Lack of Vitamin D in Children 'Shocking'

Demwit

uscitizen alternate login
Lack of Vitamin D in Children 'Shocking'

LiveScience.com livescience Staff

livescience.com – Mon Aug 3, 9:26 am ET
About 70 percent of U.S. children have low levels of vitamin D, which puts them at higher risk for bone and heart disease, researchers said today.


"We expected the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency would be high, but the magnitude of the problem nationwide was shocking," said Dr. Juhi Kumar of Children's Hospital at Montefiore Medical Center.


Cases of rickets, a bone disease in infants caused by low vitamin D levels, have also been increasing, other research shows.


The new finding, from a nationwide study, adds to growing evidence that children as well as many adults also lack the vitamin.


"Several small studies had found a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in specific populations of children, but no one had examined this issue nationwide," said study leader Dr. Michal L. Melamed of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University.


The cause? Poor diet and lack of sunshine, the researchers conclude today in the online version of the journal Pediatrics.


Millions of children


The researchers analyzed data on more than 6,000 children, ages 1 to 21, collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2004.


The researchers found that 9 percent, or 7.6 million children across the country, were vitamin D deficient and another 61 percent, or 50.8 million, were vitamin D insufficient.


Low levels were especially common in girls, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, the obese, those who drank milk less than once a week, and those who spent more than four hours a day watching TV, playing videogames, or using computers. The deficiency was more common among the older children in the data set, too.


Lighter skin is more efficient at producing vitamin D. So darker-skinned people produce less when exposed to sunlight.


The decline in vitamin D levels in the United States was reported widely a year ago and has been underway for 20 years, Melamed said.


"Kids have more sedentary lifestyles today and are not spending as much time outdoors," Melamed said. "The widespread use of sunscreens, which block UV-B rays, has only compounded the problem."


The body uses UV-B sunlight to convert a form of cholesterol in the skin into vitamin D.


What to do


Melamed recommends that children should consume more foods rich in vitamin D, such as milk and fish. "But it's very hard to get enough vitamin D from dietary sources alone," she said.


Vitamin D supplementation can help. In the study, children who took vitamin D supplements (400 IU/day) were less likely to be deficient in the vitamin. However, only 4 percent of the study population actually used supplements.


The American Academy of Pediatrics, which recently updated its vitamin D guidelines, now recommends that infants, children, and teens should take 400 IU per day in supplement form.
Supplements are especially important for children living in northerly regions where the sun may be too weak to maintain healthy vitamin D levels. Supplements are also critical for infants who are breast-fed, the researchers said in a statement today. Breast milk contains relatively little vitamin D, while formula is fortified with the vitamin.

What else can parents do?"It would good for them to turn off the TV and send their kids outside," Melamed said. "Just 15 to 20 minutes a day should be enough. And unless they burn easily, don't put sunscreen on them until they've been out in the sun for 10 minutes, so they get the good stuff but not sun damage."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090803/sc_livescience/lackofvitamindinchildrenshocking
 
Maybe a tax on your posts? How about we just tax everything?

LOL, the VG tax got your goat huh?

Well anyone who can afford to pay $30-60 on a purely entertainment item like a video game can afford to pay some tax as well.


I am sure thare are taxes paid on my posts. Somewhere somehow.
 
Yeah, I'd rather have a vitamin D deficiency than skin cancer, thankyou very much.

:rofl:


FYI Citizun, its not what I can afford to pay on video games, its what is appropriate. And since the expression "taking candy from a baby" was supposed to teach you that extorting from children is bad, it should reason that products such as soda, candy, and video games, which are consumed in large numbers by kids, should not be targeted for special taxes.
 
Yet another reason for a junk food tax to help pay for healthcare?

Maybe a video game tax as well?

you dems really love your taxes, don't ya?

i'm just guessing here, but i'll bet you're for installing GPS units on all cars to start taxing miles driven?

and maybe an extra surcharge on tires when bought to pay for a better means of disposal at end of life?

any taxes you don't particularly think should be implemented? like a 50% tax on coffee or something? unless it's starbucks, i'm sure, since you only drink maxwell house.
 
you dems really love your taxes, don't ya?

i'm just guessing here, but i'll bet you're for installing GPS units on all cars to start taxing miles driven?

and maybe an extra surcharge on tires when bought to pay for a better means of disposal at end of life?

any taxes you don't particularly think should be implemented? like a 50% tax on coffee or something? unless it's starbucks, i'm sure, since you only drink maxwell house.

I just believe in appropriate taxes. ie do not tax gasoline to spend on healthcare. Spend it on roads. Pay for healthcare by taxing things that contribute to bad health, etc.

I do buy a starbucks coffee maybe 4X a year when I am out and about and it seems the thing to do.
 
appropriate meaning higher taxes on products and activities you don't care for or approve of. right?

Sometimes they are products and activities that I do not approve of.
Sometimes not. I smoke and do not like paying more for cigarettes, I do see the purpose of taxing them though.

I use fuel products and do not like paying more taxes on them. I do see a need for it though.

And I dearly love sweets and chocolate! But I promote junk food taxes?

Your assumption is flawed where I am concerned.
 
Sometimes they are products and activities that I do not approve of.
Sometimes not. I smoke and do not like paying more for cigarettes, I do see the purpose of taxing them though.

I use fuel products and do not like paying more taxes on them. I do see a need for it though.

And I dearly love sweets and chocolate! But I promote junk food taxes?

Your assumption is flawed where I am concerned.

no, I think it's you that is flawed.
 
LOL, someone who's handle is smarter than you thinks I am flawed.
Ohh the irony of it all.

i knew that was going to come out wrong.

your thinking is flawed, not you. I am unable to understand how you think that it's appropriate for higher taxes on things you consider.......unhealthy? detrimental?

it's like you are advocating the need for the gov to control your behavior.
 
i knew that was going to come out wrong.

your thinking is flawed, not you. I am unable to understand how you think that it's appropriate for higher taxes on things you consider.......unhealthy? detrimental?

it's like you are advocating the need for the gov to control your behavior.

americans as a group are too stupit to run their own lives.
If not the govt it is advertising, or corporations or the TV, etc.

that is the sad reality.

How many americans thought it a good idea to go in debt up to their neck? But a home they could not afford to pay for, of course assuming that the value would climb fast enought fot them to draw against the equity and pay for it :)

The only one who has secutity in an equity loan situation is the person loaning the money.
 
americans as a group are too stupit to run their own lives.
If not the govt it is advertising, or corporations or the TV, etc.

that is the sad reality.

so, in response, you think it's constitutional for the majority of ignorant fools to fun the lives of people who are not?
 
so, in response, you think it's constitutional for the majority of ignorant fools to fun the lives of people who are not?

I do not know if it is constitutional or not.
Or if that is even relevant at this point in time.

I only know it is the corner we have eagerly worked ourselves into.
 
Back
Top