Winter blues

clare_boy

The clocks have gone back and now it's dark at 5pm. Agh! I hate this time of year.

The thing I want to ask is this: is there such a thing as the 'winter blues'? Do people believe in it and, if they do, what can be done to beat the blues?

There was a study done to say its real, but would prefer to hear what people think....

fullback4glin

Fitness Forum?

Khannie

Not really sure where to move this to.

fullback4glin

AH

Magic Eight Ball

Personal Issues..

Theresalwaysone

Mustard Forum

clare_boy

Sorry if wrong forum, looked for the most appropriate, this was the closest!

clare_boy

fullback4glin wrote: »

Fitness Forum?

Mental fitness:)

brianthebard

I think its appropriate, fitness and training can have a big impact on how happy we feel. I usually start taking a B vitamin supplement around this time of year which always gives me more energy and guards against depression. This year I will also be taking a vitamin D supplement after all the positive articles I've read about it. Apart from that I would say that its extra important to try and eat and train well during the winter months, and when possible to spend some time outside during the day, even if you are wrapped up tight. If you are working then you should get out at lunch time, because otherwise you might never see the light of day during the week. If you're a student you should try to get up early again to take advantage of the sunlight hours.

(all of this is purely my opinion btw.)

Khannie

Hehe. Ok, let's just leave it here for now. One of the other mods may move it somewhere else.

I've heard of Seasonal affective disorder alright. I believe it's probably a thing alright. I certainly find the long summer evenings uplifting.

Magic Eight Ball

It was quite depressing leaving work at 5:30 and needing a flashlight to get home. :mad:

hardtrainer

Yes, it's absolutely a real thing and as Khannie has said it's called Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD). It affects a huge proportion of the population and the only really effective treatment for it is daylight. You can get a daylight lamp that is supposed to help (they're highly recommended by some camps and somewhat dismissed by others). Or as already suggested, try to get outside at lunchtime and get as much daylight exposure as possible.

Training can really help too. If you train in the evening when it's already dark, the endorphins released from a good workout can help to combat the effects of SAD.

Most people do not need to supplement with Vit D during the winter (and it has no effect on SAD). You still only need 30-60 mins of bright daylight on the skin on your face and hands each week to get enough UVB to make adequate Vit D and you're also getting Vit D from fortified foods like breakfast cerials and milk and from fish like tuna and salmon. So even if the UVB levels are low (which is the case in Ireland from Nov to Feb) you are likely to be getting plenty of Vit D from your food.

celestial

hardtrainer wrote: »

Yes, it's absolutely a real thing and as Khannie has said it's called Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD). It affects a huge proportion of the population and the only really effective treatment for it is daylight. You can get a daylight lamp that is supposed to help (they're highly recommended by some camps and somewhat dismissed by others). Or as already suggested, try to get outside at lunchtime and get as much daylight exposure as possible.

Training can really help too. If you train in the evening when it's already dark, the endorphins released from a good workout can help to combat the effects of SAD.

Most people do not need to supplement with Vit D during the winter (and it has no effect on SAD). You still only need 30-60 mins of bright daylight on the skin on your face and hands each week to get enough UVB to make adequate Vit D and you're also getting Vit D from fortified foods like breakfast cerials and milk and from fish like tuna and salmon. So even if the UVB levels are low (which is the case in Ireland from Nov to Feb) you are likely to be getting plenty of Vit D from your food.

Would dispute this - I doubt any of us are getting enough vitamins of any type, especially during the winter. I read an article in the Irish Independent yesterday which said that between 30 and 50% of the population are vitamin D deficient during wintertime. When you think about it, given the fact that we have a LOT less sunshine during the winter how could we not be somewhat deficient during the winter.

Exercise is a massive help with things like this - the benefits as we all know are endless. Get out for a run on a cold dark evening, come back sweating and tell me you don't feel good! Also remember that exercise is one of the top things docs recommend for people feeling down, it is often recommended over pills.

So, in summary, get your vitamins, eat your fruit n veg, stay away from the junk food and train/run/lift weights/play footie etc etc 3 or more times a week!

hardtrainer

celestial wrote: »

Would dispute this - I doubt any of us are getting enough vitamins of any type, especially during the winter.

What is this based on? A hunch?
The idea that people are generally vitamin deficient in the winter months is not backed up by any of the literature. I've seen in an advertisement on TV (I think from avonmore) saying that we don't get enough sunlight in Ireland to have enough Vitamin D which is just plain lies. Cloud cover in winter months does limit UVB penetration but ten mins of sunshine a couple of mornings a week is enough for us to make all the vitamin D we need. Apart from that if you have a bowel of cerial with fortified milk (most milk in Ireland is fortified...as are a huge range of other processed foods) you get more than half the daily requirement of Vitamin D. A whole egg gives you 20% of the vitamin D that you need. A tin of tuna gives you almost half the vitamin D you need.

A balanced and varied diet will give you all the vitamins and minerals you need and if you're still worried, a cod liver oil tablet will cover your bases, especially if you don't regularly eat oily fish.

celestial

hardtrainer wrote: »

What is this based on? A hunch?
The idea that people are generally vitamin deficient in the winter months is not backed up by any of the literature. I've seen in an advertisement on TV (I think from avonmore) saying that we don't get enough sunlight in Ireland to have enough Vitamin D which is just plain lies. Cloud cover in winter months does limit UVB penetration but ten mins of sunshine a couple of mornings a week is enough for us to make all the vitamin D we need. Apart from that if you have a bowel of cerial with fortified milk (most milk in Ireland is fortified...as are a huge range of other processed foods) you get more than half the daily requirement of Vitamin D. A whole egg gives you 20% of the vitamin D that you need. A tin of tuna gives you almost half the vitamin D you need.

A balanced and varied diet will give you all the vitamins and minerals you need and if you're still worried, a cod liver oil tablet will cover your bases, especially if you don't regularly eat oily fish.

I could see a debate opening up here but for me it's a bit more than a hunch if you look at just two factors:

1) The RDA for vitamins that you speak of above is the absolute daily minimum that you should consume - time and again I hear that this is the minimum to stay healthy - not the optimum amount.

2) Minimum 5 portions of fruit and veg per day are recommended as a MINIMUM - do you reckon the average punter on the street gets anywhere near that on a daily basis?

hardtrainer

celestial wrote: »

.......RDA for vitamins that you speak of above is the absolute daily minimum that you should consume - time and again I hear that this is the minimum to stay healthy - not the optimum amount

It is not the absolute minimum. It is the amount that is sufficient to meet the dietary requirements of 98% of the population across all age groups. That includes groups with far higher requirements. The 18-35 age group is not a group with higher requirements by and large so the RDA values more than meet the dietary requirements. The idea that it is very hard to get vitamins from your food is a myth perpetuated by a powerful industry worth hundreds of billions in the EU alone.

The 5 a day mantra is great to encourage people to eat more fresh fruit and vegetables. But that doesn't mean you cannot get your required vitamins without 5 portions a day. Getting 5 portions a day is important to encourage a varied and balanced diet and with particular emphasis on fresh produce. It is by no means a minimum requirement for good health. A potato has more vitamin C than an orange (by weight ~75mg/100g compared to ~50mg/100g).

nice_guy80

and broccoli?
mmmmm, broccoli

Mellor

brianthebard wrote: »

I think its appropriate, fitness and training can have a big impact on how happy we feel.

So does food, drink, hobbies, sports, games, movies etc.
Isn't there a health forum.


Anyway, its coming into summer here, so it'll get better for me, in case that makes anybody feel better by proxy.
Let me be your surrogate:p.

arybvtcw0eolkf

brianthebard wrote: »

I think its appropriate, fitness and training can have a big impact on how happy we feel. I usually start taking a B vitamin supplement around this time of year which always gives me more energy and guards against depression. This year I will also be taking a vitamin D supplement after all the positive articles I've read about it. Apart from that I would say that its extra important to try and eat and train well during the winter months, and when possible to spend some time outside during the day, even if you are wrapped up tight. If you are working then you should get out at lunch time, because otherwise you might never see the light of day during the week. If you're a student you should try to get up early again to take advantage of the sunlight hours.

(all of this is purely my opinion btw.)

This is really good advice, and if I could I'd like to expand on it with my own experience.

I love sun light, even at night time natural light is very important to my health and well being.

Well at the end of last summer I left TotalFitness (after 12 years membership) and went to Ben Dunnes Northwood - now anyone who has trained there will testify to how dark and dank it is, with absolutely NO natural light.

My motivation to train took a nose dive & for the first time in years I actually got FAT, was lethargic all the time & left the gym feeling depressed & downtrodden.

At the start of this sumer I rejoined TF and the penny dropped - TF was basked in sun/natural light & my training came on in leaps and bounds again, my moods improved and I've recovered most of the losses I'd suffered during my winter training.

Sorry for the long post, I just wanted to reply to B's good post with my own experience.

.

Inspector Coptoor

Vit D is stored in the liver and used as needed during times of lee sunshine

opinion guy

Perhaps Biology or Health Science is the appropriate forum for this ?

celestial wrote: »

2) Minimum 5 portions of fruit and veg per day are recommended as a MINIMUM - do you reckon the average punter on the street gets anywhere near that on a daily basis?

True. In fact when they came up with this 5 a day rule they wanted it to be 9 a day but they figured it would be to hard to sell that so they went with 5.

hardtrainer wrote: »

It is not the absolute minimum. It is the amount that is sufficient to meet the dietary requirements of 98% of the population across all age groups. That includes groups with far higher requirements. The 18-35 age group is not a group with higher requirements by and large so the RDA values more than meet the dietary requirements.

See now this would be one of my personal pet hates. People assume this RDA is what is considered optimum. But then most people don't know how they come up with this RDA stuff. Back in the 50's in the US they just surveyed a tonne of people as to what their dietary intake was for the various vitamins and minerals. These RDA' s are basically population averages in a Western country without analysis vs specific conditions and symptoms outside of the whopping big obvious stuff (if that). They are NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT optimum levels - in fact we probably don't know what optimum levels are. In fact odds are the optimum level for me is probably different to the optimum levels for you or whoever depending on genetics and environmental factors.

This is not to say that people should be taking vitamins by default. There are some like folate and possibly vitamin D (and maybe vitamin C) that you can make cases for people just taking in general. Vitamins like drugs are merely chemicals - classing things as vitamins or drugs is merely politics - the body doesn't care. So really vitamins should probably be prescribed similar to drugs for specific reasons. Just taking a bunch of vitamins randomly in belief it is good for you is probably not all that helpful

hardtrainer

opinion guy wrote: »

See now this would be one of my personal pet hates. People assume this RDA is what is considered optimum. But then most people don't know how they come up with this RDA stuff. Back in the 50's in the US they just surveyed a tonne of people as to what their dietary intake was for the various vitamins and minerals. ..............................In fact odds are the optimum level for me is probably different to the optimum levels for you or whoever depending on genetics and environmental factors.

I never used the word optimum. The RDA was initially developed in the late 60s and has been revised numerous times since then and much more stringently too. It is not simply a case of surveying people regarding their dietary intake. As I said already the RDA is the level which is sufficient to meet the needs of 98% of the population, which includes groups with higher requirements. Therefore the RDA provides adequate levels of micronutrients for the vast vast majority of people. This is the scientific fact as reported in the literature, by real scientists. This does not however sit well with the self-titled nutritionists you see on TV who are intimately involved in the supplement industry. They will claim that we are all deficient in one or other micronutrient (most of which they themselves peddle as cure-alls). The facts simply do not support their assertions.

opinion guy wrote: »

This is not to say that people should be taking vitamins by default. There are some like folate and possibly vitamin D (and maybe vitamin C) that you can make cases for people just taking in general. Vitamins like drugs are merely chemicals - classing things as vitamins or drugs is merely politics - the body doesn't care. So really vitamins should probably be prescribed similar to drugs for specific reasons. Just taking a bunch of vitamins randomly in belief it is good for you is probably not all that helpful

People most certainly should not be taking vitamins by default. There is evidence to suggest they can do more harm than good. There are countless research articles (and books I might add) by respected authors with real qualifications in evidence based medicine that have come to the same conclusions. Modern western diets have ample vitamins and minerals to support the natural functions of all but a small minority with real underlying issues who need supplementation.

Supplementing with high dose vitamins is based on the false conclusion that because certain vitamins play a role in a particular function, e.g. immunity, cell renewal, that increasing the amount of that particular vitamin will increase the rate/efficacy of that function. The vitamin C - immune system is a classic example that simply does not have any real support. Showing that ascorbic acid (vit C) does something in a cell line (derived from cancerous tumours) growing in completely artificial conditions (i.e. in a dish in an incubator) doesn't translate directly to a living, breathing person. Properly executed double-blind case-controlled studies of actual people who either receive vitamins or placebo has not shown any real benefits for vitamin supplementation. Those are the facts as they stand.

brianthebard

hardtrainer wrote: »

Most people do not need to supplement with Vit D during the winter (and it has no effect on SAD). You still only need 30-60 mins of bright daylight on the skin on your face and hands each week to get enough UVB to make adequate Vit D and you're also getting Vit D from fortified foods like breakfast cerials and milk and from fish like tuna and salmon. So even if the UVB levels are low (which is the case in Ireland from Nov to Feb) you are likely to be getting plenty of Vit D from your food.

Would like to see you back this up with some articles, everything I've read says that the vast majority of the population are Vit D deficient, even in summertime. The RDA is as usual the absolute bare minimum that people need to survive, in this case to prevent rickets. That's all it is, it is not a guarantee of good health.

all_smilz

what about the psychological impact of less daylight?
:)I think we are all negatively affected by that regardless of deficiencies....

brianthebard

Interesting point but how do you measure or quantify one from the other?

Roper

Well Sweden has a massive suicide probem caused by the loooooong dark winters.

I personally get clinically fed up during winter, and need to get out every night and to constantly do something with my time or I will start to spiral towards the dark side of posting on Boards constantly and... hey... wait a sec... it's already begun!

opinion guy

hardtrainer wrote: »

I never used the word optimum. The RDA was initially developed in the late 60s and has been revised numerous times since then and much more stringently too. It is not simply a case of surveying people regarding their dietary intake. As I said already the RDA is the level which is sufficient to meet the needs of 98% of the population, which includes groups with higher requirements. Therefore the RDA provides adequate levels of micronutrients for the vast vast majority of people. This is the scientific fact as reported in the literature, by real scientists. This does not however sit well with the self-titled nutritionists you see on TV who are intimately involved in the supplement industry. They will claim that we are all deficient in one or other micronutrient (most of which they themselves peddle as cure-alls). The facts simply do not support their assertions.



People most certainly should not be taking vitamins by default. There is evidence to suggest they can do more harm than good. There are countless research articles (and books I might add) by respected authors with real qualifications in evidence based medicine that have come to the same conclusions. Modern western diets have ample vitamins and minerals to support the natural functions of all but a small minority with real underlying issues who need supplementation.

Supplementing with high dose vitamins is based on the false conclusion that because certain vitamins play a role in a particular function, e.g. immunity, cell renewal, that increasing the amount of that particular vitamin will increase the rate/efficacy of that function. The vitamin C - immune system is a classic example that simply does not have any real support. Showing that ascorbic acid (vit C) does something in a cell line (derived from cancerous tumours) growing in completely artificial conditions (i.e. in a dish in an incubator) doesn't translate directly to a living, breathing person. Properly executed double-blind case-controlled studies of actual people who either receive vitamins or placebo has not shown any real benefits for vitamin supplementation. Those are the facts as they stand.

Hey hardtrainer I actually agree with most of what you said. But your missing my main point in a sense. these figures are averages designed to address general needs across a popultaion. its possible, nay likely that individuals can benefit from specific supplements (and conversly some poeple may need less of a particular thing they are taking). The problem is right now nobody knows all the much about whats good for what. (And the reason for that is there isn't much incentive to study this since you can't patent vitamins and minerals). that doesn't mean vitamins are bad perse - it just means we are using them incorrectly currently.

hardtrainer

brianthebard wrote: »

....everything I've read says that the vast majority of the population are Vit D deficient, even in summertime. The RDA is as usual the absolute bare minimum that people need to survive, in this case to prevent rickets. That's all it is, it is not a guarantee of good health.

What have you been reading? A study from january of this year by a group at MRC Human Nutrition Research, Cambridge UK which looked at global Vit D levels as recorded by serum levels of 25[OH]D (a liver metabolite of vitamin D and the most common way of looking at dietary and UVB-aided vitamin D) found that in the US about 1-5% of the population were classed as deficient, while in the UK (which has similar latitude range to Ireland) it was between 5-20%. This is based on serum concentrations of <25nmol/L which is the accepted range to put people at risk of rickets/osteomalacia. There have been calls to raise this level to account for Vit D effects in relation to other health concerns (up to 50, 75 or even 100nmol/ml) but these are all estimates and there is very little data on how effective serum concentrations of 25[OH]D at these levels would be in terms of the other health issues associated with Vit D. If you increase this limit of insufficiency to <50nmol/L then yes, you do see an increase in the % of people that would be classes as Vit D deficient, particularly in the winter months (up to as much as 60% in some groups) but this is massaging the figures of sorts. If thats the approach you take then you can literally just claim any level to be the level required and as a consequence you can claim that vast numbers of people are in need of supplementation. Vitamin D is an important micronutrient and people should be aware of the risk of deficiency. The problem is in how you determine what constitutes deficiency. As I said before, fortified cereals and dairy products provide much of the Vitamin D for our RDA. Eggs and oily fish are capable of providing more than enough to meet the rest (or a significant portion for those that don't eat dairy/fortified foods). And exposure to UVB is a significant source, even in Ireland.

Just with respect to your continued assertion that RDA is a are minimum for survival. Would you like to back that up with something other than just repeatedly claiming it?
The RDA for vitamin D is far above the bare minimum to prevent rickets. The RDA for vitamin D is 1000iu per day, which equates to 25µg which is well in excess of the adequate intake (AI) value of between 5µg (USA/Canada) and 10µg (EU/UK) that has been shown to sufficient to prevent rickets.

hardtrainer

opinion guy wrote: »

these figures are averages designed to address general needs across a popultaion.

I get what you're saying, but it's not so much that they are averages, they're the amounts needed to satisfy a huge majority of the populations needs, which obviously includes some groups with higher needs like the elderly, thus they're already higher than is likely needed by a significant majority.

opinion guy wrote: »

that doesn't mean vitamins are bad perse - it just means we are using them incorrectly currently.

I couldn't agree more. Vitamin supplementation is a very valid and useful way to increase the uptake of vitamins into certain groups (for example coeliacs) who have trouble getting enough nutrients from the food they eat or who don't eat sufficient and varied foods to get enough nutrients to begin with (anorexic, those on restrictive diets etc). And of course there are those in the general population that may need supplements for whatever reason, but the widespread supplementation with vitamins (often with up to 10 fold RDA levels) is not a good idea and could have other adverse effects.

all_smilz

brianthebard wrote: »

Interesting point but how do you measure or quantify one from the other?

well i dont measure things that way i was just bringing the mental side of things into the argument.... I know myself that this time last year I was eating well and exercising a lot (more than i am now) and I still felt the difference with the darker days...
I am not realy saying one is seperate from the other just that both are relevant...

brianthebard

hardtrainer wrote: »

The RDA for vitamin D is far above the bare minimum to prevent rickets. The RDA for vitamin D is 1000iu per day, which equates to 25µg which is well in excess of the adequate intake (AI) value of between 5µg (USA/Canada) and 10µg (EU/UK) that has been shown to sufficient to prevent rickets.

It says 400iu is 100% of my RDA on the bottle of Vit D I have at home. Tbh you're just not listening to me or others so I don't know if there's any point continuing to reply to you.
edit: here is a blog that will explain things better than I have. http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-rda-for-vitamin-d.html


I wasn't disagreeing with you all_smilz I just wonder is it possible to account for the effects of sunshine without factoring in Vit D?

hardtrainer

brianthebard wrote: »

Tbh you're just not listening to me or others so I don't know if there's any point continuing to reply to you.
edit: here is a blog that will explain things better than I have. http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-rda-for-vitamin-d.html

It's not that I wasn't listening to what you're saying (I don't know who the others are that you're referring to!) I just don't agree with what you're saying and you haven't provided any evidence to back up your points.

I agree with you on many points, particularly with respect to the lack of real data in relation to all of this because as you say vitamins can't be patented so nobody is willing to pay for the work. But surely you agree that there is a huge industry behind the selling of vitamins and supplements in general and they supply so much bogus, but authentic sounding 'research' that it's hard for joe public to get accurate information. I don't doubt that there are people who have greater needs than others.

That website is a blog, run to peddle a commercial product. Thats not somewhere I would turn to as a primary source of information.

brianthebard

hardtrainer wrote: »

It's not that I wasn't listening to what you're saying (I don't know who the others are that you're referring to!) I just don't agree with what you're saying and you haven't provided any evidence to back up your points.

I agree with you on many points, particularly with respect to the lack of real data in relation to all of this because as you say vitamins can't be patented so nobody is willing to pay for the work.

I never said that, what are you talking about?

That website is a blog, run to peddle a commercial product. Thats not somewhere I would turn to as a primary source of information.

How is that different to the journal you quoted from? Does it lessen the medical value of the doctor who wrote the blog if he's actually good at what he does and runs a business based on heart health??

hardtrainer

Brianthebard wrote:

I never said that, what are you talking about?

Sorry, wrong person, my apologies.

The difference between a blog and an article published in an international peer reviewed journal is that the latter is subject to review by others in the field. Everything must be backed up by scientific data and any holes or flaws in the data must be expressly acknowledged.
Thats not true of the former, irrespective of the credentials of the person who writes it. There is a huge potential for conflict of interest in that case.

aye

hardtrainer wrote: »

The RDA for vitamin D is far above the bare minimum to prevent rickets. The RDA for vitamin D is 1000iu per day, which equates to 25µg which is well in excess of the adequate intake (AI) value of between 5µg (USA/Canada) and 10µg (EU/UK) that has been shown to sufficient to prevent rickets.

Where are you getting this RDA figure?



From what I have read the RDA is much lower than 1000iu per day.

"The current dietary guideline for humans is to consume 50-200 IU of vitamin D a day. "

http://www.independent.ie/health/diet-fitness/vitamin-d-might-lessen-your-flu-risk-1924363.html


"In England, an adult requirement of only 2.5 µg (100 IU)/d ....."

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842?ijkey=efc3e2049cf96fe05dbb34cb2fd4b7ef4875406a&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha



"In the UK and Ireland, the recommended daily allowance (RDA) for vitamin D is 0-10µg/ day..."


http://www.dnc.ie/blog/2009/06/03/vitamin-d-the-sunshine-vitamin-may-2009/



This paper claims the RDA should be 1000iu per day, but at present that does not seem to the case.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/jint/2000/00000247/00000002/art00011

"Our results suggest that the daily oral intake of vitamin D in sunlight-deprived individuals should exceed 600 IU; most probably it should be 1000 IU day-1 to secure a normal level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. This finding is in contrast with the commonly used RDA (recommended daily allowance) for adults in Europe: 200 IU day-1. "



I doubt people are getting enough vitamin D in their food either.


"The RDA for some age groups is based on a range, rather than a single amount as it was thought these age groups would receive adequate sunlight, and dietary intake was not considered necessary. However, experts are calling for the RDA of vitamin D to be reviewed as evidence is mounting to suggest we aren’t getting enough vitamin D from the sun (4,5).

In Ireland 74% of adults and 88% of primary school children had an average daily intake of vitamin D that was less than half of the RDA range of 5µg (6,7).

A study conducted in healthy adults in Ireland demonstrated that the vitamin D tissue stores developed during the production of vitamin D on the skin during the summer months were not enough to maintain adequate levels of vitamin D in the body through the winter (4). "



http://www.avonmoresupermilk.ie/vitD/vitd-story.html