are, however, only heterozygote. The MC1R is, there- fore, a major determinant of sun sensitivity and a genetic risk factor for melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer. Recent work suggests that the MC1R also shows a clear heterozygote
It is worth setting out the relevant questions
Why are humans different in terms of skin colour and, more particularly, why is there such diversity of skin and hair colour in Northern Europeans? Is this natural selection favouring lightening of the skin or conversely is this merely due to absence of selection in Europe, with selection operat-ing against the development of MC1R mutants in Africa?
(AS often happens, White boys will slip in a lie to start things off. i.e. There is VERY little diversity in SKIN color of Norther Europeans, the diversity is ONLY in HAIR colors: such as Red, Blond, Strawberry blond and ginger - ALL OF WHICH ARE SYMPTOMATIC OF ALBINISM!).
How old are the various alleles and are these dates compat-ible with what we know of human migration out of Africa?
Rana et al. (44) studied the MC1R in 121 individuals from population samples from around the world. They detected six MC1R variants and showed that the 163 variant as previously reported by Sturm's group (38) was common in Asian populations. Furthermore, they showed that the pattern of MC1R diversity was lower in African populations than in those from Northern Europe. They suggested that this could represent diversifying selection. More recently, my own group in collaboration with Rosalind Harding have published a larger study (42) involv-ing a more quantitative mathematical approach based on sequencing of 448 full sequences and have come to different conclusions (Fig. 1). Like Rana et al.
we show that whilst there is considerably less diversity in African popula-tions than in European populations, comparison of the divergence between chimp and human sequence, together with allowance for selective ascertainment of functional mutations associated with red hair, suggests that the MC1R data is compatible with neutral theory in Europe but with functional constraint operating in Africa. In other words, whilst the data provide evidence for selective pressure acting to maintain wild-type MC1R status in Africa, in Europe the data are compatible with a removal of constraint rather than selection in favour of loss-of-function mutants.
Did anyone catch the highlighted above. White boy is saying that a healthy MC1R is "WILD". Does that mean that the "Mutated", Fractured and Broken, UN-healthy European MC1R is CIVILIZED???
See xyyman, when it comes to their origins (Albinism), you can't pay attention to a thing they say - It's all going to be PURE Bullsh1t!Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
(AS often happens, White boys will slip in a lie to start things off. i.e. There is VERY little diversity in SKIN color of Norther Europeans, the diversity is ONLY in HAIR colors: such as Red, Blond, Strawberry blond and ginger - ALL OF WHICH ARE SYMPTOMATIC OF ALBINISM!).
[/b]
LOL, you caught that too? Personally, I stopped reading following that blatant lie.
Gaining an understanding of Melanin has now provided me with a real qualifier when my Grandmother used to tell me that; God lives within each of us. If God were a complex molecule, he/she would be; Melanin.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: I thinked I missed my calling. I should have become a special education teacher to assist the dumb mofo with reading impairments. So now to assist their dumbasses in their inability to read within context, I must go slowly and answer by number. Now read all of it you dumb mofo, not a sentence or two.
1) What source are you going by that states the San of southern Africa evolved their lighterskin in heavily forested areas?
Larger than Denmark or Switzerland, and bigger than Lesotho and Swaziland combined, the 52,800 square kilometre Central Kalahari Game Reserve, which was set up in 1961, is the second largest game reserve in the world. Situated right in the centre of Botswana, this reserve is characterised by vast open plains, saltpans and ancient riverbeds. Varying from sand dunes with many species of trees and shrubs in the north, to flat bushveld in the central area, the reserve is more heavily wooded in the south, with mophane forests to the south and east.
The people commonly known throughout the world as Bushmen, but more properly referred to as the Basarwa or San, have been resident in and around the area for probably thousands of years.
I asked you for a source that specifically states the Sans lighter skin was due to adapting in heavily forested areas, so far not one has come up.
This doesnt state that the San adapted their lighterskin due to residence in the central Kalahari game reserve. It says nothing at all about skin color, try again.
In fact I already showed you the actual genetic data which specifically talks about the San in specific reference to their lighterskin complexion, wherein it states that the San carry a derived allele at the OCA2 loci, along with low frequncies of the European specific derived SLC24A5 allele.
Let's see some genetic data asked of you, have it?
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: 2) Darken? Are you insinuating these people (south Asians) were originally lighter and became less darker? If so, source please.
Same answer as above, people who evolved in the forested or tree covered areas of South Asia are *less darker* than Africans who evolved in areas not heavily forested like Savannas.
Oh now its less darker? Not less darkened huh. Ok then backtrack jackass.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: 3) Can you further elaborate on this because I don't quite get what you're saying here. How does the cloudy sky enable people to survive without this quality? By "this" I assume you mean melanin.
This time read mofo. Cloud cover can greatly affect the amount of UV radiation received at the earth's surface. Clouds that are dark and heavily burdened with water can absorb up to 80 percent of the radiation.
Now use whatever common sense you have left; If melanin is needed to protect against UV intensity, and Clouds ABSORB 80% of the UV intensity, then people under heavily clouded skies, such as Germans, British, Irish, do not need as much melanin to survive.
Yea I already explained this and corrected you, its not clouds that allows for these people to live without melanin, it's the lower UV intensity wherein the less melanin allows them to live under these darker cloudier skies.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: 4) So the people who reside in the arctics who are in fact Asian to begin with, due to glare of sun off of the snow made them more similar to themselves? Elaborate on this please, thanks.
Light skin complexion typically correlates with higher latitudes, this is more obvious with Europeans, Northern Europeans are typically paler than southern Europeans. However, this correlation does not hold in the case of Asians. Asians in higher latitudes can be just as dark as Asians in much lower latitudes, because they needed to retain their melanin due to the UV intensity being increased when it’s reflected off snow.
You're slow kid, the Eskimos retain a darker complexion all over their bodies, the Eskimos also cover their whole bodies heavily with clothing, this doesnt allow for any sunlight reflecting off of snow to hit the areas where the skin is being covered you dunce, hence they should only be dark in areas where the sun hits, I.e, faces. But this is not the case as explained theyre dark all over and as already explained this is what is known about how and why these individuals retain their levels of melanin despite living in colder lower UV envrionemts.
Here's an example, southwest Asians cover themselves with clothing, and so the parts of their bodies which are exposed to the sun become darker, I.e, face and hands, possibly arms, but under their clothing they can be pale as hell. This should be the case with Eskimos if they retain melanin due to incresed UV reflecting off of snow because the Eskimos are also heavily covered in clothing.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: Now why is it that everyone can understand this except you, do you really suffer from low comprehension skills. You seem to think that this Vitamin D theory is universally accepted, but it’s not, and it’s time you open up to other explanations, and don’t put all you eggs in one basket.
Ok doofis, so explain why the Inuits are so heavily dependent on their Vitamin D rich diet and ever since their diets started changing started developing vitamin D defiencies such as rickets ? Why are they encouraged to take these vitamin D supplements?
For centuries, Inuit living in Canada's Arctic spent months without sunlight, and lifetimes wearing thick, fur clothing that blocked the sunlight from their dark skin.
Mother Nature provided vitamin D in other ways. Instead of making it through sun exposure, the Inuit got a healthy dose from traditional foods that happen to be rich in vitamin D: the skin of Arctic char; seal liver; the yolks of bird and fish eggs; and seal, walrus and whale blubber.
But as the Arctic has changed, so have eating habits. While seal and char (trout) are still staples in Nunavut's isolated communities, walrus and whale consumption have been in decline for 30 years.
The result is ****vitamin D deficiency***, which surfaces as ***rickets*** , a disease most Canadians might be surprised to hear still exists in Canada. Thirty-one new cases of rickets were discovered in the first five years of Nunavut's creation.
Of course its both lower UV with the necessity to produce vitamin D.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: I ain’t trying to hear I’m *deficient* in a goddamn thing.
Pretty much says it all, denial.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: And I see you’re avoiding the answer to how humans survived 30,000 years in Europe with dark-skin in every post, but I already peeped it, you don’t have the answers, huh? So you ain’t fooling nobody with that bullsh*t.
Are you an idiot? Wow, this tells me that your cognitively challenged to the max, because this has already been explained days ago, which was that like all early humans around the world before the advent of agriculture they were hunter gatherer fishers and herders. In this diet, just like the Inuits, contained a high level of Vitamin D allowing for the melanin levels to retain, just like the Eskimos.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I kept reading just to see where the fool would go.
But to his credit, instead of telling even BIGGER lies, he just gave up, and bailed out.
BTW - How did you like the "Wild" crack?
Typical White Boy Vengeance.
If it's good and Natural i.e. African, it's Wild.
But actually though, isn't it really the HEIGHT of healthy Human evolution? Wouldn't a better way of putting it be "The most Advanced MC1R".
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Living amongst whites has blunted our natural sensitivity to perceive wavelengths well beyond those available to whites with their retarded development. Blacks should be naturally equipped to perform amazing feats and accomplish wondrously magical functions, except we are ignorant with white based knowledge that acts as an anchor, tying us to earth be limiting our abilities to the low levels of the unworthy and diseased.
No wonder the God of the true Chosen people warned them not to interbreed with or consume the foodstuffs of the outsiders.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: I thinked I missed my calling. I should have become a special education teacher to assist the dumb mofo with reading impairments. So now to assist their dumbasses in their inability to read within context, I must go slowly and answer by number. Now read all of it you dumb mofo, not a sentence or two.
1) What source are you going by that states the San of southern Africa evolved their lighterskin in heavily forested areas?
Larger than Denmark or Switzerland, and bigger than Lesotho and Swaziland combined, the 52,800 square kilometre Central Kalahari Game Reserve, which was set up in 1961, is the second largest game reserve in the world. Situated right in the centre of Botswana, this reserve is characterised by vast open plains, saltpans and ancient riverbeds. Varying from sand dunes with many species of trees and shrubs in the north, to flat bushveld in the central area, the reserve is more heavily wooded in the south, with mophane forests to the south and east.
The people commonly known throughout the world as Bushmen, but more properly referred to as the Basarwa or San, have been resident in and around the area for probably thousands of years.
I asked you for a source that specifically states the Sans lighter skin was due to adapting in heavily forested areas, so far not one has come up.
This doesnt state that the San adapted their lighterskin due to residence in the central Kalahari game reserve. It says nothing at all about skin color, try again.
In fact I already showed you the actual genetic data which specifically talks about the San in specific reference to their lighterskin complexion, wherein it states that the San carry a derived allele at the OCA2 loci, along with low frequncies of the European specific derived SLC24A5 allele.
Let's see some genetic data asked of you, have it?
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: 2) Darken? Are you insinuating these people (south Asians) were originally lighter and became less darker? If so, source please.
Same answer as above, people who evolved in the forested or tree covered areas of South Asia are *less darker* than Africans who evolved in areas not heavily forested like Savannas.
Oh now its less darker? Not less darkened huh. Ok then backtrack jackass.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: 3) Can you further elaborate on this because I don't quite get what you're saying here. How does the cloudy sky enable people to survive without this quality? By "this" I assume you mean melanin.
This time read mofo. Cloud cover can greatly affect the amount of UV radiation received at the earth's surface. Clouds that are dark and heavily burdened with water can absorb up to 80 percent of the radiation.
Now use whatever common sense you have left; If melanin is needed to protect against UV intensity, and Clouds ABSORB 80% of the UV intensity, then people under heavily clouded skies, such as Germans, British, Irish, do not need as much melanin to survive.
Yea I already explained this and corrected you, its not clouds that allows for these people to live without melanin, it's the lower UV intensity wherein the less melanin allows them to live under these darker cloudier skies.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: 4) So the people who reside in the arctics who are in fact Asian to begin with, due to glare of sun off of the snow made them more similar to themselves? Elaborate on this please, thanks.
Light skin complexion typically correlates with higher latitudes, this is more obvious with Europeans, Northern Europeans are typically paler than southern Europeans. However, this correlation does not hold in the case of Asians. Asians in higher latitudes can be just as dark as Asians in much lower latitudes, because they needed to retain their melanin due to the UV intensity being increased when it’s reflected off snow.
You're slow kid, the Eskimos retain a darker complexion all over their bodies, the Eskimos also cover their whole bodies heavily with clothing, this doesnt allow for any sunlight reflecting off of snow to hit the areas where the skin is being covered you dunce, hence they should only be dark in areas where the sun hits, I.e, faces. But this is not the case as explained theyre dark all over and as already explained this is what is known about how and why these individuals retain their levels of melanin despite living in colder lower UV envrionemts.
Here's an example, southwest Asians cover themselves with clothing, and so the parts of their bodies which are exposed to the sun become darker, I.e, face and hands, possibly arms, but under their clothing they can be pale as hell. This should be the case with Eskimos if they retain melanin due to incresed UV reflecting off of snow because the Eskimos are also heavily covered in clothing.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: Now why is it that everyone can understand this except you, do you really suffer from low comprehension skills. You seem to think that this Vitamin D theory is universally accepted, but it’s not, and it’s time you open up to other explanations, and don’t put all you eggs in one basket.
Ok doofis, so explain why the Inuits are so heavily dependent on their Vitamin D rich diet and ever since their diets started changing started developing vitamin D defiencies such as rickets ? Why are they encouraged to take these vitamin D supplements?
For centuries, Inuit living in Canada's Arctic spent months without sunlight, and lifetimes wearing thick, fur clothing that blocked the sunlight from their dark skin.
Mother Nature provided vitamin D in other ways. Instead of making it through sun exposure, the Inuit got a healthy dose from traditional foods that happen to be rich in vitamin D: the skin of Arctic char; seal liver; the yolks of bird and fish eggs; and seal, walrus and whale blubber.
But as the Arctic has changed, so have eating habits. While seal and char (trout) are still staples in Nunavut's isolated communities, walrus and whale consumption have been in decline for 30 years.
The result is ****vitamin D deficiency***, which surfaces as ***rickets*** , a disease most Canadians might be surprised to hear still exists in Canada. Thirty-one new cases of rickets were discovered in the first five years of Nunavut's creation.
Of course its both lower UV with the necessity to produce vitamin D.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: I ain’t trying to hear I’m *deficient* in a goddamn thing.
Pretty much says it all, denial.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: And I see you’re avoiding the answer to how humans survived 30,000 years in Europe with dark-skin in every post, but I already peeped it, you don’t have the answers, huh? So you ain’t fooling nobody with that bullsh*t.
Are you an idiot? Wow, this tells me that your cognitively challenged to the max, because this has already been explained days ago, which was that like all early humans around the world before the advent of agriculture they were hunter gatherer fishers and herders. In this diet, just like the Inuits, contained a high level of Vitamin D allowing for the melanin levels to retain, just like the Eskimos.
Dawg you're weak as hell and so is your vitamin D theory. If you're too damn dumb to understand that most of the vitamin D *and calcium* in food is found in higher frequencies in agricultural products--milk, cheese, all that dairy sh*t came about when humans domesticated goats and cows, so cut the bullsh*t, you're just making up sh*t, nothing to back it.
Now answer---Why did humans remain Dark skinned for 30,000 in vitamin D was needed for survival. Keeping in mind the fact that agriculture is a recent phenomena in human history--max 10,000 years ago.
Also don't play with the intelligent folks and try to play down fish, as if humans suddenly stopped eating it when agricultural arose. And you do know that the San are still hunter gatherers.
Posts: 82 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: But this is not the case as explained theyre dark all over and as already explained this is what is known about how and why these individuals retain their levels of melanin despite living in colder lower UV envrionemts.
So the dunce doesn't become confused, this is what was supposed to follow the above post from me, I.e, this is what is known about how and why these individuals retain their levels of melanin despite living in colder lower UV envrionemts.
For centuries, Inuit living in Canada's Arctic spent months without sunlight, and lifetimes wearing thick, fur clothing that blocked the sunlight from their dark skin.
Mother Nature provided vitamin D in other ways. Instead of making it through sun exposure, the Inuit got a healthy dose from traditional foods that happen to be rich in vitamin D: the skin of Arctic char; seal liver; the yolks of bird and fish eggs; and seal, walrus and whale blubber.
But as the Arctic has changed, so have eating habits. While seal and char (trout) are still staples in Nunavut's isolated communities, walrus and whale consumption have been in decline for 30 years.
The result is ****vitamin D deficiency***, which surfaces as ***rickets*** , a disease most Canadians might be surprised to hear still exists in Canada. Thirty-one new cases of rickets were discovered in the first five years of Nunavut's creation.
Now note the Vitamin D-deficiency rickets among children in Canada...
quote: Vitamin D-deficiency rickets among children in Canada. Ward LM, Gaboury I, Ladhani M, Zlotkin S.
Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on regional and anecdotal reports, there is concern that vitamin D-deficiency rickets is persistent in Canada despite guidelines for its prevention. We sought to determine the incidence and clinical characteristics of vitamin D-deficiency rickets among children living in Canada. METHODS: A total of 2325 Canadian pediatricians were surveyed monthly from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2004, through the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program to determine the incidence, geographic distribution and clinical profiles of confirmed cases of vitamin D-deficiency rickets. We calculated incidence rates based on the number of confirmed cases over the product of the length of the study period (2 years) and the estimates of the population by age group. RESULTS: There were 104 confirmed cases of vitamin D- deficiency rickets during the study period. The overall annual incidence rate was 2.9 cases per 100,000. The incidence rates were highest among children residing in the the north (Yukon Territory, Northwest Territories and Nunavut). The mean age at diagnosis was 1.4 years (standard deviation [SD] 0.9, min-max 2 weeks-6.3 years). Sixty-eight children (65%) had lived in urban areas most of their lives, and 57 (55%) of the cases were identified in Ontario. Ninety-two (89%) of the children had intermediate or darker skin. Ninety-eight (94%) had been breast-fed, and 3 children (2.9%) had been fed standard infant formula. None of the breast-fed infants had received vitamin D supplementation according to current guidelines (400 IU/d). Maternal risk factors included limited sun exposure and a lack of vitamin D from diet or supplements during pregnancy and lactation. The majority of children showed clinically important morbidity at diagnosis, including hypocalcemic seizures (20 cases, 19%). INTERPRETATION: Vitamin D-deficiency rickets is persistent in Canada, particularly among children who reside in the north and among infants with darker skin who are breast-fed without appropriate vitamin D supplementation. Since there were no reported cases of breast-fed children having received regular vitamin D (400 IU/d) from birth who developed rickets, the current guidelines for rickets prevention can be effective but are not being consistently implemented. The exception appears to be infants, including those fed standard infant formula, born to mothers with a profound vitamin D deficiency, in which case the current guidelines may not be adequate to rescue infants from the vitamin D-deficient state.
^^Why were the children noted to be deficient which was 89% of the children have intermediate or darker skin?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: THIS IA ACTUALLY A VERY NICE STUDY; TO STUDY A WHITE BOY TRYING TO BULLS1T HIMSELF AND ANYONE ELSE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO PAY ATTENTION!
He is studying The Melanocortin 1 Receptor (MC1R): to find answers as to why White people are White. (He notes that when the MC1R mutates, it often causes a LOSS-of-FUNCTION in Humans. i.e. MC1R whole and UNCHANGED = GOOD. Mutated = BAD!).
The Melanocortin 1 Receptor (MC1R): More Than Just Red Hair JONATHAN L. REES
In man, a number of loss-of-function mutations in the MC1R have been described. The majority of red-heads (red-haired persons) are compound heterozygotes or homozygotes for up to five frequent loss-of-function mutations.
A minority of red- heads are, however, only heterozygote. The MC1R is, there- fore, a major determinant of sun sensitivity and a genetic risk factor for melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer. Recent work suggests that the MC1R also shows a clear heterozygote
It is worth setting out the relevant questions
Why are humans different in terms of skin colour and, more particularly, why is there such diversity of skin and hair colour in Northern Europeans? Is this natural selection favouring lightening of the skin or conversely is this merely due to absence of selection in Europe, with selection operat-ing against the development of MC1R mutants in Africa?
(AS often happens, White boys will slip in a lie to start things off. i.e. There is VERY little diversity in SKIN color of Norther Europeans, the diversity is ONLY in HAIR colors: such as Red, Blond, Strawberry blond and ginger - ALL OF WHICH ARE SYMPTOMATIC OF ALBINISM!).
How old are the various alleles and are these dates compat-ible with what we know of human migration out of Africa?
Rana et al. (44) studied the MC1R in 121 individuals from population samples from around the world. They detected six MC1R variants and showed that the 163 variant as previously reported by Sturm's group (38) was common in Asian populations. Furthermore, they showed that the pattern of MC1R diversity was lower in African populations than in those from Northern Europe. They suggested that this could represent diversifying selection. More recently, my own group in collaboration with Rosalind Harding have published a larger study (42) involv-ing a more quantitative mathematical approach based on sequencing of 448 full sequences and have come to different conclusions (Fig. 1). Like Rana et al.
we show that whilst there is considerably less diversity in African popula-tions than in European populations, comparison of the divergence between chimp and human sequence, together with allowance for selective ascertainment of functional mutations associated with red hair, suggests that the MC1R data is compatible with neutral theory in Europe but with functional constraint operating in Africa. In other words, whilst the data provide evidence for selective pressure acting to maintain wild-type MC1R status in Africa, in Europe the data are compatible with a removal of constraint rather than selection in favour of loss-of-function mutants.
Did anyone catch the highlighted above. White boy is saying that a healthy MC1R is "WILD". Does that mean that the "Mutated", Fractured and Broken, UN-healthy European MC1R is CIVILIZED???
See xyyman, when it comes to their origins (Albinism), you can't pay attention to a thing they say - It's all going to be PURE Bullsh1t!
Stay away from the desktop you dumbass mofo. Everytime a child is born, they have a certain number of *mutated* genes, even if we don't know what function they serve. Being mutated don't have a goddamn thing to do with being *healthy*.
I can't believe MelaninKing agreeing with your dumbass on this. I thought he was smarter. Both of you are some whack ass desktop scholars.
Posts: 82 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: Dawg you're weak as hell and so is your vitamin D theory. If you're too damn dumb to understand that most of the vitamin D *and calcium* in food is found in higher frequencies in agricultural products--milk, cheese, all that dairy sh*t came about when humans domesticated goats and cows, so cut the bullsh*t, you're just making up sh*t, nothing to back it.
Sorry dipshit, but about 90% of the vitamin D produced in the body is through UV rays.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: Now answer---Why did humans remain Dark skinned for 30,000 in vitamin D was needed for survival. Keeping in mind the fact that agriculture is a recent phenomena in human history--max 10,000 years ago.
Already explained to your dumbass.
P.s. by the time alleles became widespread in Europeans, they were defnitely lighter than their paleolithic ancestors, as can be noted by the simple fact they resided in lower UV environments, and their limb proportional indices towards the LUP and MES were becoming more cold adapted.
p.p.s. In effect, Inuits live on a hunter gatherers diet, and reside in cold harsh low UV envrionments, yet still retain melanin levels due to their high and rich vitamin D diets.
But remember, the Inuit are not that dark to begin with, just containing more melanin than Europeans and much less than Africans.
The point here would be the melanin levels of early Europeans before they became completely pale would likely have been similar to the Inuits considering their similar hunter gatherers diet in cold low UV environments, give or take a shade or two lighter or darker.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: Also don't play with the intelligent folks and try to play down fish, as if humans suddenly stopped eating it when agricultural arose.
So according to you a hunter gatherers diet consists of only fish? Where did you read this?
Here' what an inuit diet consists of; the skin of Arctic char; seal liver; the yolks of bird and fish eggs; and seal, walrus and whale blubber.
^^ever since the above staples were decreased in their environments and so limiting the intake of their traditional diet mentioned above, they Inuit have been developing vitamin D deficiencies.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: And you do know that the San are still hunter gatherers.
Ok, and? The San carry derived alleles associated with lighterskin pigmentation jackass. Besides they're in Africa, plenty of sun there.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Michael1010, what did you think of MindoverMatters' thread mid way down called:
______________ OT: Tibetans Developed Genes to Help Them Adapt to Life at High Elevations _______________
This implies that Tibetans are BETTER suited physically to living in the mountains.
-who said nature was politically correct?
No, I don't have time to read all the bullsh*t these dumb mofo posts. But I'm not surprised given the fact that mountains exists in Africa, so the ancestors must have carried this gene as well.
Yeah nature is not politically correct which is why the gene for *light* skin is held under constraint in Africa, although the ancestors carried it.
This is the difference between my theory and your theory.
* Humans have needed vitamin D, since they arose. Animals need it as well, since they also have *bones*. If your argument were true, then all animals in northern climates will have white fur as well, since pigment exist in the fur of animals as well, in case you didn't know this.
* Most of the cases of rickets occur in people who suffer from malnutrition, which means they are deficient in all essential vitamins, not just Vitamin D. Earlier humans didn't suffer from malnutrition, because they could migrate freely in search of food, they can't do that now. Most of the people who suffer from malnutrition coincidentally live in African countries where droughts are prevalent. This would explain the discrepancy of why they just so happen to be *Black*.
* Healthy Blacks have lived in Europe for 30,000 years, so it doesn't have a damn thing to do with skin color, it has to do with the ability to attain essential vitamins needed for survival from FOOD.
* The need for Vitamin D occur in all humans, white and dark. Sun alone can't take care of this. If it's just a few small cases of White Europeans suffering from rickets and vitamin D deficient, will debunk that theory, and it has already been proven. WHITE PEOPLE ALSO SUFFER FROM RICKETS. So it must not be the *skin color* its from lack of it food--get this sh*t through your head.
* Sunscreen didn't exist 30,000 years ago in Africa, so nature took care of that by creating a *natural* sunscreen called melanin. As the necessity for this pigment relaxed, the production of it relaxed as well, since there are no other significant purpose of melanin, in areas where it's not necessary, it will began to relax over a period of time. So it didn't happen overnight, our earlier ancestors were some confused mofo, some of them got all the way to Asia and decided to bring their asses back to Africa. The other ones continued on to Europe and North Asia, so overtime, that *light skin* gene, began to increase in frequency.
Evidence shows that prior to 1915 almost 85% of *European* children suffered from rickets. Europeans were poorer back then, that's why they took their asses to Africa to steal resources. Now Africans are the ones suffering.
Posts: 82 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
* Humans have needed vitamin D, since they arose. Animals need it as well, since they also have *bones*. If your argument were true, then all animals in northern climates will have white fur as well, since pigment exist in the fur of animals as well, in case you didn't know this.
So animal fur is similar to human skin? Lol.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: Dawg you're weak as hell and so is your vitamin D theory. If you're too damn dumb to understand that most of the vitamin D *and calcium* in food is found in higher frequencies in agricultural products--milk, cheese, all that dairy sh*t came about when humans domesticated goats and cows, so cut the bullsh*t, you're just making up sh*t, nothing to back it.
Sorry dipshit, but about 90% of the vitamin D produced in the body is through UV rays.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: Now answer---Why did humans remain Dark skinned for 30,000 in vitamin D was needed for survival. Keeping in mind the fact that agriculture is a recent phenomena in human history--max 10,000 years ago.
Already explained to your dumbass.
P.s. by the time alleles became widespread in Europeans, they were defnitely lighter than their paleolithic ancestors, as can be noted by the simple fact they resided in lower UV environments, and their limb proportional indices towards the LUP and MES were becoming more cold adapted.
p.p.s. In effect, Inuits live on a hunter gatherers diet, and reside in cold harsh low UV envrionments, yet still retain melanin levels due to their high and rich vitamin D diets.
But remember, the Inuit are not that dark to begin with, just containing more melanin than Europeans and much less than Africans.
The point here would be the melanin levels of early Europeans before they became completely pale would likely have been similar to the Inuits considering their similar hunter gatherers diet in cold low UV environments, give or take a shade or two lighter or darker.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: Also don't play with the intelligent folks and try to play down fish, as if humans suddenly stopped eating it when agricultural arose.
So according to you a hunter gatherers diet consists of only fish? Where did you read this?
Here' what an inuit diet consists of; the skin of Arctic char; seal liver; the yolks of bird and fish eggs; and seal, walrus and whale blubber.
^^ever since the above staples were decreased in their environments and so limiting the intake of their traditional diet mentioned above, they Inuit have been developing vitamin D deficiencies.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: And you do know that the San are still hunter gatherers.
Ok, and? The San carry derived alleles associated with lighterskin pigmentation jackass. Besides they're in Africa, plenty of sun there.
90% of the vitamin D produced in the body is through UV rays
And UV rays are the strongest in Africa, you goddamn loser. They get more sunlight than most places on earth. 12 hours a day--365 days a year. Plus to get rickets, it must be a *severe* case of deficiency, like the ones suffering from malnutrition.
Gotta work now fool, but I'll be back in that ass later.
Posts: 82 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: This is the difference between my theory and your theory. * Most of the cases of rickets occur in people who suffer from malnutrition, which means they are deficient in all essential vitamins, not just Vitamin D. Earlier humans didn't suffer from malnutrition, because they could migrate freely in search of food, they can't do that now. Most of the people who suffer from malnutrition coincidentally live in African countries where droughts are prevalent. This would explain the discrepancy of why they just so happen to be *Black*.
Hmm, now let's check the science....
Symposium: Optimizing Vitamin D Intake for Populations with Special Needs: Barriers to Effective Food Fortification and Supplementation
Vitamin D and African Americans
Susan S. Harris2
Vitamin D insufficiency is more prevalent among African Americans (blacks) than other Americans and, in North America, most young, healthy blacks do not achieve optimal 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations at any time of year.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: * Healthy Blacks have lived in Europe for 30,000 years
Evidence for this please...
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: * The need for Vitamin D occur in all humans, white and dark. Sun alone can't take care of this. If it's just a few small cases of White Europeans suffering from rickets and vitamin D deficient, will debunk that theory, and it has already been proven. WHITE PEOPLE ALSO SUFFER FROM RICKETS. So it must not be the *skin color* its from lack of it food--get this sh*t through your head.
False as already noted 90% of this vitamin D in our body is produced through UV ray absorption. About 10% comes from food.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: * Sunscreen didn't exist 30,000 years ago in Africa, so nature took care of that by creating a *natural* sunscreen called melanin.
Indeed, and this also prohibited the amount of UV rays that got through the skin especially in lower UV environments, humans are vitally dependent on sun exposure for this reason of vitamin D, hence humans became lighter to allow more absorption of UV rays in lower Uv environments.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: As the necessity for this pigment relaxed, the production of it relaxed as well, since there are no other significant purpose of melanin, in areas where it's not necessary, it will began to relax over a period of time.
Except for the fact that humans are vitally dependent on vitamin D and the natural source providing 90% of it comes from the sun.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: So it didn't happen overnight,
Of course it didn't
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: our earlier ancestors were some confused mofo, some of them got all the way to Asia and decided to bring their asses back to Africa.
Really, evidence for this back migration?
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: The other ones continued on to Europe and North Asia, so overtime, that *light skin* gene, began to increase in frequency.
Sorry kid, but the derived alleles as already shown mutated outside of Africa, and not within, the ancestral allele is what predominates in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: Evidence shows that prior to 1915 almost 85% of *European* children suffered from rickets.
Indeed, ever heard of the industrial revolution? Well research what affects it had on the sky. I.e, google vitamin D deficiency and industrial revolution.
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: Europeans were poorer back then, that's why they took their asses to Africa to steal resources. Now Africans are the ones suffering.
Perhaps.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: 90% of the vitamin D produced in the body is through UV rays
And UV rays are the strongest in Africa, you goddamn loser. They get more sunlight than most places on earth. 12 hours a day--365 days a year. Plus to get rickets, it must be a *severe* case of deficiency, like the ones suffering from malnutrition.
Gota work now fool, but I'll be back in that ass later.
Sorry dumbass, but the source you provided on Africans in Africa with rickets was result of insufficant intake of calcium, not vitamin D.
Pay attention to your sources...
quote:Originally posted by michael1010: RESULTS: Calcium deficiency is the major cause of rickets in Africa and some parts of tropical Asia, but is being recognised increasingly in other parts of the world..[..] Vitamin D supplementation alone might not prevent or treat rickets in populations with limited calcium intake.[/i] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16494699
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will you give it up already. Get past KIK/MOM/Jablonski and his ”vit D deficiency made them white” junk science. Debunk the other parts of the MT.
However I see YOU are catching on after reading my post.
1. KIK is right where is the proof that the San developed their light color in forested areas. BS from Mike Jr. 2. What the study is saying is that the oiginal(natural) skin hue of our ”ancestors” was light/white. Blackness (MC1R) developed about 1mya. AMHs, 200kya, were black. But this this is NOT the natural state( ie wild). 3. When humans moved into Europe and low UV regions there wasn’t any constraints therefore skin hue reverted to the ”natural state” ie 1mya ie white.
All of the above seems reasonable than the vit B BS. The above will explain why Central Americans are dark and San are light. The E. Asians entered the Americas light and darkened when the constraints(UV) re-appeared. Makes perfect sense now.
However, do tell me, they are leaving out some key elements to their SPIN?????
Hint: fur
======== The Melanocortin 1 Receptor (MC1R): More Than Just Red Hair JONATHAN L. REES Uni6ersity of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom *Address reprint requests to Professor Jonathan Rees, Dermatology, Uni6ersity of Edinburgh, Lauriston Buildings, Royal Infirmary, Lauriston Place, Edinburgh EH3 9YW, United Kingdom. E-mail: jonathan.rees@ed.ac.uk Received 6 March 2000; in final form 17 March 2000
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: For the smarter ones:
quote:
More recently, my own group in collaboration with Rosalind Harding have published a larger study (42) involving a more quantitative mathematical approach based on sequencing of 448 full sequences and have come to different conclusions (Fig. 1). Like Rana et al. (44), we show that whilst there is considerably less diversity in African populations than in European populations, comparison of the divergence between chimp and human sequence, together with allowance for selective ascertainment of functional mutations associated with red hair, suggests that the MC1R data is compatible with neutral theory in Europe but with functional constraint operating in Africa. In other words, whilst the data provide evidence for selective pressure acting to maintain wild-type MC1R status in Africa, in Europe the data are compatible with a removal of constraint rather than selection in favour of loss-of-function mutants.
=====
do you know what the above means?
This means that the selective pressure for red hair is under *less constraint*, although it is still a *recessive* trait, because humans can survive longer with it Europe, than they can in Africa. So it grew at higher frequencies in Europe because the UV intensity in these areas are very weak, due to high latitudes and under constant overcast skies, as I have already shown evidence that dark clouds *overcast skies* absorb 80% of the UV rays, before they ever reach the earth, so these people are not in danger of sunburning as they would be under the high UV intensity in tropical regions, like Equatorial Afica.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sunlight and vitamin D for bone health and prevention of autoimmune diseases, cancers, and cardiovascular disease. Holick MF.
Department of Medicine, Section of Endocrinology, Nutrition, and Diabetes, Vitamin D, Skin, and Bone Research Laboratory, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA 02118, USA. mfholick@bu.edu
Abstract Most humans depend on sun exposure to satisfy their requirements for vitamin D. Solar ultraviolet B photons are absorbed by 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin, leading to its transformation to previtamin D3, which is rapidly converted to vitamin D3. Season, latitude, time of day, skin pigmentation, aging, sunscreen use, and glass all influence the cutaneous production of vitamin D3. Once formed, vitamin D3 is metabolized in the liver to 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 and then in the kidney to its biologically active form, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3. Vitamin D deficiency is an unrecognized epidemic among both children and adults in the United States. Vitamin D deficiency not only causes rickets among children but also precipitates and exacerbates osteoporosis among adults and causes the painful bone disease osteomalacia. Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with increased risks of deadly cancers, cardiovascular disease, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and type 1 diabetes mellitus. Maintaining blood concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D above 80 nmol/L (approximately 30 ng/mL) not only is important for maximizing intestinal calcium absorption but also may be important for providing the extrarenal 1alpha-hydroxylase that is present in most tissues to produce 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3. Although chronic excessive exposure to sunlight increases the risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, the avoidance of all direct sun exposure increases the risk of vitamin D deficiency, which can have serious consequences. Monitoring serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations yearly should help reveal vitamin D deficiencies. Sensible sun exposure (usually 5-10 min of exposure of the arms and legs or the hands, arms, and face, 2 or 3 times per week) and increased dietary and supplemental vitamin D intakes are reasonable approaches to guarantee vitamin D sufficiency.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, the CONS presented this Vitamin D strawman and understood it so little themselves, they failed to gain anything but a better understanding from it's introduction.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Will you give it up already. Get past KIK/MOM/Jablonski and his ”vit D deficiency made them white” junk science.
You dumbassed sideline cheerleader, you keep on repeating this nonsense, and first of all you don't understand what you're saying. Humans didn't turn white because of vitamin D defiency, instead the lower UV environments combined with the need to absorb UV rays to synthesize vitamin D which 90% of this vitamin D in our body is produced. Only about 10% comes from food sources. Hence in lower UV environments humans became lighter for this reason.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Debunk the other parts of the MT.
The melanin theory that promotes Europeans are albinos is debunked. The alleles associated with lighterskin in Europeans are indeed actually found at its highest frequencies in Europeans, not Africans, hence we know that these alleles mutated outside of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The above will explain why Central Americans are dark and San are light. The E. Asians entered the Americas light and darkened when the constraints(UV) re-appeared. Makes perfect sense now.
I already explained this to you, which was that the alleles associated with lighterskin in east Asians didn't become fully widespread until after they colonized the Americas, hence they're not as light...
Interestingly, derived allele frequencies at this locus are quite different between Native American (15%) and East Asian populations (45%), suggesting that perhaps the derived allele at this locus did not reach very high frequencies in East Asians until after the colonization of the Americas.--Norton, Kittles et. alPosts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Sunlight and vitamin D for bone health and prevention of autoimmune diseases, cancers, and cardiovascular disease. Holick MF.
Department of Medicine, Section of Endocrinology, Nutrition, and Diabetes, Vitamin D, Skin, and Bone Research Laboratory, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA 02118, USA. mfholick@bu.edu
Abstract Most humans depend on sun exposure to satisfy their requirements for vitamin D. Solar ultraviolet B photons are absorbed by 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin, leading to its transformation to previtamin D3, which is rapidly converted to vitamin D3. Season, latitude, time of day, skin pigmentation, aging, sunscreen use, and glass all influence the cutaneous production of vitamin D3. Once formed, vitamin D3 is metabolized in the liver to 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 and then in the kidney to its biologically active form, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3. Vitamin D deficiency is an unrecognized epidemic among both children and adults in the United States. Vitamin D deficiency not only causes rickets among children but also precipitates and exacerbates osteoporosis among adults and causes the painful bone disease osteomalacia. Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with increased risks of deadly cancers, cardiovascular disease, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and type 1 diabetes mellitus. Maintaining blood concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D above 80 nmol/L (approximately 30 ng/mL) not only is important for maximizing intestinal calcium absorption but also may be important for providing the extrarenal 1alpha-hydroxylase that is present in most tissues to produce 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3. Although chronic excessive exposure to sunlight increases the risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, the avoidance of all direct sun exposure increases the risk of vitamin D deficiency, which can have serious consequences. Monitoring serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations yearly should help reveal vitamin D deficiencies. Sensible sun exposure (usually 5-10 min of exposure of the arms and legs or the hands, arms, and face, 2 or 3 times per week) and increased dietary and supplemental vitamin D intakes are reasonable approaches to guarantee vitamin D sufficiency.
It won't be as easy as recommending more sun exposure, however. Though someone in Boston with pale skin can get adequate vitamin D by exposing their arms and legs to the sun for 10 to 15 minutes twice a week in the summer, someone with the darkest skin might need two hours of exposure each time, Holick says. "It's impractical," he says, and it also darkens skin, which many people find cosmetically unacceptable.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Though someone in Boston with pale skin can get adequate vitamin D by exposing their arms and legs to the sun for 10 to 15 minutes twice a week in the summer, someone with the darkest skin might need two hours of exposure each time, Holick says.[/b] "It's impractical," he says, and it also darkens skin, which many people find cosmetically unacceptable.[/i] [/QB]
add to this people walking around on a city street, most not with their shirts off, moving around, varying sun intensity in different parts of the day etc.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: ^ Sammy Sosa, why you bleach to look like gringo?
Gringo? I think the Native Americans had it right when they proclaimed them as; Palefaces.
LOL, you have to be pretty white for a native American to call you a paleface. It's all relative, you know.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
He is posting at KIK/MOM. He calls MOM gringo.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting thread. Wasn't Europe fully populated relatively recently (20Kya)? And if what I've read is true - that pale skin developed appx 6-12kya - then its reasonable to deduce that it took 10-15k years for the indigenous peoples of Europe (Grimaldi, etc) to depigment and evolve into straight-haired/white-skinned peoples, is that correct?
For the record, I'm inclined to not believe in SOLELY the Vit D theory -- only because other pale-skinned groups outside of Europe (ie Eskimos, east Asians) retained significant pigmentation in their skin and/or hair and eyes, respectively. Even at higher altitudes, the Asian/Aleutian groups generally haven't experienced depigmented eyes, skin and hair as the lower-altitude Europeans.
Also note: the early East Asians, i.e. the Ainu and Jomon of Japan and the Xia and Shang of China were up to recently very much Black-skinned people! Their descendants still reside in these areas today, although in small numbers, as they are a maligned and persecuted minority.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic