Do children get enough vitamin D in a multivitamin?

[fj62]

nt

[justamouse]

No, but you really have to get bloodwork done before you start heavily supplementing them.

[i.love.lucy]

i was just wondering this. my son has had bloodwork done and tested low so they have him on poly-vi-sol to get him 800 iu a day. but my daughter has never been tested and i don't really want to have her get bloodwork done. hoping that a regular multi is adding enough of what she is insufficient in.

 

 

oh, and sorry for no caps. i spilled a cup of coffee on my keyboard today and now my shift key doesn't work.:tongue_smilie:

[amy g.]

I wonder if my kids get enough considering we live in a place that is practically tropical. I swear I could have gotten a sunburn yesterday.

 

We are outside several hours morning and evening doing animal chores. We all drink raw milk from our own animals. We take multivitamins every day.

 

I'm just wondering if it is worth getting their levels checked or if they are probably in the small minority that are already getting enough.

[sbgrace]

No, what you get in a multi isn't enough for kids.

Ideally, you find out their level and dose based on the findings.

Short of that any child over age one can take up to 2000 IU of D3 per day.

I'd give at least 1000 IU to children in the winter if I didn't know levels. A rule of thumb is 1000 IU per 25 pounds to maintain levels. Again, ideally, you find their levels and dose based on the findings.

 

Over 50% of high sun exposure Hawaiians are deficient. No matter where a person lives they can be deficient and many are. I'd want a test Amy G.

[ChristusG]

I'd love to get my kids vitamin D levels tested.....but I'm not sure I want to step foot into the doctor's office right now unless I really have to. I'm scared of catching the flu!

 

But I have an appt for myself in a little over a week to get the test results back from my bloodwork. I'm already dreading stepping into that office.

[sbgrace]

I'd love to get my kids vitamin D levels tested.....but I'm not sure I want to step foot into the doctor's office right now unless I really have to. I'm scared of catching the flu!

 

But I have an appt for myself in a little over a week to get the test results back from my bloodwork. I'm already dreading stepping into that office.

 

We're in the same place with my husband. I know the levels of myself and the kids but hubby kept putting it off until we find ourselves in flu season. I'm thinking its far worse to put him in the office right now. So we've got two options--pay up for an at home test via vitamin D council or grassroots health or just dose him as if he's deficient. I think we're probaly going to dose as if. In reality adults are ok up to at least 9000 IU. So he's taking that now.

[Lisa in Jax]

You can order a test to do at home -- http://www.zrtlab.com/vitamindcouncil/

 

HIH,

 

Lisa

[cillakat]

I wonder if my kids get enough considering we live in a place that is practically tropical. I swear I could have gotten a sunburn yesterday.

 

I would suspect your levels aren't optimal but aren't as low as some. You're not out midday with most skin exposed. Even in Hawaii, for example, deficiency is widespread.

 

It's tough to get sufficient D without *midday* unprotected exposure on most of the body surface (ie think bikini) to the point just below a burn would occur.

 

K

[cillakat]

A rule of thumb is 1000 IU per 25 pounds to maintain levels. Again, ideally, you find their levels and dose based on the findings.

 

Over 50% of high sun exposure Hawaiians are deficient. No matter where a person lives they can be deficient and many are.

 

sbgrace is correct. you can find supporting scientific evidence at vitamindcouncil.org

 

K

[Ravin]

It doesn't take that much exposure, unless you're way up north. Fair-skinned people in particular can get enough with an hour or so of exposure a day, and it doesn't have to be at mid-day, either, especially in summer.

 

If your live in a southerly clime, and your kid is Vit D deficient, they need chucking outside.

 

It's not something I've ever worried about. DD gets plenty of sunshine; we skip the sunscreen unless we're going to be in direct sun for a prolonged period (like a day at the zoo or some such). DD is always in at least cap sleeves, but her face, arms, and sometimes legs get plenty of sun.

 

I'd get your child tested before doing any kind of supplementing.

[1GirlTwinBoys]

But I have an appt for myself in a little over a week to get the test results back from my bloodwork. I'm already dreading stepping into that office.

 

If you're just getting results, why not have them just mail and call to discuss? My dr. did that for my annual checkup back in June. I would not go into the office unless I absolutely had to go during flu season. :)

[tdeveson]

Can a kid possibly eat enough vitamin D in his food? What would it take? Mine drinks 1% milk like water. Does that even help?

[tdeveson]

If you're just getting results, why not have them just mail and call to discuss? My dr. did that for my annual checkup back in June. I would not go into the office unless I absolutely had to go during flu season. :)

 

You have a good doctor. Most doctors won't do that because they can't charge you another office visit if you call in. An insurance company won't pay him for his time if he picks up the phone to speak with you.

[catherine smith]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/10/10/Vitamin-D-Experts-Reveal-the-Truth.aspx

[Ravin]

http://nutrition.about.com/od/askyournutritionist/f/sunlight.htm

 

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/6/1678S

Edited October 17, 2009 by Ravin

[HiddenJewel]

Over 50% of high sun exposure Hawaiians are deficient. No matter where a person lives they can be deficient and many are. I'd want a test Amy G.

 

 

Is the deficiency because of sun screen use though?

[sbgrace]

Is the deficiency because of sun screen use though?

No. Average was 22.4 hours a week of Hawaiian sun exposure without sunscreen. In addition, there were a variety of races and skin tones representated. It looks like a well designed study in all ways I can determine. http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/92/6/2130?gca=92/6/2017&gca=92/6/2058&gca=92/6/2130&sendit=Get

 

Worse is that the standard for adequate levels in the study were 30...and we know that's not really adequate. Still over 50% of them were below 30. The mean in the study was only 31! We know that people really need to be at 50. When you look at the graphs in the study you see almost none of them were at 50 or above.

 

Conclusions: These data suggest that variable responsiveness to UVB radiation is evident among individuals, causing some to have low vitamin D status despite abundant sun exposure

Study hypothesized why so many were low even though they had lots of sun exposure:

Possible explanations for this include inadequate cutaneous production of D3, enhanced cutaneous destruction of previtamin D3 or vitamin D3, down-regulation of cutaneous synthesis by sun-induced melanin production, or abnormalities of transport from the skin to the circulation.

 

There is no guarantee of getting all a person needs through sun no matter how much sun they get in my opinion. My mom who does tons of gardening and outdoor work and has skin cancers (non-melanoma) to prove it found herself with very low numbers when she tested. A shock really. I was low. My aunts were low. My sister who uses a tanning booth. I suspect genetics has something to do with it.

[HiddenJewel]

We know that people really need to be at 50.

 

I am really curious how long it will be before that minimum of 50 rises. The last time I tested I was at 138 yet my calcium levels were right on, so no toxicity.

[cillakat]

Can a kid possibly eat enough vitamin D in his food? What would it take? Mine drinks 1% milk like water. Does that even help?

 

 

No. No one can get enough D from food nor should they. We were meant to get D from sun. Since it is *impossible* to get sufficient D from sun most of the year in most of the US (even in the south), it's important to get it from supplements.

 

grassrootshealth.net has a $40 home test that is just a finger prick.....it's part of a study so it's done twice a year for five years.

 

The same test can be purchased for $65 from the vitamindcouncil.org or from ZRT labs.

 

The doc can also do the blood work or send you to a local lab that will. Choose LabCorp over Quest if you can. Quest's test is not very current and has reliability issues....the results also run high. If you must use quest, divide the final number by 1.3.

 

Ignore lab 'norms' and aim for a 25(OH)D of about 55 ng/mL (US scale) and 125 nmoL (rest of the world's scale).

 

;)

katherine

who's D was 24.5 ng/mL in Atlanta GA, in August, using *no* sunscreen ever. I was outside alot (two toddlers), but never purposefully sat in the sun...sought shade when possible, but got lots of 'incidental' NON MIDDAY exposure when running errands, going to the park, walking the dog etc. Midday is important....to the point just before a burn would occur. And there isn't enough UVB available 8-10 months of the year (dep on latitude) to get sufficient D from sun regardless of exposure.

[cillakat]

I am really curious how long it will be before that minimum of 50 rises. The last time I tested I was at 138 yet my calcium levels were right on, so no toxicity.

 

 

Where are you? In the US? 138 is optimal when measuring in nmoL which US labs don't generally use. I just want to make sure we're comparing apples to apples.

 

There are no documented cases of D toxicity at levels lower than 200 ng/mL. which is......maybe 300 nmoL?

 

Cannel (Vitamin D Council) is currently saying optimal is 55-80 ng/mL.....but that's a big change from a few years ago: 40-55 ng/mL.

 

We no know there is a substrate deficiency at anything lower than 50 ng/mL......and that number may come up as more D functions in the body are recognized.

 

It's not uncommon for caucasian lifeguards to have 100 ng/mL serum D levels. Since that number can be accomplished from sun exposure alone, we're probably shooting too low when talking 55, 60, 65 etc.

 

:)

K

[Perry]

 

Cannel (Vitamin D Council) is currently saying optimal is 55-80 ng/mL.....but that's a big change from a few years ago: 40-55 ng/mL.

 

We no know there is a substrate deficiency at anything lower than 50 ng/mL......and that number may come up as more D functions in the body are recognized.

 

Cillakat, or others knowledgeable about vitamin D, I have a question about these numbers. I spent some time looking at Cannel's site, but can't find it and wonder if you can point me in the right direction.

 

I'm interested in how they are coming up with these recommendations for optimal serum levels.

 

 

My dd's level is 17 ng/mL. Her doctor wants her to take 1000 IU/day and recheck in 3 months. She said the target is to have her over 30 ng/mL. I've put her on 5000 IU/day, but want to have some literature with me when we go back in. I'm looking for actual studies with evidence that higher levels are associated with improved clinical outcomes. I know that my physician is not going to be on board if the recommended levels are arbitrarily set.

 

 

Also, do you take Ca and Mg or other minerals along with your vit D? How much?

 

 

 

Thanks!

[cillakat]

I'm interested in how they are coming up with these recommendations for optimal serum levels.

 

It's based on levels that we can easily achieve through unprotected midday full body exposure at latitudes where it's possible to get D from sun. Seems to be a good plan since there are mechanisms in place that prevent us from getting too much from sun.

 

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AV3S7fNjwg33ZHp0bWN3cV8yMDRqcXA0d3BjMw&hl=en

 

 

back to cillakat's notepad

back to links

email me

 

 

Vitamin D Facts: Testing, Interpreting, Dosing and Levels

☑ A tan does not necessarily indicate sufficient vitamin D levels. It's easy to tan from UVA

without getting sufficient UVB to raise D levels.

☑If you work indoors midday or avoid midday sun for any reason or wear sunscreen, you

need supplemental D3.

☑ If you get lots of 'indicental', partial body exposure in the summer, you still need vitamin

D supplements.

☑ Supplemental D is needed on the days you don't get midday, summer, unprotected, full

body exposure to the point just before a burn occurs.

☑ Most adults not getting very signficant sun exposure need 5,000 IU D per day. Some

need more. Test, test and retest.

☑ Test, test and retest. use LabCorp or ZRT. Tests listed in order of preference:

① D Action study using ZRT's home test- grassrootshealth.org

② ZRT's test ordered from vitamindcouncil.org

 

ZRT will donates $10 to that worthy organzation.

 

③ ZRT's test can be ordered directly from ZRT

 

④ See your doctor for testing - but only if they use LabCorp

 

⑤ Quest/LabCorp testing project. Test on the same day using Quest and LabCorp -

 

get reimbursed for up to $100 of your cost

 

⑥ $60 LabCorp walk-in LabCorp test: http://www.privatemdlabs.com/lab_locations.php

 

⑦ LabCorp via LEF: non-members $62.67 each members $35.25 each

 

nmoL - units used to measure D most places in the world

ng/mL - units used in the US

** Please be sure to pay attention to the units given on your lab report.

** Quest Labs -problems remain. See the end of the paper for citations.

 

What should my vitamin D level be?

see below for information on various vitamin D levels........

 

❍ 32 ng/mL (80 nmol/L) is the bottom of the current reference range in the US.

This level leaves us in a state of substrate starvation which isn't good. And if

Quest** did your test - see note above - you need to divide by 1.3.

 

❍ 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) the minimum recommended by currently by

any major D researcher (see grassrootshealth.net).

 

❍ 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L) is the point at which we have sufficient substrate

for managing calcium levels and have additional to use for other necessary

physiological functions - including gene expression (300+ other functions in our bodies)

 

❍ 60-65 ng/mL (150-162.5 nmol/L) is the 'middle of the current reference range

for the major US labs. European and canadian labs are behind the times on this

one and are still generally using a much lower range that accepts truly

deficient levels as normal.

 

❍ 80 ng/mL (200 nmol/L) is the higher end of normal but still within the physiological

range of what we could achieve from significant midday sun exposure.

❍ 100 ng/mL (250 nmol/L) a level still obtainable by extensive sun exposure -

think lifeguards in South Florida. That this levels can be achieved only through

sun exposure implies that this is still a physiologically appropriate level.

 

❍ 200 ng/mL (500 nmol/L) is the lowest blood level of 25(OH)D at which there

has been documented D toxicity. There has never been a case reported at levels

lower than that.

 

☑ 1,000 IU (25 mcg) per 25 lbs body weight per day is a very reasonable dose of

D3 for someone who avoid sun by

→ working indoors midday

→ wearing clothes midday

→ avoiding sun midday (too hot etc)

→ wearing any amount of sunscreen midday

 

 

☑ 10,000 IU-50,000 IU vitamin D3 is produced in the skin upon full body exposure

to sunlight......with the average of the studies being about 20,000 IU. However,

adults should not take more than 5000 IU per day and children should not take more

than 1000 IU per 25lbs body weight per day (400 IU per 10 lbs body weight per day)

without periodic testing of 25(OH)D levels.

 

☑ Don't be afraid to take as much D3 as is required to raise your serum 25(OH)D to

50-80 ng/mL (125 nmol/L to 250 nmol/L) There is a 25-50% variation in serum

vitamin d levels at 'x' amount of supplementation rate due to genetic variations

in vitamin d binding protein.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19302999

 

Clin Biochem. 2009 Jul;42(10-11):1174-7. Epub 2009 Mar 18.Common genetic variants of the

vitamin D binding protein (DBP) predict differences in response of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin

D [25(OH)D] to vitamin D supplementation.Fu L, Yun F, Oczak M, Wong BY, Vieth R, Cole DE.

Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1L5.

 

☑ Early AM and later afternoon sun exposure on face, hands and arms is not sufficient

to raise vitamin D levels or maintain optimal vitamin D levels.

 

☑ Fall, Winter and Spring sun exposure is not generally sufficient to raise viamin D levels

or to maintain optimal D levels.

 

☑ A person (tan or not) who's been getting

→midday

→unprotected

→summer exposure

→on most body skin

 

to the point just before a burn occurs, may have optimal D levels during the summer.

 

 

☑ The Vitamin D Council (vitamindcouncil.org) has all of the D research, reference cites

and links to peer reviewed journal articles that you'd ever want to read, plus several thousand extra;)

 

the rest of the doc can be found at the link. I had to shorten it to meet the size limit

[Perry]

Thank you!

[cillakat]

The 5,000 IU, if continued indefinitely will raise her serum D levels to about 67-72 ng/mL in the absence of significant sun exposure. It's generally accepted that 1000 IU raises D levels by 10 ng/mL In other words, 100 IU D affects a 1 ng/mL increase in serum 25(OH)D.

 

Summer is here at some latitudes and almost here in other latitudes and if she gets significant midday sun this will bring her up even futher so what may be good in terms of bringing D levels up could be too much for daily supplementation during the summer.

 

At what latitude are you?

 

If you're at ≤30-35, I'd put her outside, midday, in a bikini and no sunscreen and have her layout until the point just before she'd burn - on each side. No burn - bring her in before that. She can cover her face/apply sunscreen etc. On those days, give no D. On the other days, give D.

 

Why would you need to provide evidence to the doc to bring her levels up into the middle of the reference range. After all, that's all we're talking about. The reality is that he needs to provide evidence *for you* that taking 1,000 IU will raise serum 25(OH)D from 17 ng/mL to anything acceptable. The burden of proof is not on you, it's on him. If he's opposed to quickly raising her levels, ask him to clarify what risk there might be in bringing her levels up quickly to 50 or 60 ng/mL. There isn't any. We're not talking about levels above normal....just *in the middle of the reference range*.

 

Which lab did the test?:)

 

Also keep in mind that if this daughters test was low, so are the other members of the family's levels.

 

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AV3S7fNjwg33ZHp0bWN3cV8yMDRqcXA0d3BjMw&hl=en

 

I just updated this with a couple more cites for you - ones that aren't listed in the post above.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19102134

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2008 Nov;117(11):864-70.Cod liver oil, vitamin A toxicity, frequent respiratory infections, and the vitamin D deficiency epidemic.Cannell JJ, Vieth R, Willett W, Zasloff M, Hathcock JN, White JH, Tanumihardjo SA, Larson-Meyer DE, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Lamberg-Allardt CJ, Lappe JM, Norman AW, Zittermann A, Whiting SJ, Grant WB, Hollis BW, Giovannucci E.

Until we have better information on doses of vitamin D that will reliably provide adequate blood levels of 25(OH)D without toxicity, treatment of vitamin D deficiency in otherwise healthy children should be individualized according to the numerous factors that affect 25(OH)D levels, such as body weight, percent body fat, skin melanin, latitude, season of the year, and sun exposure. The doses of sunshine or oral vitamin D3 used in healthy children should be designed to maintain 25(OH)D levels above 50 ng/mL. As a rule, in the absence of significant sun exposure, we believe that most healthy children need about 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily per 11 kg (25 lb) of body weight to obtain levels greater than 50 ng/mL. Some will need more, and others less. In our opinion, children with chronic illnesses such as autism, diabetes, and/or frequent infections should be supplemented with higher doses of sunshine or vitamin D3, doses adequate to maintain their 25(OH)D levels in the mid-normal of the reference range (65 ng/mL) — and should be so supplemented year-round .

 

K

[cillakat]

vitamin d requires as cofactors:

magnesium

zinc

k

boron

 

most commonly, americans aren't getting enough magnesium and zinc.

 

I should do a google doc about this, eh?:)

 

Fwiw, vitamin D replete individuals do not need huge amounts of calcium like vitamin D deficient folks do....it's unclear yet how much D we need when we're getting sufficient D. Hollis is working on it. I'm so far going with 600-800 mg based on weight. I continue to take more mag because I feel better on it (less muscle tension is a biggie for me) so I work on gettin 600-1000 mg mag from food/supps.

 

here's a link to all of my writings/ramblings that I've collected:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AV3S7fNjwg33ZHp0bWN3cV83ZnJrNXZrZDg&hl=en

[Perry]

Latitude 42°N

She'll get adequate midday sun a few days per week from June through mid-August.

 

It's generally accepted that 1000 IU raises D levels by 10 ng/mL In other words, 100 IU D affects a 1 ng/mL increase in serum 25(OH)D.

Over what period of time should it increase by this much?

 

 

Why would you need to provide evidence to the doc to bring her levels up into the middle of the reference range.

We're friends, professional peers, and she is my husband's partner (he's a family practice doctor). I'd like to approach it as an educational opportunity. She is a reasonable person, and willing to look at evidence. *I* need to review and evaluate the evidence first. I'm not entirely on the vitamin D bandwagon, myself. This sort of thing comes up frequently, and is almost always overblown. Typically, there's lots of hype, and after the evidence sorts itself out it turns out that there's some benefit but it's not nearly as much as originally thought. I'm not saying vit D isn't important, just that it's entirely natural -and warranted- for clinicians to be skeptical. I need to spend some time sorting through the information and pass on to her what I think is important.

 

Which lab did the test?:)

The local hospital lab. From my understanding, there is huge inter-lab variability.

 

Also keep in mind that if this daughters test was low, so are the other members of the family's levels.

I'd really like to have everyone tested. I've already had everyone start taking 1000 IU/ day.

 

Thanks again for the information.

[Perry]

here's a link to all of my writings/ramblings that I've collected:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AV3S7fNjwg33ZHp0bWN3cV83ZnJrNXZrZDg&hl=en

This looks great. Thanks!

[Ravin]

No. No one can get enough D from food nor should they. We were meant to get D from sun. Since it is *impossible* to get sufficient D from sun most of the year in most of the US (even in the south), it's important to get it from supplements..

 

If that was true, the Inuit and other Arctic peoples wouldn't have been able to survive for hundreds of years. It would be more accurate to say you can't get enough Vit D from a typical Western diet. Eat enough cold water mammal and fish, though, and it's a different story.

[cillakat]

Latitude 42°N

She'll get adequate midday sun a few days per week from June through mid-August.

ime, a 42º latitude, sufficient UVB begins in mid-june rather than at the beginning.

 

Over what period of time should it increase by this much?

 

It takes about 3 months at any given level of supplementation, for D levels to max out based on that dose. That's in the absence of confounding factors like sun exposure.

 

 

This sort of thing comes up frequently, and is almost always overblown. Typically, there's lots of hype, and after the evidence sorts itself out it turns out that there's some benefit but it's not nearly as much as originally thought.

 

Keep in mind that again, we're not talking about mega-dosing or high blood levels....just that which is achievable through enough sun exposure to max out levels before the body's mechnisms take over to inhibit further D production.

 

I became convinced that it's not a vitamin or nutritional fad when it was framed as follows:

 

"Humans make thousands of units of vitamin D within minutes of whole body exposure to sunlight. From what we know of nature, it is unlikely such a system evolved by chance."~ Dr. John Cannell, Executive Director, Vitamin D Council.

 

"If you think of it evolutionarily, it's the oldest hormone on this Earth. I don't think that this is going to be a flash in the pan." ~ Michael Holick PhD MD Professor of Medicine, Physiology, and Biophysics Director, General Clinical Research Center Director, Vitamin D, Skin, and Bone Research Laboratory Director, Biologic Effects of Light Research Center Boston University Medical Center Boston University School of Medicine 715 Albany Street M-1013 Boston, MA 02118, USA Phone: 1.617.638.4545 Fax: 1.617.638.8882 E-mail: mfholick@bu.edu Google Scholar: MF Holick PubMed: "]Holick MF

 

"I would challenge anyone to find an area or nutrient or any factor that has such consistent anti-cancer benefits as vitamin D. The data are really quite remarkable." ~ Dr. Edward Giovannucci, Professor, Department of Nutrition Professor, Department of Epidemiology Harvard School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Avenue Building II Room 319 Boston, MA 02115, USA Phone: 1.617.432.4648 E-mail: edward.giovannucci@channing.harvard.edu Google Scholar: E Giovannucci PubMed: "]Giovannucci E

 

The local hospital lab. From my understanding, there is huge inter-lab variability.

 

Huge. It's a very big problem. If they used DiaSorin it's probably a fairly accurate, precise result. If they used LIASON, it varies tremendously due to a variety of factors.

[Perry]

One more question- if vitamin D deficiency is rampant, why are we not seeing an epidemic of rickets? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm really curious whether there is undiagnosed mild rickets happening, or if the vitamin D levels aren't low enough to cause rickets.

 

I don't know much about rickets. I've looked and haven't found found a satisfactory answer.

[kmacnchs]

Why is Vit. D so important?

 

If NO ONE gets enough (and it's not from diet), then why is it even an issue? (people have been living forever and "not getting enough"...)

 

ETA: as PP said, I am not trying to be argumentative...my ped. just told me that it is impossible just through lifestyle & diet to get enough vit. D - that we needed to be taking major supplements and that really irked me. I feel as though there should be no need to take vitamins if we are eating the right foods, etc.

Edited May 19, 2010 by kmacnchs

[Perry]

Why is Vit. D so important?

 

If NO ONE gets enough (and it's not from diet), then why is it even an issue? (people have been living forever and "not getting enough"...)

 

ETA: as PP said, I am not trying to be argumentative...my ped. just told me that it is impossible just through lifestyle & diet to get enough vit. D - that we needed to be taking major supplements and that really irked me. I feel as though there should be no need to take vitamins if we are eating the right foods, etc.

There aren't very many dietary sources of vitamin D. Some fish, like wild salmon, tuna and mackerel, have large amounts of vitamin D but few of us eat enough fish to meet needs. Milk has vitamin D supplements (it's not there naturally) but most of us don't drink enough milk either. Most vitamin D comes from the sun, but few of us get enough sun exposure. I just read an interesting article on the history of rickets, and prior to 1930 rickets was very common in this country. It was apparently the use of cod liver oil and fortification of milk that led to the near eradication of rickets in the US.

 

Also, infant formula has adequate vitamin D and most breastfed babies are given vitamins. otherwise, they would be deficient.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Perry

[Perry]

Why is Vit. D so important?

 

If NO ONE gets enough (and it's not from diet), then why is it even an issue? (people have been living forever and "not getting enough"...)

This is a good question, and it makes you wonder why we would have adapted (evolution-wise) this way. I don't know the answer.

 

But it certainly is possible that a great deal of cancer/heart disease/etc. is preventable if we had adequate vitamin D levels.

[cillakat]

One more question- if vitamin D deficiency is rampant, why are we not seeing an epidemic of rickets?

 

There are signficiant increases in rickets numbers. But it's probably not severe simply because formula feeding is so common in the populations at risk. Interestingly though, a study published very recently in GB showed that on ultrasound evaluation 1/3 of fetuses showed evidence of rickets in utero (you can find the cite in google scholar, pubmed or vitamindcouncil.org)

 

Rickets is more common in breastfed babies because they and their mothers don't get enough D from supplements or enough UVB from midday sun expousre. Rickets is less common in formula fed infants because they get suffient D to prevent rickets but not sufficient D to prevent other long term problems....their mothers also don't get enough D from sun or supplements but this isn't as obvious because the baby isn't relying on maternal D.

 

I don't know much about rickets. I've looked and haven't found found a satisfactory answer.

 

Why is Vit. D so important?

Please read the links provided. They are extensive and well referenced.

 

 

(people have been living forever and "not getting enough"...)

 

People have lived forever only because they DID get enough D.

 

Now we live indoors. We wear clothes. We wear sunscreen. Fatty wild fish is hard to come by.

 

If we sun properly, at many latitudes it is possible to get D from sun. It's just that we don't because of a variety of lifestyle factors that aren't going to change. I've posted a tremendous amount of literature and links to scientific references that clearly illustrate the issues surrounding the issues with this steroid hormone precursor. It's helpful in many ways, to cease thinking of it as a vitamin as it is technically speaking, absolutely not a vitamin.

 

K

[kmacnchs]

This is a good question, and it makes you wonder why we would have adapted (evolution-wise) this way. I don't know the answer.

 

But it certainly is possible that a great deal of cancer/heart disease/etc. is preventable if we had adequate vitamin D levels.

 

oh, I always thought cancer/heart disease, etc. were caused in large part by the western diet/lifestyle...

 

my children were breastfed and never got vitamins...we never get sick but I always assumed it's b/c we eat so well...

[cillakat]

This is a good question, and it makes you wonder why we would have adapted (evolution-wise) this way.

 

We didn't evolve this way. We simply no longer live a lifestyle that is aligned with our environement of evolutionary adaptation.

 

K

[kmacnchs]

People have lived forever only because they DID get enough D.

 

It's not like wearing clothes and living indoors is a new thing...

 

I KNOW this sounds snarky - please don't take it as such. I TRULY just don't get it I guess (skin & breast cancer is rampant in my family so going outside w/o sunscreen is not a smart option imo - maybe that's why I am so frustrated w/the whole thing)

[Perry]

We didn't evolve this way. We simply no longer live a lifestyle that is aligned with our environement of evolutionary adaptation.

 

K

But as a pp commented, we've been wearing clothes and living in non-tropical climates for tens of thousands of years. That should be long enough to evolve some sort of adaptation.

[cillakat]

It's not like wearing clothes and living indoors is a new thing...

 

I KNOW this sounds snarky - please don't take it as such. I TRULY just don't get it I guess (skin & breast cancer is rampant in my family so going outside w/o sunscreen is not a smart option imo - maybe that's why I am so frustrated w/the whole thing)

 

The human genome evolved millions of years ago. Comparatively, anything in the last 10,000 years is VERY new.

 

I don't understand why it's so difficult. The research is impecable. The backdata is impeccable. It's unlike anything that's ever been studied.

 

Sign up for the newsletters from the Vitamin D Council. Read. Educate yourself. Or don't. We don't need to be able to write computer programs to use computers. I don't need to be able to engineer a car to drive it. D can be just as simple. Test your levels then take 1000 IU to raise them 10 ng/mL. Most who don't get midday unprotected sun need 1000 IU per 25 lb body weight.

 

It's not difficult. It's not frustrating. It's easy. 75% of deaths from breast and colon cancer could be eliminated by getting vitamin D levels between 40 and 60 ng/mL. Just imagine how many more could be eliminated by getting everyones levels above 50ng/mL (ie no more substrate starvation).

 

Fwiw, the relationship between low serum 25(OH)D and cancer was first discovered in what disease? Melanoma. Optimal D levels prevent cancer in a huge, massive, cornerstone sort of way.

 

I am now done discussing this with you until you've read up......

 

http://www.ucsd.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16454

 

Diagnosis & Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency

 

UCSD School of Medicine and GrassrootsHealth bring you this series on vitamin D deficiency.

What's a Vitamin D Deficiency?

by Robert Heaney, MD

(first airs: 2/4/09)

Dose-Response of Vitamin D and a Mechanism for Cancer Prevention

by Cedric Garland, Dr. P.H.

(first airs: 2/11/09)

Skin Cancer/Sunscreen - the Dilemma

by Edward Gorham, PhD

(first airs: 2/18/09)

Vitamin D Deficiency: Analysis and Approach in a Comprehensive Cancer Center

by Donald Trump, MD

(first airs: 2/19/09)

Vitamin D and Diabetes-Can We Prevent it?

(first airs: 2/25/09)

Vitamin D & Cardiovascular Disease- New Frontiers for Prevention

(first airs: 3/4/09)

D-Lightful Vitamin D: Bone & Muscle Health & Prevention of Autoimmune &Chronic Diseases

by Dr. Michael Holick

(first airs: 3/11/09)

[cillakat]

But as a pp commented, we've been wearing clothes and living in non-tropical climates for tens of thousands of years. That should be long enough to evolve some sort of adaptation.

 

Might want to read up on clothing styles of primitive man. There is so little commonality between the clothing of our era as compared to 10,000 or 20,000 years ago that i'm suprised it's even being brought up. And the amount of time we spend indoors has increased dramatically in the last 50 years, last hundred years and the last 500 years.

 

K

[Perry]

Might want to read up on clothing styles of primitive man. There is so little commonality between the clothing of our era as compared to 10,000 or 20,000 years ago that i'm suprised it's even being brought up. And the amount of time we spend indoors has increased dramatically in the last 50 years, last hundred years and the last 500 years.

 

K

 

But the point is that people have been living in temperate climates where they'd have to cover themselves for protection from the elements for a good part of the year for a very long time. There are definitely recent changes in the amount of time people spend indoors during the summer, but I'm not so sure about winter. I wouldn't think that people living in northern North America or Asia would have got enough sun in the winter even 10,000 or 50,000 years ago. It is just curious from an evolutionary standpoint why we would have evolved in a way that results in most people being vitamin deficient. It suggests to me that it's a lot more complicated than we think.

 

I have started looking at the literature, and after reading a bunch of stuff today, I remain unconvinced that mega-dosing is a good thing. I have a lot more to read though.

 

First recorded use

 

According to archaeologists and anthropologists, the earliest clothing likely consisted of fur, leather, leaves or grass which were draped, wrapped or tied around the body. Knowledge of such clothing remains inferential, since clothing materials deteriorate quickly compared to stone, bone, shell and metal artifacts. Archeologists have identified very early sewing needles of bone and ivory from about 30,000 BC, found near Kostenki, Russia in 1988.[citation needed] Dyed flax fibers that could have been used in clothing have been found in a prehistoric cave in the Republic of Georgia that date back to 36,000 BP.[4][5]

Scientists are still debating when people started wearing clothes. Ralf Kittler, Manfred Kayser and Mark Stoneking, anthropologists at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, have conducted a genetic analysis of human body lice that suggests clothing originated quite recently, around 107,000 years ago. Body lice is an indicator of clothes-wearing, since most humans have sparse body hair, and lice thus require human clothing to survive. Their research suggests the invention of clothing may have coincided with the northward migration of modern Homo sapiens away from the warm climate of Africa, thought to have begun between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. However, a second group of researchers using similar genetic methods estimate that clothing originated around 540,000 years ago (Reed et al. 2004. PLoS Biology 2(11): e340). For now, the date of the origin of clothing remains unresolved.[citation needed]

 

Edited May 22, 2010 by Perry

[kmacnchs]

I don't understand why it's so difficult.

 

It's not difficult. It's not frustrating. It's easy.

 

It IS difficult & Frustrating for me, mainly b/c I'm LAZY and don't want to change my ways...:D:001_smile::001_huh:

 

But really, I wonder what you have to say about the fact that vitamins are not regulated at all so I could be taking a vitamin that says it is 100% of what I need but if it's not regulated, how am I to trust that? I guess I *can* trust the amts (how many IUs, etc.)?

 

No need to get hot & bothered, I am just curious and cautious of *new* studies...