unicorn

I must commend Dustin Lance Black for not feeling jealous or protective...

Daniel Goodfellow

Some photos with Uber-stud Tom Daley:

Beautiful diver Matty Lee:

The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in the US (and this doesn't even count those with vitamin D insufficiency) has been measured at 41.6%. Obviously, for places with less sunlight, such as Canada, Russia, and most of Europe, it's likely to be significantly higher. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21310306/#:~:text=The overall prevalence rate of,followed by Hispanics (69.2%). "...The overall prevalence rate of vitamin D deficiency [in the US] was 41.6%, with the highest rate seen in blacks (82.1%), followed by Hispanics (69.2%)...". https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34004105/ "...In regions that represent a geographically representative sample of regions of the Russian Federation with a high risk of developing low levels of vitamin D, it's deficiency was noted in 55.96%, and the level of deficiency and insufficiency was recorded in 84.01%...". https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/scheer/docs/sunbeds_co7a_en.pdf "...Between 70% and 97% of Canadians demonstrate vitamin D insufficiency. Furthermore, studies assessing 25(OH)D levels of vitamin D at 25–40 nmol/l reveal that many Canadians have profoundly deficient levels...".

You're the one who made the wacky claim, so you have the onus of finding such a study, not me. The best you could come up with was an observational study which looked at people who took massive, long-term overdoses of both vitamins A and D, orders of magnitude above recommended doses (even then, it couldn't even establish an association, since only two people developed completely unrelated cancers during the study period). On this forum, posting bogus, unscientific statements, based on lack of understanding of how to interpret studies, has the potential to harm people. In particular, scaring people away from safe and effective supplementation of vitamin D, the most common vitamin deficiency in most temperate countries, has the potential to increase the risk of serious fractures. Your misstatements regarding vitamin D and supplementation are Trumponian in magnitude. Statements don't become real because of fanciful imaginations. This issue has been studied. While, ideally, one will direct therapy according to the results of lab tests, the addition of 2000-3000 IU of vitamin D will not lead to vitamin D toxicity. In the absence of sun exposure, one will not get the vitamin D from one's diet, even if one ate rainbow trout and/or salmon daily--and certainly not from caviar, which adds negligible quantities. You have no idea what you're talking about, and should not be dispensing medical advice. Amazing that people believe Trump's outright lies. Hopefully, readers on this site won't believe yours.

I don't know about Russia, but what makes you think that vitamin D capsules have "questionable efficacy"? Vitamin D deficiency was one of the most common conditions I treated as a physician, and, of those who started off with levels of 10 ng/ml or less, I was able to get ALL of my patients to over 30 ng/ml (recommended range) with supplements. The study you referenced in no shape or form was designed to show that vitamin D causes cancer (and certainly the authors didn't even suggest that). If you had actually read the study, you would have noted that the study looked at a group of people from the Dominican Republic who took a supplement (only available there) which the study itself described as containing "massive" amounts of vitamins D and A: "...Laboratory analysis by HPLC revealed that the supplement actually contained vitamin D(3) (864,000 IU) and vitamin A (predominantly retinyl palmitate 123,500 IU) per vial..." (Note that most supplements have 2000 or 3000 IU). To conclude from the fact that one of the participants (who took 40 times the recommended dose) had squamous cell cancer and one had lymphoma, that normal vitamin D supplements can cause cancer is so preposterous it leaves me breathless. You obviously have zero understanding of biostatistics, or how to interpret scientific studies. You even show a complete lack of basic common sense. Really, now. The one hint of truth in your post, is that I think you might have been referring to rainbow trout, or радужная форель, which sometimes could be translated to salmon. Indeed, this is the food with the highest amount of dietary vitamin D (salmon itself is also relatively high in vitamin D). Yet even if you ate this every day, it has only 645 IU's per 3 ounce serving, which would not get you to the recommended range, unless you go suntanning along the Black Sea coast, and are measuring your levels in August (I don't know where in Russia you live). Even if you ate a whole tablespoon of sturgeon caviar daily, that adds only a paltry 37 IU of vitamin D (though I do envy you if you can eat that much Osetra caviar a day, which would be horrifically expensive in the US). I would find it incredible if you told me you had your 25-OH Vitamin D levels checked in February, with levels over 30, from simply daily consumption of salmon and rainbow trout.

Another Olympian diving stud Magnus Alexander:

Another Olympian hunk is Mexican Diver Osmar Olvera:

I can see him on my bed right now:

British diver Kyle Kothari made me adjust my gonads in my underwear.... Not all divers have such rock-hard abs:

2000 IU per day will definitely not lead to excessive blood levels of 25-OH Vitamin D. This is what one can call a usual dose which will get most people at least close to, if not within the recommended range (depending on sun exposure/season). If you have little sun exposure, you may need 3000 IU per day. Assuming you've been taking the same dose for a couple of months, you might as well get a level checked, probably optimally in the winter. 2000 IU represents 50 mcg. A toxic dose would entail a daily dose of 1 GRAM per day, or 20 times that dose. It's probably not a good idea to take 12,000 IU per day (3 mg), as that's way above daily needs (even if you spend all day in a cave), and I don't think there's any evidence that taking larger doses does much good. Even without Vitamin D and calcium, bodybuilding in and of itself increases bone density. This is why the one tangible health benefit of obesity is a lower risk of osteoporosis (though the many health risks of obesity greatly outweigh this benefit). As far as one's bones are concerned, carrying all of that weight is tantamount to bodybuilding (of course, lower extremity joints don't like that excess weight and will wear down). I personally take one 2000 IU capsule daily, plus two tablets of Citracal+D tablets, which provide an additional 1000 IU. (I do put SPF 30 or higher when outdoors due a history of basal cell skin cancers). This gets my 25-OH D levels in the mid 30s, in the recommended range. Toxicity gets seen with levels over 150 (ng/ml): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2665033/#:~:text=Vitamin D insufficiency is now,be > 30 ng%2Fml. "...With all of this information collectively, most experts now agree that vitamin D deficiency should be defined as a 25(OH)D of < 20 ng/ml. Vitamin D insufficiency is now recognized as a 25(OH)D of 21-29 ng/ml. The preferred level for 25(OH)D is now recommended by many experts to be > 30 ng/ml... Based on the literature, it appears that vitamin D intoxication does not occur until blood levels are above 150-200 ng/ml. Vitamin D intoxication is defined as a 25(OH)D > 150 ng/ml that is associated with hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria and often hyperphosphatemia...".

Too soon?

Someone in the Redwood City Parks & Recreation Department had a good sense of humor (read the bottom part):

Where did you get the information that it causes cancer? Unless one lives in the tropics, or between the tropics and the 45 latitude in the Spring and Summer, and wears short sleeves and no sunblock, vitamin D supplementation is usually needed, generally a good 2000 to 3000 IU's a day. While it's not a bad idea to check levels before starting therapy, and recheck a few months after going on therapy, it's safe to assume that absence sunblock-less sun exposure at appropriate latitudes, there will be vitamin D deficiency. I remember a visit in Canada when I saw billboards encouraging vitamin D supplementation. This supplementation will be needed by almost all Canadians (unless living in the southern Ontario Peninsula) and all Russians (unless living in southern Krasnodar Krai), barring unusual activity such as tanning bed usage. If you, @Moses , have had your 25-OH vitamin D levels checked in the winter, and you don't supplement, I would be extremely surprised to learn you weren't deficient. (Obviously, now, late summer, is the worst time to check those levels, especially if you live along the Black Sea) As for toxicity, this scientific article which summarized 135 studies showed that toxicity only comes with daily doses some 10 times or more currently available supplements. Yes, hypercalcemia can cause kidney damage, but I know of no evidence of a cancer risk. https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(22)04376-3/pdf "...All of the reports of vitamin D toxicity showing the convincing evidence of hypercalcemia involve serum 25(OH)D concentrations well above 200 nmol/L (Table 5), which requires a daily intake of ≥1000 mg (40 000 IU), and which could thus be conservatively considered the LOAEL...".