Mothering › Forums › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › Vit D craziness..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vit D craziness..  

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
Hi All,
Hope you are able to read the following article and send feeback to this study physician:

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Repor...ids_18474.html


I guess formula feed babies' Vit D level is the standard. What craziness to infer that human milk is superior BUT it requires supplementation. It gets so ridiculous in the USA.

Take care and hope you have the time to respond to the study's researcher:

http://children.photobooks.com/direc...ict_id=9900060
post #2 of 9
wow, too bad there isn't some large solar body that shines rays through our atmosphere that when absorbed by our skin MAKES vitamin D.

Oh, wait....
post #3 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by menomena View Post
wow, too bad there isn't some large solar body that shines rays through our atmosphere that when absorbed by our skin MAKES vitamin D.

Oh, wait....
post #4 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by menomena View Post
wow, too bad there isn't some large solar body that shines rays through our atmosphere that when absorbed by our skin MAKES vitamin D.

Oh, wait....
Yeah . . . thinking about how nature "designed" breastmilk to be the perfect food for babies, it wasn't exactly necessary to include tons of Vitamin D since the sun conveniently solves that problem, provided you don't unnaturally sequester yourself indoors and out of sunlight 99% of the time.
post #5 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Romana9+2 View Post
...provided you don't unnaturally sequester yourself indoors and out of sunlight 99% of the time.
And herein lies the problem, I think- people are outside so much less today than we were back when we evolved in the Pleistocene. I don't think it's too far a stretch to think that, Vitamin D-wise, breastmilk is the perfect food for babies with outdoorsy lifestyles, but may be lacking in this one area for babies who spend a great deal of their infancy indoors, lit only by the television screen. I'd like to know how much time the Vitamin D-defficient breastfed babies in the study spent outside. I have a feeling it wasn't much.

I'm not bashing breastmilk here, mind you- only our indoorsy way of life!
post #6 of 9
Actually, it is a real issue, but it depends on your latitude. At high latitudes (usually defined as 45deg--NHS study said 50) it becomes impossible to manufacture sufficient Vitamin D from sunlight during the winter. (If you're wondering how people used to live in the north without rickets, they ate oily fish, which is a natural source.)

No need for routine supplementation of BF babies, but ALL babies up north need Vitamin D in some form.

(Not saying that this particular article is right, just want to emphasize this point.)
post #7 of 9
I do think that most babies probably don't get enough vitamin D, sadly enough. Our culture is SO paranoid about sun exposure, and that is where we are designed to get it. I know plenty of parents who never, ever expose their young babies to direct sunlight: they are always covered head to toe in clothing and a hat, and some parents drape a blanket over the stroller, car seat carrier, or over their babies heads if in a front-style carrier. Many parents apply sunscreen every day, and even SPF 8 will block 95% of vitamin D production.
I know very few parents who let their babies get 15 minutes of full body, mid day sun exposure every day. On the contrary, almost every other mom I know is extremely vigilant with sunscreen every day that there is sun, and a couple even put sunscreen on during cloudy days.
While vitamin D is present in some foods, in vegetable sources it is D2, which is very poorly absorbed into the body, and isn't really high enough in concentration to bring the body levels up to normal. High vitamin D and A cod liver oil is a good option, but it is taken as a supplement. Also, some people worry about the very high concentrations of vitamin A that you get along with the D.

Contrary to popular belief, most northern latitudes do not get enough vitamin D exposure from just the fifteen minutes of daily "hands and face" exposure to the sun. In my area, in the Pacific Northwest, it is especially a problem. From October to May it is very hard to get enough light for Vitamin D production: not only do we experience almost constant cloud cover, but our latitude makes it impossible to get enough vitamin D from the sunlight (due to the angle). Areas at 37 degrees North latitude will not get enough from sun exposure from November to February, and it gets worse the farther you go.
Major US cities at or around 37-40 degrees North: San Francisco, CA; Denver, CO; Washington, DC; Indianapolis, IN; Wichita, KS; St. Louis, MO; Reno, NV; Salt Lake City, UT; Richmond, VA...

My area is at 47 degrees, and for half the year we don't get sufficient UV levels for vitamin D production, and some studies show that even summer sun might not be enough. Interestingly enough, the rates of MS and other autoimmune disorders are very high in my latitude for people who were born and raised here: probably due to chronic lack of vitamin D for many years.
From a Multiple Sclerosis information website, mult-sclerosis.org:
Quote:
Regions north of 40 degrees latitude have a markedly higher incidence than those south of this divide. Within Europe, Scandinavia, The British Isles, the Low Countries and Germany have very high rates. Canada, northern USA and New Zealand have an equivalently high prevalence. Within these areas, certain localities such as the border areas of Scotland (203 per 100,000), Crowsnest Pass in Alberta, Canada (217 per 100,000), the northern-most province of Sweden (253 per 100,000) and others have been found to have extremely high incidences of the disease.
I am out in the sun as much as I can, going full body often, and no sunscreen (except during long exposures when I fear burning). When I tested my vitamin D levels in February they were LOW. My immune system was in the toilet: Denali and I were getting sick twice a month from October to February. My doctor prescribed me a high level vitamin D3 supplement in March. and we started taking a vitamin A and D cod liver oil. I take about 2000-4000 IU a day, and Denali gets 2000 IU every other day. We have not been sick once since. Not even once in the four months we have been taking vitamin D! That was a huge and welcome change.

I am generally against supplementation for infants. In the case of vitamin D, though, I think that supplementation can be a good idea if the baby lives above a certain latitude and/or if the parents are dead set against letting their baby get consistent mid-day 50% body sun exposure.
I would MUCH rather get my vitamin D the natural way, from the sunlight, for my daughter and I. Unfortunately in my region of the country it simply isn't an option. Its either supplementation, have a deficiency, or move on south. I didn't supplement Denali when she was a baby, but after researching the problem for several years now I wish that I had.
post #8 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexisT View Post
Actually, it is a real issue, but it depends on your latitude. At high latitudes (usually defined as 45deg--NHS study said 50) it becomes impossible to manufacture sufficient Vitamin D from sunlight during the winter. (If you're wondering how people used to live in the north without rickets, they ate oily fish, which is a natural source.)

No need for routine supplementation of BF babies, but ALL babies up north need Vitamin D in some form.

(Not saying that this particular article is right, just want to emphasize this point.)
:


And I wish they would stop saying that breastmilk doesn't contain vit D! It does! And it provides enough for the baby if mom has enough to pass on. My solution is still for northern moms to take enough supplements to pass enough vit D on to their babies in the winter months (or to get vit D making sun during vacations down south!)
post #9 of 9
Thread Starter 

Thanks Mamas

My POINT is that the focus of the article is swayed to focus on breastfed (exclusively) are in bad shape regarding this issue. And then extrapolate that to focus on cancers and no one sees the craziness that by promoting cow's milk to babies and children--this can somehow decrease cancer incidence? I guess I am just in the minority here.

There were not even 10% of the babies in the study exclusively breastfed, but they sure focused on that. No real research here--just bash the human milk. Give the lip service as usual, "it is the perfect food-but you still need to supplement". But formula does not need that.
Result: Formula is superior to human milk.

Again, the control (actual optimal levels) have been decided on my babies that never get human milk.

Thanks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Lactivism
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Breastfeeding › Lactivism › Vit D craziness..