Why vitamin D matters for mood

S

Source:  The benefits of vitamin D

From Patrick Holford

Vitamin D  is an allrounder as far as your brain and mental health is concerned.


What it does: Helps maintain strong and healthy bones by retaining calcium. Deficiency Signs: Joint pain or stiffness, backache, tooth decay, muscle cramps, hair loss…. is an allrounder as far as your brain and mental health is concerned.

Mood Boost with Vitamin D

Generally speaking, the lower your vitamin D the worse your mood, which makes vitamin D especially important to supplement from October to March if you live in the UK or similar latitude, when the angle of the sun is too low and you’re also less likely to get outdoors exposing your skin to sunlight. It’s best to assume that we are all deficient in winter (unless you travel to the sun) and need to supplement around 3,000iu a day. 

How Vitamin D Works to Improve Mood

Vitamin D encourages the conversion of tryptophan into serotonin in the brain, where you want it, and suppresses it in the gut.[ii] This may be partly why the lower your vitamin D level, the more depressed you are likely to feel. If your mood takes a dip in winter months this is a key sign that you might need more.

That’s what researchers at the University of Tromso in Norway found on testing 441 volunteers who were given a test for depression and also a test for blood levels of vitamin D. The volunteers were then given Vitamin D supplements or placebo. Tested one year on, those given vitamin D, but not those given the placebos, had substantially lower depression ratings.[iii]

However, you don’t have to wait for a year to get a lift in mood. An eight-week study in Australia found that some of those given vitamin D supplements had an improvement in mood in only five days.[iv] Another study, in Iran, gave a single vitamin D injection and reported benefit in depression when measured 3 months on.[v]

It’s also very important for children and teenagers. A study of 89 children and adolescents with depression compared to ‘control’ patients of the same age. The depressed patients had much higher homocysteine indicating worse methylation, and clearly lower B12 and vitamin D levels with the levels predicting the severity of their symptoms.[vi]

How to Take Vitamin D

Since vitamin D stores, there is no need to supplement daily. You can take a weekly dose. In the Norwegian study above they gave 20,000iu or 40,000iu weekly. Both worked and there wasn’t a big difference in the effects on mood. So, you can assume that 20,000iu weekly, or 3,000iu daily would likely be sufficient. Vitamin D3 , which is what is made in the skin and present in seafood and eggs,is better than vitamin D2, the plant form. Lichen also provide a vegan source of vitamin D3.

Vitamin D3 is hydroxylated in the liver to form 25(OH)D3 the major circulating form of vitamin D in the blood and the commonly accepted measure of vitamin D status which is what this test measures. Circulating 25(OH)D3 levels reflect endogenous production as well as vitamin supplementation. 

Vitamin D deficiency is linked with many chronic diseases, including autoimmune diseases, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer as well as cognitive decline. Optimal levels of 25(OH)D3 are certainly above 32ng/mL (80 nmol/l) and ideally over 40ng/ml (100nmol/l).

Optimising Vitamin D

The yardstick for what you need is really whatever gets your blood level into the optimal range. In the Norwegian study above, those given 20,000iu a week averaged a blood level of 88 nmol/l, while those given 40,000iu averaged 111nmol/l. It is now well recognised that levels above 75nmol/l correlate with good health for many health measures, while levels above 100nmol/l might be even better is some respects. 

My recommendation is to test yourself and consider anything below 50 to be deficient, and above 75 to be sufficient with an optimal level being closer to 100nmol/l. If you then supplement 3,000iu daily, like in my High Strength Vitamin D, or seven times this weekly, especially from October to March, retest yourself against these yardsticks.
Testing Vitamin D Levels

Foodforthebrain.org offer a simple and reliable home test for vitamin D.

Daryl, a patient at the Brain Bio Centre, is a case in point. He found that, particularly during the winter, he felt very low, irritable and angry, and was suffering from what he described as ‘brain fog’. His blood tests showed very low levels of both vitamin D and essential fats. We gave him supplements of both vitamin D and omega-3, and recommended eating more oily fish. He quickly noticed what he described as a massive improvement’ in his symptoms. He was no longer waking with headaches for the first time in six years, instead feeling thoroughly refreshed.

 

Best Foods for Vitamin D

The best food sources of vitamin D are oily fish and eggs. A serving of salmon or mackerel is likely to give you 400iu of vitamin D. Two eggs will provide about 130iu. In some countries, not the UK, milk is fortified with vitamin D but, otherwise, it is not a great source. Some mushrooms are purposely fortified with vitamin D by exposing them to UV light. [I don't eat meat, dairy or fish, and I avoid direct sunlight, so I take supplemental vitamin D]

In summary, vitamin D is an allrounder as far as your brain and mental health is concerned and it’s worth ensuring your level is optimal, both for brain and body, throughout winter by supplementing 3.000iu or whatever you need to keep your blood level above 75nmol/l. 

Other Natural Mood Support

If you find yourself struggling with mood – becoming enthusiastically negative, not happy most of the time, stuck in a black hole, not enjoying your life and not seeing a way forward – then do read about nutritional approaches to improve your mood. My 6 tips as outlined in detail in my report The Way Up from Down are:

• Omega-3 and marine food nutrients
• Serotonin – the enlightener
• Tyrosine – the motivator
• Chromium
• Methyl magic and B vitamins
• Vitamin D – the sunshine vitamin

References

[i] Jayedi A, Rashidy-Pour A, Shab-Bidar S. Vitamin D status and risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease: A meta-analysis of dose-response †. Nutr Neurosci. 2019 Nov;22(11):750-759. doi: 10.1080/1028415X.2018.1436639. Epub 2018 Feb 15. PMID: 29447107

[ii] Patrick RP, Ames BN. Vitamin D hormone regulates serotonin synthesis. Part 1: relevance for autism. FASEB J. 2014 Jun;28(6):2398-413. doi: 10.1096/fj.13-246546. Epub 2014 Feb 20. PMID: 24558199.

[iii] Jorde R, Sneve M, Figenschau Y, Svartberg J, Waterloo K. Effects of vitamin D supplementation on symptoms of depression in overweight and obese subjects: randomized double blind trial. J Intern Med. 2008 Dec;264(6):599-609. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2008.02008.x. Epub 2008 Sep 10. PMID: 18793245.

[iv] Khoraminya N, Tehrani-Doost M, Jazayeri S, Hosseini A, Djazayery A. Therapeutic effects of vitamin D as adjunctive therapy to fluoxetine in patients with major depressive disorder. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013 Mar;47(3):271-5. doi: 10.1177/0004867412465022. Epub 2012 Oct 23. PMID: 23093054. Xxxx check the some in 5 days

[v] Mozaffari-Khosravi H, Nabizade L, Yassini-Ardakani SM, Hadinedoushan H, Barzegar K. The effect of 2 different single injections of high dose of vitamin D on improving the depression in depressed patients with vitamin D deficiency: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2013 Jun;33(3):378-85. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0b013e31828f619a. PMID: 23609390.

[vi] Esnafoglu E, Ozturan DD. The relationship of severity of depression with homocysteine, folate, vitamin B12, and vitamin D levels in children and adolescents. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2020 Nov;25(4):249-255. doi: 10.1111/camh.12387. Epub 2020 Apr 18. PMID: 32304285.

I got interested in vitamin D when a blood test showed I was extremely deficient.  I keep out of the sun (ultra-violet light makes vitamin D in your skin oils) because I once spent too much time in it, surfing and running and mountaineering when I was young, so have lots of pre-cancerous spots on my body.  Also, I don't eat butter.  I found that vitamin D is important for many aspects of our health.   

Patrick Holford is an expert nutritionist whose diet I am now following  — and losing weight on!  — and his well-researched opinions impressed me.  However, before you take vitamin D, check with your doctor and get your blood tested to find out whether you do, in fact, have a deficiency.   As always, check with your doctor or nutritionist.  

This is the Wikipedia article.

Up 1.3 C since pre-industrial times

From Our World in Data

Human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change today.1

CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide are emitted when we burn fossil fuels, produce materials such as steel, cement, and plastics, and grow the food we eat. If we want to reduce these emissions, we need to transform our energy systems, industries, and food systems.

At the same time, we need to tackle energy poverty, low standards of living, and poor nutrition, which all remain enormous problems for billions of people.

Technological advances could allow us to do both. The prices of solar, wind, and batteries have plummeted in recent decades, increasingly undercutting the cost of fossil fuel alternatives. Further progress could allow us to provide cheap, clean energy for everyone. Political change is essential to create a system that supports rapid decarbonization.

Emissions are still rising in many parts of the world. However, several countries have managed to cut their emissions in recent decades. With affordable low-carbon technologies, other countries can increase their living standards without the high-carbon pathway that rich countries followed in the past.

Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary drivers of the global rise in temperatures.1 This link between global temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations – especially CO2 – has been true throughout Earth’s history.2

In the chart, we see the global average temperature relative to a baseline, which is the average between 1861 and 1890. This gives us an estimate of the temperature increase compared to “pre-industrial” times. Average global temperatures have risen by approximately 1.3°C since then (with even higher anomalies in the last few years).

This warming has not been equally distributed across the world. The Northern Hemisphere has warmed more than the Southern Hemisphere. In some regions, temperatures have risen by more than 5°C. You can see this distribution in maps published by Berkeley Earth.

Human emissions have been the main driver of this change. Aerosols have played a slight cooling role in global climate, and natural variability has played a minor role. This article from Carbon Brief explains this very well, with interactive graphics showing the relative contributions of different factors to the climate.

The broad pathway for temperatures has been flat from 1850-1919, rising from 1920 to 1944, falling from 1945 to 1976, and rising since then.  The post-war fall was caused by the simultaneous rise in sulphur dioxide emissions, a by-product of burning coal, and as aerosols (sulphur dioxide) was reduced to stop acid rain, the heating hidden by SO2 was revealed.  The recent acceleration in the rate of increase in observed temperatures is blamed on the decline in SO2 emissions because of cleaner diesel being used by shipping. 

Childcare

 This poignant New Yorker cover, showing Black woman looking after White children.

China's emissions fall 3.1% in Q3!

From Carbon Brief

China’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 3.1% [year-on-year] in the third quarter of 2026, as the Hormuz crisis continued to hit oil demand and coal use also dropped.

This was the largest quarterly reduction since the 2022 Covid lockdowns and means that China’s CO2 emissions have now fallen by an estimated 0.5% in the year to date.

The new analysis for Carbon Brief, based on official figures and commercial data, shows that coal use fell by 3% year-on-year in the third quarter of 2026, while oil was down 4%.

The main drivers were a fall in power-sector coal consumption, a continued sharp reduction in transport oil consumption and slowing growth in the coal-to-chemical industry.

The sharp decline in China’s CO2 emissions extends a “flat or falling” trend that began in March 2024 and has now lasted more than two years, as shown in the figure below.

The outlook for China’s CO2 emissions depends on the balance between rising energy demand, clean-energy growth and the government response to a GDP slowdown.

Decline drivers

Key drivers of the fall in CO2 in the third quarter of 2026 included a 3.3% drop in coal-power generation, after demand growth slowed and the amount of “wasted” [curtailed] wind and solar fell.

Power generation from solar, wind and nuclear increased by 110 terawatt hours (TWh) year-on-year, more than twice as much as the growth in total electricity demand. This added clean-power generation equal to Germany’s total power output in the same time period.

The fall in coal-power output and CO2 emissions came despite the fact that China continues to build new coal-power capacity at near-record rates. This means that average running hours for coal plants are falling even faster than total generation, eroding their profits.

Meanwhile, transport oil consumption continued to fall sharply, down 9% year-on-year in the third quarter of 2026. Electric vehicles (EVs) continued to gain market share, hitting a record 67% of passenger car sales and 50% of heavy trucks in September.

The amount of electricity used by EVs grew by 53%, much faster than the number of EVs on the road, showing increased usage of the existing fleet in preference to fuelled vehicles.

Elsewhere, growth in the coal-to-chemical industry continued to slow down in the third quarter of 2026. The sector has been a key source of emissions growth, but high coal prices have weakened profitability and higher output prices hurt downstream demand.

Finally, CO2 emissions from cement and steel production continued to fall in the third quarter, as the contraction in construction volumes accelerated.

Outlook for emissions

Energy consumption growth has been falling after a period of exceptionally high growth during Covid, while clean-power growth has been robust.

This makes it likely that the growth in clean-power generation will exceed total energy demand growth this year, maintaining the structural fall in fossil-fuel use.

Looking ahead, this balance also relies on progress in removing barriers to new solar and wind power being added to the grid, which result in some clean electricity being “wasted”.

The recent slowdown in energy demand growth is partly – but not fully – explained by exceptionally mild weather in the third quarter.

Another key factor is weaker GDP growth. Since reported GDP growth remains within target, however, there is reduced pressure for further stimulus policies.

The focus of the economic stimulus announced to date is “six networks”, which includes the power grid and the transportation network.

These networks are highly relevant for energy and emissions – and they are already covered by policies that emphasise “green” and zero-carbon solutions.

Notice this very significant sentence:

Power generation from solar, wind and nuclear increased by 110 terawatt hours (TWh) year-on-year, more than twice as much as the growth in total electricity demand.

And then this one:

The amount of electricity used by EVs grew by 53%, much faster than the number of EVs on the road, showing increased usage of the existing fleet in preference to fuelled vehicles.

In other words, even with 53% jump in electricity for EVs, green electricity supply still grew twice as fast as demand.

I think we can confidently state that China's emissions have peaked.  Whether they will fall at the rate I think we should target for the decline in emissions (5% per annum) I doubt.  Not yet, anyway.  But this decline is very good news.  It means that cutting global emissions has just become much easier, as China is responsible for +- 1/3rd  of global emissions, and her emissions have been rising rapidly.  We can no longer make the excuse that China's high emissions make it pointless for the rest of us to do anything.   Let's aim for a minimum of 3% per annum decline in emissions, which will be easily doable given cheap solar, batteries and EVs, but also make a real effort to reach 5% per annum, which would cut emissions by 70% by 2050.

WWEA half-year wind report

From the World Wind Energy Association (WWEA)

Wind power deployment worldwide slowed down substantially in the first half of the year 2026, with new installations reaching 59 GW, substantially less than the 71 GW of 2025. On an annual basis, over the twelve months from July 2025 to June 2026, new installations reached 159 GW, compared to 152 GW in the previous period. This reflects the still strong momentum of the wind industry worldwide.

Accordingly, due to various factors and based on expectations of our members, it is expected that wind power deployment will again accelerate in the second half of 2026 so that total installations will reach a level similar to that of 2025, 173 GW.

The current global wind capacity has reached 1407 GW and is expected to reach 1521 GW by end of this year. In the year 2030, an overall capacity of at least 2250 GW is expected.

The global growth rate in the first half of 2026 was 4,37%, after 6,06% a year ago. On an annual basis, the growth rate was at 12,76%, less than the 13,88% of the previous year. Throughout the whole year 2026, a growth rate of 12,84% is expected, less than 14,59% of the year 2025.

Highlights

⭕ 58,9 GW added in the first half of 2026, down 18% year-on-year [after a very strong 2025]
⭕159 GW installed between July 2025 and June 2026
⭕Global total: 1’407 GW (1,407 TW) as of June 2026
⭕Annual growth rate: 12,76%
⭕Wind power share: ~12% of global electricity supply
⭕China: 38,7 GW added, 25% less than in the previous year
⭕US and Germany show strong momentum, Brazil, France and UK slump
⭕ Full-year 2026 outlook: around 173 GW new installations expected
⭕Projected total by the end of 2026: over 1’521 GW
⭕Projected total by the end of 2030: more than 2’250 GW

The semiannual growth rate reached 4,4%, compared with 6,1% in the first half of 2025, 4,0% in 2024 and 4,2% in 2023. This growth rate is typically lower than the expected growth rate for the second half of the year, when more than 8% growth is again expected. Throughout the whole year 2026, the growth of 12,8% is expected, after 14,6% in 2025.

 

After a very strong year 2025, the year 2026 started with lower momentum, however robust growth. It is expected that growth will again become stronger in the second half of the year, as the wind industry can use its existing capacities.

Growing uncertainties in some countries may rather result in more installations this year, as investors rush to benefit from existing frameworks. This may, however, have a slightly negative medium-term impact.

For various reasons, the global wind markets are expected to regain momentum in the second half of 2026 and accelerated expansion is expected.
According to WWEA member estimates, total new installations for the full year are likely to reach over 173 GW – slightly more than in 2025.
This exceeds the 123 GW added in 2024, 123 GW in 2023, and 85 GW in 2022.

By the end of 2026, global cumulative wind capacity is projected to exceed 1’521 GW, sufficient to generate around 12% of the world’s electricity.

Wind has slowed down as solar and batteries got cheaper than wind.  But wind is still needed in higher latitudes because of the winter decline in solar.  However, its growth is still higher than the growth of global electricity demand, so its share will keep on rising.

Half of China's new heavy trucks are electric

 From John Hanger

Good morning with good news: China's EV heavy truck sales surge from 13.9% in 2024 to 50.3% in September 2026! EV truck sales jump 64% in first 9 months of 2026, compared to 2025. EV were 38.3% of truck sales, so far in 2026! China's 2030 goal is 40%. electrek.co/2026/11/02/e... #energysky

A reply from James Chance 

Chinese trucks alone accounted for 3.7 mbd of diesel consumption acc to a US EIA 2024 estimate. Displacement by e-trucks of 0.23 mbd this year and clearly heading rapidly south thereafter. Hopefully the rest of the world can also follow this trend ASAP.

Commentators keep on asserting that it would be difficult to electrify heavy trucks.  China proves this wrong.

US paying biggest price for oil shock

 From This is Not Cool

Graph: Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air

[...] Meanwhile, a new study from a Finnish think tank adds that Americans have paid more in additional costs than any other country.

Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Finland):

This is because of America’s exceptional oil consumption due to high reliance on inefficient, oil-burning private vehicles and a slow transition away from petrol and diesel – leaving households, truckers and farmers particularly exposed to global fuel market shocks.

Fuel prices have risen for two reasons: increased price of crude oil, and a shortage of refining capacity. Refining capacity has shrunk as the disruptions to Hormuz traffic and Iran’s strikes on refineries have shut Gulf refining capacity off the market, and Ukraine’s counterattacks on Russia have affected refining capacity in the country.

According to the Finnish data, “The reason that per capita costs in the US are so high is the high consumption of fuels per person and lack of progress in reducing reliance on oil.”

So, when Trump promised the Oil industry that if they supported his election bid, he would open the bag for them, they responded with massive support, and got in return massive influence, even compared to other oil-friendly Republican administrations.

Support for EV sales was axed, even though the cost to the US Auto industry, heavily invested in an EV transition, was immense. Consumers were left with no affordable off-ramp from oil dependence.

Then, the trap was sprung.

And despite those high prices, US oil companies are not rushing to drill new wells. Why would they? The Trump administration keeps promising that the high prices are about to drop in response to some as yet unidentified policy change or solution to the war.

Wall Street Journal:

Despite their windfall of cash, Exxon and Chevron signaled they plan to remain conservative in their spending, cutting debt and strengthening their balance sheets.

Exxon has slashed its net debt by almost $11 billion this year; Chevron by $13.8 billion. Even as prices climbed, Chevron spent less than last year in the Permian Basin of West Texas and New Mexico, the epicenter of its American oil production, where output was flat at roughly 1 million barrels a day.

Scientific American:

Long-term, expect no great surge in new U.S. drilling. “Oil companies don’t usually respond to economic conditions brought on by policies that can be temporary,” says Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, an app that tracks gas prices for drivers. It takes six months or more to get full production from a new well, Cowan says, so producers making these decisions must think about what the fuel will cost months down the line. Funny how, regardless of the particular circumstance, Republican administrations again and again see war in the oil rich Middle East as a solution to every problem. I’m sure the windfall profits are just an oddly repetitive coincidence.