In a survey conducted between 2001 and 2004 it was estimated that around 70 percent of the children in the United States have a deficiency of Vitamin D. This puts them at risk for heart and bone diseases. Rickets, a bone disease seen in infants and young children is also on the rise.
Girls, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, obese children and children who drank milk less than once a week are most likely to have this deficiency. Children who spend most of their time indoors are more likely to have low vitamin D levels.
It has been reported that if children do not get enough vitamin D they are setting themselves up to have problems such as osteoporosis and heart disease later in life. What begins in childhood will affect a person’s entire life.
The main causes for this deficiency are poor diet and lack of sun exposure. Foods that are rich in vitamin D include milk, fish and eggs. Some cereals and margarine are now fortified with vitamin D.
It is hard to get enough vitamin D from food sources so taking supplements is advised. According to The American Academy of Pediatrics the recommended dosage for infants, children and teens is 400 IU daily. It is especially important for children living in the northern parts of the U.S. to take supplements as the sun may be too weak to provide adequate vitamin D. Breast –fed infants should also be given a supplement as breast milk contains very little vitamin D.
Children are spending so much time indoors watching television, playing video games and texting that they have very little sun exposure. Fifteen to twenty minutes a day of unprotected sun exposure will help ensure that a child gets the correct amount of vitamin D.
A parent should consult their physician concerning Vitamin D for their child.
July 30th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Over two years ago the Canadian Cancer Society started recommending that everyone take vitamin D to prevent cancer. The data on vitamin D preventing cancer is as extensive as the data on smoking causing cancer.
July 30th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Yes that sounds plausible – but it’s wrong. The huge state of the art July 2010 study Common genetic determinants of vitamin D insufficiency: a genome-wide association study found that none of the genes they identified are linked with skin pigmentation.
Confirmation of that interpretation in an article Here :- ” the accompanying (Lancet) editorial points out, it is somewhat surprising that none of the genes identified are linked with skin pigmentation”
.
A systematic review of the association between common single nucleotide polymorphisms and 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations
“We speculate that recently identified U-shaped relationships between 25OHD concentrations and disease outcomes (i.e. increased risk at both high and low concentrations) may reflect a mixture of genotype-defined subgroups.”
‘Genetics to Blame for Vitamin D Deficiency?’
“Researchers conducted a genome-wide association study (Common genetic determinants of vitamin D insufficiency: a genome-wide association study) that involved almost 34,000 people of European descent from 15 different studies. They used radioimmunoassay and mass spectrometry to determine vitamin D concentrations and found that variants at three genetic sites, or “loci,” were significantly associated with vitamin D concentrations. The presence of harmful alleles at three “loci” more than doubled the risk of Vitamin D insufficiency.”
Maybe non-whites are the ones who benefit from doubling their vitamin D levels ? Nope – Vitamin D, Adiposity, and Calcified Atherosclerotic Plaque in African-Americans “positive associations exist between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and aorta and carotid artery CP in African-Americans”
Many people are naturally low in vitamin D, forcing vitamin D levels up by taking supplements can only do harm. If you think you can improve yor health by conforming to the advice of Holick or – God forbid – that of Hollis, Cannel & Co at the vitamin D ‘Council’ who recommend (>50ng/ml) then you are in for an unpleasant surprise.
Vitamin D and homeostasis