Moms, babies found deficient in vitamin D

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/15/2005 11:04:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

listbox writes:

 

She said newborns who are being breastfed should receive a daily

supplement of 400 IU of vitamin D, and if they live above the 55th

 

 

Sorry I don't agree with this ..I've seen/read doctors saying this many

times. As a La Leche League member for 15 years.. I can tell you that

breastmilk

lacks NOTHING. It gives them what they need.. if it doesn't have it..the

child either doesn't need it in those early months ..or is getting it

elsewhere.

Take iron for instance.. breastmilk doesn't provide that. Why? Because the

infant stores enough in utero to last the first 12 months, at which time they

are eating food.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Moms, babies found deficient in vitamin D

Children without enough of the vitamin have low bone mass, researchers say

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050315/HVITAMIN\

D15/TPHealth/

 

By ANDRÉ PICARD

 

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 Updated at 10:30 PM EST

 

PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER

 

Almost half of new mothers and one-third of their babies suffer from

vitamin D deficiency, according to new Canadian research.

 

Vitamin D is essential for proper bone growth and mineralization.

Inadequate levels can cause rickets, and may increase the risk of

osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis and some forms of cancer, including

breast and colorectal cancers.

 

" There's a lot of vitamin D deficiency out there, " said Dr. Hope Weiler,

an associate professor of human nutritional sciences at the University

of Manitoba in Winnipeg.

 

" These numbers suggest that adults are not maintaining good bone health

and that children are not building bone as well as they could, " she said.

 

Advertisements

Click Heread1

Budget 2004ad1

Register

 

The new study, published in today's edition of the Canadian Medical

Association Journal, found that children with inadequate levels of

vitamin D had low bone mass.

 

None of the children developed rickets -- a painful and once common

bone-wrenching condition -- because they were all provided with vitamin

D supplements, Dr. Weiler said.

 

" When you get to the point where you see rickets, the vitamin D

deficiency is quite severe and devastating, " she said.

 

What is unclear, Dr. Weiler said, is the health impact of long-term

vitamin D deficiency and, in particular, how it may affect the growth of

children and rates of osteoporosis and other diseases in adults.

 

A study released last year by the Canadian Paediatric Society warned

that rickets is making an alarming comeback due to chronic vitamin D

deficiency in Canadian children.

 

Vitamin D comes principally from the ultraviolet rays in sunlight and

from foods such as fatty fish, for example, salmon. Some foods are also

fortified with vitamin D, including cow's milk, soy and rice beverages,

and margarine.

 

A daily intake of at least 200 international units of vitamin D is

recommended as part of a healthy diet; pregnant women should get double

that level, 400 IU.

 

But the new study, conducted among mothers giving birth at the Winnipeg

Health Sciences Centre, found that 46 per cent did not attain the

minimal level of 200 IU.

 

This occurred despite the fact that two in three moms were taking a

maternal supplement that was supposed to provide adequate levels of

vitamin D.

 

More than 70 per cent of the women who were deficient in vitamin D gave

birth to a child who was also deficient.

 

In a commentary also published in the CMAJ, Dr. Leanne Ward, a pediatric

endocrinologist at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa,

said the data underscore an " important care gap in this country: Vitamin

D deficiency among Canadian mother-infant pairs is a persistent problem,

despite existing recommendations for its prevention and despite ready

access to vitamin D supplementation. "

 

She said newborns who are being breastfed should receive a daily

supplement of 400 IU of vitamin D, and if they live above the 55th

parallel, that dose should increase to 800 IU in the winter months.

 

Dr. Ward said that while breast milk is undeniably the best fluid for

babies, it tends not to be rich in vitamin D. Vitamin D supplements for

babies are sold in liquid form, and administered with a dropper.

 

Vitamin D deficiency, as well as rickets, is seen principally in

dark-skinned children, particularly black and aboriginal children who

live in the Far North. Dark skin blocks the absorption of vitamin D from

the ultraviolet rays of the sun.

 

The tendency to keep children out of the sun is also limiting their

vitamin D.

[Guest guest]

primalmommieto5 said:

>

> In a message dated 3/15/2005 11:04:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> listbox writes:

>

> >She said newborns who are being breastfed should receive a daily

> >supplement of 400 IU of vitamin D, and if they live above the 55th

>

> Sorry I don't agree with this ..I've seen/read doctors saying this many

> times. As a La Leche League member for 15 years.. I can tell you that

> breastmilk

> lacks NOTHING. It gives them what they need.. if it doesn't have it..the

> child either doesn't need it in those early months ..or is getting it

> elsewhere.

 

I partially agree - The mother's vitamin D level status should be checked

as soon as she's found to be pregnant. If the mother is deficient during

pregnancy (as is likely in the northern regions) then her baby will not

receive what is needed, unless of course the baby or mother has sufficient

sunlight exposure on the skin (not likely when it's cold, we all turn pale

up here)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/16/2005 1:31:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

listbox writes:

 

I partially agree - The mother's vitamin D level status should be checked

as soon as she's found to be pregnant. If the mother is deficient during

pregnancy (as is likely in the northern regions) then her baby will not

receive what is needed, unless of course the baby or mother has sufficient

sunlight exposure on the skin (not likely when it's cold, we all turn pale

up here)

 

 

Oh I completely understand that.. and I'm sure there are natural ways of

handling it. But shoving vitamins into breastfed babies is unnecessary

 

 

*°º°*~Michelle~*°º°*

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

,

primalmommieto5@a... wrote:

>

>

>

> In a message dated 3/16/2005 1:31:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> listbox@e... writes:

>

> I partially agree - The mother's vitamin D level status should be

checked

> as soon as she's found to be pregnant. If the mother is

deficient during

> pregnancy (as is likely in the northern regions) then her baby

will not

> receive what is needed, unless of course the baby or mother has

sufficient

> sunlight exposure on the skin (not likely when it's cold, we all

turn pale

> up here)

>

>

> Oh I completely understand that.. and I'm sure there are natural

ways of

> handling it. But shoving vitamins into breastfed babies is

unnecessary

>

>

> *°º°*~Michelle~*°º°*

 

AND... the media intervention which advises that potential moms

refrain from eating fish just complicates the situation even further.

Tuna is not advisable, however other varieties like alaskan salmon

should have top priority! If pregnant women are lacking in the

omegas its possible that they are listening to their doctors and the media!

A little common sense along with minimal amounts of selenium solves this problem

and is obtained very easily taking prenatal vitamins once or twice a day. We

have to use our own discretion in these areas and not be so swayed by public

opinion. They don't present all the facts in orderly fashion.

Blessings, JoAnn