AAP and vit. D

[monkaha]

Ok, so I went and read the AAP (american association of pediatrics) reccomendations on vitamin D and the thing that jumped out at me was "Exclusively breastfed infants are at increased risk of vitamin D deficiency and rickets. This is because human milk typically contains only small amounts of vitamin D, insufficient to prevent rickets." (from http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/aprvitamin.htm) Now, mabe I'm taking an overly optimistic view of breastfeeding, but I've always figured that it has everything that baby needs in it, otherwise our species would not have survived this long. Plus I've read that even though breastmilk has smaller amounts of some nutrients, they are easier absorbed than those in formula or vitamin suppements. So how come I know this and the country's pediatritian club doesn't? Am I missing something? And what info can I take to my ped, so that he doesn't harrass me for not giving DS vitamins?

[sntm]

Vitamin D is also produced with sun exposure. With people moving to different climates than their ancestors lived in, wearing clothes, spending more time indoors, and using sunscreen, some modern-day babies are at risk for decreased Vitamin D production, and therefore are more dependent on Vitamin D is whatever they eat.

So, FF babies get extra added to formula, BF babies may need vitamins or more sun exposure. For US climates, it is 5-10 minutes of indirect (meaning shady as well) sunlight per day on average.

[monkaha]

Oh yeah, I know about the whole sun thing, and we live in Arizona, so I'm sure that my kids are getting enough vitamin D from sunlight. Just the sun coming in the windows when we go somewhere in the car should be enough, right? DS is usually just in a t-shirt or onesie and his dipe, no sunscreen usually.

[Geofizz]

This is the issue that first brought me to MDC.

Here's a pretty good article questioning the blanket recommendation:
http://mothering.com/12-0-0/html/12-1-0/vitamin-d.shtml

Originally Posted by sntm

For US climates, it is 5-10 minutes of indirect (meaning shady as well) sunlight per day on average.

Figure you spent 5-10 minutes carrying your child between the house and car when you go grocery shopping. For fair-skinned children in the summers, it's simply not an issue. You may want to think about how much you go outside in the winters if you are dark-skinned and live somewhere with very short days.

Personally, I have no worries about the fact that we never supplemented.

[Pam_and_Abigail]

What I don't think the AAP has realized or will admit yet, is that like iron and other nutrients, the vit D is bm is absorbed much more readily than from a syringe of sugarey supplements or whatever they put in formula. So they measure the vit d in formula and bm and say, "wow, this bm is too low in vit d, better make sure moms know their milk's not actually good enough" (me, paraphrasing). I think dark-skinned people in northern climates have trouble, but it takes 15 minutes a day of direct or indirect exposure to sunlight to face and hands to get adequate vit d.

[polka hop]

*

[sntm]

Actually, there has been an increase in diagnosis of rickets (Vit D deficiency). So, while Vit D may or may not be more bioavailable (though no scientific data on this like there is on iron), babies are still not getting enough.

Easily remedied with a little sunlight, or if you are dark-skinned and in a northern clime, then consider a vitamin supplement. Of note, I have read (can't remember where so I can't vouch for the validity of the info) that mom's Vit D intake has a direct effect. So if you want to avoid vitamin supplements for baby, consider more Vit D for mom.