Avoidance of sun exposure as a risk factor for major causes of death (2016)(onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Avoidance of sun exposure as a risk factor for major causes of death (2016)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joim.12496
70 comments
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment. Well, I don't understand _why_ you choose to comment. The study itself identifies, acknowledges and presents some major limitations. It does not hide them. It's not like the study was concocted in some content factory in the Balkans, to make a couple of quick bucks on Facebook or whatever. The authors are very serious researchers and the study itself was supported by funds from prestigious organizations (that you can find in the "Acknowledgements" section).
It does my head in why would you choose to cast aspersions on the science method. It's literally an example of science done by the book, published in a peer reviewed magazine. It's not amateur work, it's not fake news. It's ground breaking science: "We found this interesting thing and here we present it to you, with caveats, after some other people in the field did a quick sanity check on it".
I'm sorry for the tone, but I'm quite exasperated by people doing this kind of low key, subtle, disparaging of science under the guise of scepticism. It always happens when studies are posted on HN (or reddit), people seem to find a perverse joy in finding weird gotchas that the study already mentions and then saying: see, science is such a mess.
It does my head in why would you choose to cast aspersions on the science method. It's literally an example of science done by the book, published in a peer reviewed magazine. It's not amateur work, it's not fake news. It's ground breaking science: "We found this interesting thing and here we present it to you, with caveats, after some other people in the field did a quick sanity check on it".
I'm sorry for the tone, but I'm quite exasperated by people doing this kind of low key, subtle, disparaging of science under the guise of scepticism. It always happens when studies are posted on HN (or reddit), people seem to find a perverse joy in finding weird gotchas that the study already mentions and then saying: see, science is such a mess.
Err.. people actually posted in this section creduously thinking that sunlight would extend their life.
The study spends 2/3rds of the time ignoring the obvious analysis which is already established -- this is common in journalism. The title is "what if?", the article spends most of the time imagining what-if, and then at the end says "probably not".
why i chose to comment is that people do not weight parts of articles evenly, the read what they want to read into things. It is the responsibility of honest communication to make the most plausible conclusion the easiest to infer, and the least plausible, the hardest. If you want to think this study shows that more sunlight = more life, you should have to do a lot of cognitive work to get to that mumbojumbo.
This paper does the opposite. It toes the line of dishonesty, making deeply implausible pseudo-science an easy conclusion to infer.
The study spends 2/3rds of the time ignoring the obvious analysis which is already established -- this is common in journalism. The title is "what if?", the article spends most of the time imagining what-if, and then at the end says "probably not".
why i chose to comment is that people do not weight parts of articles evenly, the read what they want to read into things. It is the responsibility of honest communication to make the most plausible conclusion the easiest to infer, and the least plausible, the hardest. If you want to think this study shows that more sunlight = more life, you should have to do a lot of cognitive work to get to that mumbojumbo.
This paper does the opposite. It toes the line of dishonesty, making deeply implausible pseudo-science an easy conclusion to infer.
> This isn't doing the cultural perception of science any favours.
But they're acknowledging the limitations of the study. As it is, it's a jumping off-point to do more research on the subject. They even mention confounding factors in the abstract.
I'm curious what alternative you'd propose, other than more funding on larger and more complex studies.
But they're acknowledging the limitations of the study. As it is, it's a jumping off-point to do more research on the subject. They even mention confounding factors in the abstract.
I'm curious what alternative you'd propose, other than more funding on larger and more complex studies.
But the media isn't going to read the study before they publish all their cute headlines about getting some sun to extend your life. And everyone get dumber.
Sounds like that's an issue with the media and American attention spans rather than the scientific method
Why specify Americans?
Not to mention the exceptionally high correlation with low education and low income.
The same data could be used to conclude that low income and lack of education are risk factors for death similar to smoking...
The same data could be used to conclude that low income and lack of education are risk factors for death similar to smoking...
I really don’t think that is a surprising result, as compared to time in the sun being a direct cause of long life.
I don't have time to read the study but if you want to have a look yourself, the terms to look for are "confounder", "confounding factor", ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding
An unsophisticated person looks at this and says golly I better get tan!
A somewhat sophisticated person says something like the above.
People who change the world will wonder there’s something there. especially given the sober and candid examination of possible confounding factors and mechanisms of action.
A somewhat sophisticated person says something like the above.
People who change the world will wonder there’s something there. especially given the sober and candid examination of possible confounding factors and mechanisms of action.
someday we’ll build better tools to monitor the human body and we will directly be able to determine the various effects of many of these variables.
the future is an exciting place.
in the meantime, “study finds…”
the future is an exciting place.
in the meantime, “study finds…”
[deleted]
Anecdotally, skin cancer is a real killer that got my outdoorsy uncle in the not that sunny PNW before he turned 60. Australia has a very stringent hat wearing culture because of their above ozone hole. The sun can take as much as it gives.
Not to mention that we know excessive sun exposure to be associated with a variety of cancers.
But it does the scientific perception of science well enough
Who cares what these development delayed children think, we have another 15 years of hegemony
Who cares what these development delayed children think, we have another 15 years of hegemony
You can also stay inside all the time and be physically active.
And take vitamin D supplements to compensate.
I hate these types of headlines. They're akin to "Coffee is a carcinogen", "Chocolate makes you live longer", "Making your child listen to Mozart 30 minutes a day boosts his IQ", etc. I.e. the results are probably either outright wrong, non-reproducible, or statistically insignificant.
Avoiding the outdoors won't shorten your lifespan if you take care of your health in general. Just live your life the way you want to and all will be well.
And take vitamin D supplements to compensate.
I hate these types of headlines. They're akin to "Coffee is a carcinogen", "Chocolate makes you live longer", "Making your child listen to Mozart 30 minutes a day boosts his IQ", etc. I.e. the results are probably either outright wrong, non-reproducible, or statistically insignificant.
Avoiding the outdoors won't shorten your lifespan if you take care of your health in general. Just live your life the way you want to and all will be well.
They controlled for exercise and the effect size decreased by 40 percent but was still significant.
My biggest criticism is, as usual in epidemiology, there's a bunch of confounders that weren't controlled for and are very difficult to control for. Vitamin D levels, social life, psychiatric disorders for example.
However I'm sceptical that vitamin D deficiency explains the entire effect given it is quite large. If sunlight itself isn't relevant I expect other confounders to be stacking on top of vitamin D deficiency.
However I'm sceptical that vitamin D deficiency explains the entire effect given it is quite large. If sunlight itself isn't relevant I expect other confounders to be stacking on top of vitamin D deficiency.
> Avoiding the outdoors won't shorten your lifespan if you take care of your health in general.
You write this as if you somehow know this for sure. It’s well known that indoor air is significantly more polluted in most cases than outdoor air, at least in the west. Fresh exposure to outdoor air is also important not just exposure to the sun. I would definitely not want to spend most of my life breathing indoor air, and opening windows only gets you so far.
You write this as if you somehow know this for sure. It’s well known that indoor air is significantly more polluted in most cases than outdoor air, at least in the west. Fresh exposure to outdoor air is also important not just exposure to the sun. I would definitely not want to spend most of my life breathing indoor air, and opening windows only gets you so far.
> . It’s well known that indoor air is significantly more polluted in most cases than outdoor air, at least in the west
Source on that? It probably vastly depends on the "outdoor", because i highly doubt next to an American highway the air is cleaner than the average housing away from that highway, like i don't doubt a house next to the highway has worse air than a forest in the middle of nowhere.
Source on that? It probably vastly depends on the "outdoor", because i highly doubt next to an American highway the air is cleaner than the average housing away from that highway, like i don't doubt a house next to the highway has worse air than a forest in the middle of nowhere.
I thought it was common knowledge. Here’s some information from the Environmental Protection Agency:
> Americans, on average, spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoors,1 where the concentrations of some pollutants are often 2 to 5 times higher than typical outdoor concentrations
There’s been so much research on this by so many different organizations around the world, as far as I’ve known almost everybody was aware of this as fact.
There is an extraordinary amount of data online about this, should be easy to find. On average, outdoor air is healthier than indoor air, often by a wide margin. The above is from the EPA site: https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/indoor-air-quality
Also https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/22/indoor-air-can-be-deadlier-t...
> Americans, on average, spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoors,1 where the concentrations of some pollutants are often 2 to 5 times higher than typical outdoor concentrations
There’s been so much research on this by so many different organizations around the world, as far as I’ve known almost everybody was aware of this as fact.
There is an extraordinary amount of data online about this, should be easy to find. On average, outdoor air is healthier than indoor air, often by a wide margin. The above is from the EPA site: https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/indoor-air-quality
Also https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/22/indoor-air-can-be-deadlier-t...
> indoor air is significantly more polluted in MOST cases
> indoors [...] concentrations of SOME pollutants are OFTEN [...] higher
Those two statements don't seem to be the same to me?
> indoors [...] concentrations of SOME pollutants are OFTEN [...] higher
Those two statements don't seem to be the same to me?
Everyone can make their own decisions about how much time they want to spend outdoors versus indoors. I encourage you to do the research yourself if it’s important to you, and make appropriate lifestyle choices. From the second link:
> World Health Organization has said that household cooking with coal or biomass-burning stoves led to 4.3 million deaths in 2012, compared with 3.7 million deaths from outdoor air pollution.
And that’s just talking about one of many different sources of pollution. There are so many sources of pollution indoors, sources that are very close to you physically, that you should carefully consider these factors and the statistics surrounding them.
> World Health Organization has said that household cooking with coal or biomass-burning stoves led to 4.3 million deaths in 2012, compared with 3.7 million deaths from outdoor air pollution.
And that’s just talking about one of many different sources of pollution. There are so many sources of pollution indoors, sources that are very close to you physically, that you should carefully consider these factors and the statistics surrounding them.
For example, I don't live in a country where "household cooking with coal or biomass-burning stoves" is even a thing. I have an induction stove. In fact the air outside of my house is almost certainly worse because of a nearby highway.
Again, you are focusing on one specific source as an example. Feel free to ignore a decade of research on this topic -- but it's worth getting informed IMO.
Seems an overreaching and incorrect statement. Lots of studies on the correlation of outdoor time and well-being. This study itself, though imperfect controls for some of those variables like exercise.
It might not be true for everybody (sounds like you're fine sitting inside, popping vitamins, and grinding on the Peloton or whatever -- good for you) but don't make the mistake of thinking your experiences are others'.
Clearly there are things about "the outdoors" that can't be replicated indoors. Smells, the sheer size and variety of environs, O2/CO2 levels, etc. Unless you are living in some kind of enormous, elaborate bio-dome.
It might not be true for everybody (sounds like you're fine sitting inside, popping vitamins, and grinding on the Peloton or whatever -- good for you) but don't make the mistake of thinking your experiences are others'.
Clearly there are things about "the outdoors" that can't be replicated indoors. Smells, the sheer size and variety of environs, O2/CO2 levels, etc. Unless you are living in some kind of enormous, elaborate bio-dome.
I am a "sun convert". I used to avoid it like the plague because I burn so easily. However, I started reading the dangers of low vitamin D and some of the positive effects of the sun (mood, circadian rhythm, etc). I am convinced now that the sun is a net positive when exposed in moderation (I do avoid burning like the plague, however).
During the summer months, I now get 20 min full body exposure daily and I supplement D3 on the days I can't (and months I can't - I live in a colder climate). As my body has built up tolerance, I've even developed a light tan and I've found my skin no longer burns as easily. Best of all, I just look healthier and my mood is better.
During the summer months, I now get 20 min full body exposure daily and I supplement D3 on the days I can't (and months I can't - I live in a colder climate). As my body has built up tolerance, I've even developed a light tan and I've found my skin no longer burns as easily. Best of all, I just look healthier and my mood is better.
I've done almost exactly the same - only difference is I still don't tan and still burn really easily!
When you say full body do you really mean full body? If so how do you accomplish that without getting arrested?
It depends on where you live. In Seattle, for example, this is expressly legal just about everywhere in the city and is evidently exercised in practice.
Interestingly, this instance stems from a court ruling several decades ago that a government requirement to wear any particular article of clothing in public spaces was a violation of First Amendment rights. While the original case was about the right to be topless in public spaces, the generalized implication was that the government couldn't require you to wear anything at all.
Interestingly, this instance stems from a court ruling several decades ago that a government requirement to wear any particular article of clothing in public spaces was a violation of First Amendment rights. While the original case was about the right to be topless in public spaces, the generalized implication was that the government couldn't require you to wear anything at all.
Depending on location, there are nudist accepting places. E.g. in Paris there's a nudist park, and there are nude beaches and places across France, Spain, Germany at the very least.
Ha - not quite _that_ full body for me. I just wear a pair of shorts. I just meant that I'm not just exposing my arms and legs but also my chest/back/etc.
Open up a window and let the sun shine in.
Usually people are allowed to be naked inside .. and unless you are presenting yourself, no one will notice, if you are a bit inside.
But way better is of course, a garden with surrounding bushes, or living close to wilderness, where no one bothers your privacy.
Usually people are allowed to be naked inside .. and unless you are presenting yourself, no one will notice, if you are a bit inside.
But way better is of course, a garden with surrounding bushes, or living close to wilderness, where no one bothers your privacy.
> We acknowledge several major limitations of this study. First, it is not possible to differentiate between active sun exposure habits and a healthy lifestyle, and secondly, the results are of an observational nature; therefore, a causal link cannot be proven. A further limitation is that we did not have access to exercise data from study initiation; however, similar sHR values were obtained when including exercise for those women who answered the second questionnaire in 2000.
This is the rub. We don't know sun-exposure is merely a signal of some healthy lifestyle; but evidence from the later questionnaire suggests that normalizing for exercise still leads to a reduction in risk.
This is the rub. We don't know sun-exposure is merely a signal of some healthy lifestyle; but evidence from the later questionnaire suggests that normalizing for exercise still leads to a reduction in risk.
I am confident we’re underestimating the role of sun exposure and time spent outdoors in health today. At the very least, there are multiple well-done studies connecting time spent outside with myopia, light exposure with vitamin D levels (which are then linked to everything from covid mortality rates to depression)
I also have to say that I bought into the HN idea of “you can fix life indoors” because it’s an attractive idea. Air quality is far lower indoors? Just buy multiple high quality HEPA air filters and a humidifier and perhaps a dehumidifier if needed, and oh you’ll want a high quality CO2 monitor because those levels are likely high as well. Vitamin D? Just take a supplement! Except oh wait, if you’re deficient you’ll need a large amount, so take a bunch… but vitamin D is fat soluble, so now you have hypervitaminosis D which is terrible, so really you should just get your vitamin D levels checked regularly, which is not cheap. Eyesight issues? Eh, sunlight exposure can help prevent that better than anything else we know, but let’s not talk about that, let’s just let everyone ruin their vision by staying in dim rooms and focusing on close objects and then you can get LASIK, but oh wait, that often isn’t permanent and sometimes it gives people dry eyes so bad they kill themselves. Sleep issues, because you don’t get enough sun exposure to regulate your circadian rhythm? Just take an Ambien or similarly powerful drug, if you get side effects you can medicate those away. And so on, and so on, and so on… Everything can be solved through technology and medication, air sensors and supplements and the like.
I also have to say that I bought into the HN idea of “you can fix life indoors” because it’s an attractive idea. Air quality is far lower indoors? Just buy multiple high quality HEPA air filters and a humidifier and perhaps a dehumidifier if needed, and oh you’ll want a high quality CO2 monitor because those levels are likely high as well. Vitamin D? Just take a supplement! Except oh wait, if you’re deficient you’ll need a large amount, so take a bunch… but vitamin D is fat soluble, so now you have hypervitaminosis D which is terrible, so really you should just get your vitamin D levels checked regularly, which is not cheap. Eyesight issues? Eh, sunlight exposure can help prevent that better than anything else we know, but let’s not talk about that, let’s just let everyone ruin their vision by staying in dim rooms and focusing on close objects and then you can get LASIK, but oh wait, that often isn’t permanent and sometimes it gives people dry eyes so bad they kill themselves. Sleep issues, because you don’t get enough sun exposure to regulate your circadian rhythm? Just take an Ambien or similarly powerful drug, if you get side effects you can medicate those away. And so on, and so on, and so on… Everything can be solved through technology and medication, air sensors and supplements and the like.
The data is pretty fun to look through. Low alcohol consumption, excess disposable income, assumed healthier diet, presumably more time-off, etc.
Although the article seems like common sense science, it does bring up the question of why there's such an opposition regarding moderate sun exposure. I think the question that makes me really curious is whether natural sun exposure is more beneficial than supplementation or vice-versa.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4391331/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356951/
Although the article seems like common sense science, it does bring up the question of why there's such an opposition regarding moderate sun exposure. I think the question that makes me really curious is whether natural sun exposure is more beneficial than supplementation or vice-versa.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4391331/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356951/
The highest sun exposure group reported more alcohol consumption.
My mood is so positively influenced by sun exposure or just by a clear sunny sky, that I really don’t understand why you would avoid it. For me it’s one of those things where the risk is worth the benefits.
In summer, my skin burns in 10m outside in sun (partial or full).
My mother also has multiple cases of confirmed carcinomas. She obtained disability due to those.
So yeah, even though you may be all shock and awe about why some of us would avoid it, its definitely genetic. And I don't need the risk of having my skin burn and eventually cancer.
My mother also has multiple cases of confirmed carcinomas. She obtained disability due to those.
So yeah, even though you may be all shock and awe about why some of us would avoid it, its definitely genetic. And I don't need the risk of having my skin burn and eventually cancer.
I'm of Irish/Scottish/British descent.
Despite having a lineage that hates itself, it also means that I don't tan; I stroke. My mother was actually allergic to the sun. She had to be hospitalized, a few times, because of it.
I live in an area with tons of folks of Mediterranean descent. Every summer, they end up looking like alligator purses, come May.
I get really sick of them insisting that I "just need to do it in stages. Just go out for fifteen minutes at a time. You'll tan; I promise!"
For me, it's:
15 Min. -> Nothing
15 Min. -> Nothing
15 Min. -> Nothing
15 Min. -> Bright red, peeling and screaming
Despite having a lineage that hates itself, it also means that I don't tan; I stroke. My mother was actually allergic to the sun. She had to be hospitalized, a few times, because of it.
I live in an area with tons of folks of Mediterranean descent. Every summer, they end up looking like alligator purses, come May.
I get really sick of them insisting that I "just need to do it in stages. Just go out for fifteen minutes at a time. You'll tan; I promise!"
For me, it's:
15 Min. -> Nothing
15 Min. -> Nothing
15 Min. -> Nothing
15 Min. -> Bright red, peeling and screaming
Then adjust :p do it in 10 minute increments, with sunblock, in the morning/late afternoon.
If tanning were worth it, to me, then I’d probably figure it out.
It isn’t, and I’m not gonna bother.
That said, I do like to get out and about, just with a hat on.
I think that the mental health aspects of sunlight may come into play. Very difficult to control for.
It isn’t, and I’m not gonna bother.
That said, I do like to get out and about, just with a hat on.
I think that the mental health aspects of sunlight may come into play. Very difficult to control for.
I wonder if diet can give your skin type some color, if so desired.
When I consistently eat carrots daily my skin darkens a bit, but I also tan easily. It's been reported before that carrot eaters score better in hot-or-not style surveys, attributed to healthier looking skin. At least overdosing on carrots doesn't cause melanoma ;)
When I consistently eat carrots daily my skin darkens a bit, but I also tan easily. It's been reported before that carrot eaters score better in hot-or-not style surveys, attributed to healthier looking skin. At least overdosing on carrots doesn't cause melanoma ;)
There’s a carrot-based “tanning pill,” that people use. I knew a girl in the 1980s, that used it.
It gives the skin a noticeable orange color.
I seem to recall seeing something like that, recently, but it escapes me, just now…
Nevermind. I’m sure it will come to me…
It gives the skin a noticeable orange color.
I seem to recall seeing something like that, recently, but it escapes me, just now…
Nevermind. I’m sure it will come to me…
Does it burn in the early morning and late afternoon too? Those are probably the only times light skinned people should get extended sun exposure during the summer.
Every person should probably avoid the summer sun at noon.
But if you want Vitamin-D - the morning and evening sun won't help you, as they are too filtered out. And basically the whole winter sun in the northern hemisphere is too weak, even at noon.
But the beauty of the morning and evening sun helps, too.
But if you want Vitamin-D - the morning and evening sun won't help you, as they are too filtered out. And basically the whole winter sun in the northern hemisphere is too weak, even at noon.
But the beauty of the morning and evening sun helps, too.
Skin and eye damage from the sun is permanent and cumulative. The trick is doing things in the sun without exposing yourself to it too much (and not letting the exposure discourage you.)
Yes, wear hats! Australian schools send kids home if they arrive without them, skin cancer is a real killer (especially in Australia, but other places as well).
Personally, I think Weller's line of thinking may fit here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh9lDWPMWrM
(TED Talk - Richard Weller: Could the sun be good for your heart?)
TL;DW - It's not just Vitamin-D generated from UV exposure but nitric oxide release in the skin, that may have a positive effect on health.
TL;DW - It's not just Vitamin-D generated from UV exposure but nitric oxide release in the skin, that may have a positive effect on health.
> Nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, indicating that avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking.
And yes, while correlation isn't causality, it's very difficult to separate sunlight exposure from a healthy lifestyle. Since we don't know exact causality, the takeaway should be this: Get regular exercise and sun exposure if you want to live a longer, healthier life. The benefits far outweigh the risk of skin cancer.
And yes, while correlation isn't causality, it's very difficult to separate sunlight exposure from a healthy lifestyle. Since we don't know exact causality, the takeaway should be this: Get regular exercise and sun exposure if you want to live a longer, healthier life. The benefits far outweigh the risk of skin cancer.
One thing I don't understand is how do animals get their Vitamin D since they are covered in fur. Surely it's not only humans for whom Vitamin D is important.
Other mammals synthesize vitamin D in their fur instead of their skin. We lost this option when we lost our fur, hence we’re more prone to vitamin D deficiencies.
Wait, in fur? Hair is dead right? Or do those animals have something flow back in from the hair? Does our hair do that? Is our hair where our vitamin D is made?
Not in(side) the hairs of their fur, on the hairs of their fur/in the entire fur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Evolution:
In birds and fur-bearing mammals, fur or feathers block UV rays from reaching the skin. Instead, vitamin D is created from oily secretions of the skin deposited onto the feathers or fur, and is obtained orally during grooming.
So they take vitamin D orally, producing it on their bodies.
In birds and fur-bearing mammals, fur or feathers block UV rays from reaching the skin. Instead, vitamin D is created from oily secretions of the skin deposited onto the feathers or fur, and is obtained orally during grooming.
So they take vitamin D orally, producing it on their bodies.
I see, thanks!
Vitamin D3 supplements are commonly made from sheep wool grease (lanolin).
I don’t know the answer, but different animals are very different in these respects; for example - humans and squirrels need to eat vitamin C, but other mammals synthesize it themselves.
Quickly skimming the article, it seems like they address the use of sunscreen or related blockers, only to say that the advice "when you put sunscreen you can stay very long in the sun" seems wrong, which I thought was well known at least among scientists in the domain.
Although that provides additional sourced guidance for public health officials, for sure.
Although that provides additional sourced guidance for public health officials, for sure.
Living further away from the equator (thus getting less sunlight) increases the risk of developing MS.
I actively avoid sun exposure because I burn super easily. Does this mean I'm going to die?
Eventually, yes
ouch. Can't say that truth bomb didn't hurt. As a counterpoint, if I did plan on living forever, by extrapolating all the past history of me not dying into the future, the data trend is pretty robust that I will continue to not die indefinitely.
If you're a woman in the south of Sweden, I'd say yes. Otherwise you're probably fine.
Possibly. But your risk of melanoma is reduced. It's just other shit that will kill you.
1. Avoid exposure to sun.
2. Ensure vitamin D levels are right (In Swedish latitude vitamin D deficiency is common in the winter)
3. Control for confounding variables.
2. Ensure vitamin D levels are right (In Swedish latitude vitamin D deficiency is common in the winter)
3. Control for confounding variables.
This study doesn’t seem to control for fitness or activity level of the folks they tracked. Also doesn’t seem to talk about that in the analysis of proposed mechanisms.
They do.
Or: people who live a long time, often go outside.
Or: non-sedentary lifestyles predict long-life.
Or: to quote the paper 2/3rds in,
This isn't doing the cultural perception of science any favours.