Well of the numerous things that I feel I've learned from Brian and his science nerd ways is that large scale double blind peer reviewed studies are needed to get that type of information. As those studies are not by any means cheap to do (I know I got to see the price tag of one this summer with Brian at the NCI), it's hard to get them done when you are talking about food without having a sellable product afterwards that is going to be profitable enough to both pay for that study and then some, or at least that's how I understand it.

There is just so much we don't know about the human body..even what we think we know is suspect. Take Seasonal Affective Disorder for example. We have a "disorder" and antidepressants to treat it with. From my point of view it's not a disorder it's the bodies natural reaction to less light, which produces Vitamin D, which new studies link to testosterone production (it's a prohormone sterol...name says it all folks) and studies show a direct link between low testosterone and depression. (I played connect the dots a lot as a kid)

It would explain why people indigenous to colder climates are effected less to that disorder though wouldn't it? They tend to have fish as a staple in their diet, fish do not metabolize vitamin D, which is a fat soluble vitamin that is stored by their system, which we consume and metabolize and put to good use.

Most vitamin D supplements however are isolates made from manipulating wool with UV light and I've read where there are questions if we metabolize that very well, as it seems to cause toxicity issues when supplementing vitamin D as opposed to getting it from eating fish.


Can I prove any of that without a study? No. But it's plausible. Welcome to nutrition 101