Resurgence in Rickets...

[thx1138]

Recently there has been a resurgence in the number of cases of Rickets within the United States. Rickets is a malformation of the bones caused by a lack of Vitamin D and Calcium. Rickets was virtually wiped out in the United States when the dairy industry began fortifying milk with Vitamin D, the causes for it's resurgence;
<LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• An increase in the number of parents who breastfeed.</LI>

</LIST><LIST>

• 
  <LI>
• Dutiful application of sunscreen and protecting children from harmful UV rays</LI>

</LIST>The problem with breast milk is that unlike formula it is not fortified with Vitamin D. The problem with shielding young children from UV is that UV exposure is how we naturally produce Vitamin D. The solution for nursing mothers, upping their Vitamin D intake through supplements.

Here are some sources;
BBC NEWS | Health | Modern life increases rickets risk
Bone-Weakening Disease, Rickets, Reappears in U.S.
Rickets: What It Is and How It's Treated -- familydoctor.org
BBC NEWS | Health | Doctors fear rickets resurgence
PM - Resurgence of cases of rickets in Sydney

 

[fallon]

wow...that's some serious stuff your talking about there. Parents are causing harm to their children by breastfeeding and applying sunscreen?

*slowly backs out of the thread*

 

[Sirk]

We make vitamin D in our skin from sunlight - just five to ten minutes exposure can be enough to produce a day's worth of the nutrient.

So leave the television and go outside for 10 minutes a day and you'll breastfeed just fine.

sweet! thanks for the info!

 

[thx1138]

wow...that's some serious stuff your talking about there. Parents are causing harm to their children by breastfeeding and applying sunscreen?

*slowly backs out of the thread*

I'm not saying parents should stop breastfeeding, or that kids should be over exposed to UV by any means. If those doing just that was causing Rickets then many many children would be afflicted instead of the small number that are. But when it is something that causes bone deformation I just wanted to throw the information out there. Even the articles were not saying to stop breastfeeding, they were just saying people should be aware that breast milk doesn't tend to have the same vitamin D as fortified milk unless the mother is upping her intake of vitamin D.

 

[fallon]

I totally understand wanting to get the word out there when you find something that could be harming children. The thing is your always going to run into problems when you start statments with things like "the problem with breastmilk..."

 

[PeacefulMama]

What's important is that even though it can be a problem for breastfed babies and children, the pros outweigh the cons and it really is a quick fix. Thanks for making others aware as I'm sure there are some moms out there that don't have this information. Getting out in the sun everyday for just 10 minutes is very important, even for healthy adults. I notice a big difference when I don't get that natural Vitamin D for the day. I also suffer from SAD. LOL

 

[Xero]

That's interesting. If I breastfeed my next baby (and I plan to), I'll make sure to watch that I get enough Vitimin D during the time. Honestly though, on that thought, when women breastfeed they are supposed to make sure they eat the right food and get the right vitimins in their body that will be enough for the baby anyway, so that's the kind of thing people should already have covered.

I probably wont stop putting sun screen on my son when we go out in the sun though... I'm too paranoid about that. I think sun exposure damages skin in a way. But you know, whatever.

You know what else I think isn't helping this situation? More and more people are less worried about babies/kid's nutrition and more worried about them not getting fat or maybe it's just because they'd rather things be easier on them when they prefer 2% milk instead of whole milk. I know a lot of people that give their kids 2% milk instead of whole just because that's what they like, or because they think it would be better for them or something. But they need ALL the stuff they get from whole milk. Including the vitimin D.

 

[Skyburning]

Xero, you don't have to worry about you getting enough vitamin D. And you don't even have to take your babies outside. Just sit them in direct sunlight coming through a window while they play and you'll be fine

And I'd be more inclined to say the rise in rickets has more to do with sunscreen than breastfeeding as breastfeeding isn't the popular thing to do anymore (although it's gaining popularity recently)

 

[Skyburning]

Also wanted to add that if we were meant to get all our vitamin D through milk it would be in milk without us having to fortify it...we aren't meant to drink it all..a little sun is healthy even if you have the fortified stuff.

 

[acceptTheChaos]

Parents should know that there has been a big shift recently in the science on sun exposure. In fact, many researchers now believe that sun exposure may actually lower overall cancer risk. (I've added some links at the bottom of this message.)

The issue is a bit confusing because UV exposure does indeed cause some cancers, but only skin cancer, and nearly always the least dangerous types (the cancers from sun exposure are nearly always just a cosmetic issue). But sun exposure seems to reduce the occurance of cancer, and increase survival rates, for nearly every other type of cancer studied. Vitamin D from UV exposure seems to be critical to our immune systems, and not just for fighting cancer.

I first researched this when our pediatrician told us to give my daughter vitamin D suppliments, since she was exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months. When I searched through scientific papers not only found that most researchers now believe that vitamin D from the sun is critical to health and actually prevents cancer overall, I was also shocked to find that there are (admittedly rare) cases of rickets in people who were on vitamin D supplements! The problem is some people don't absorb or metabolize vitamin D from food -- which isn't very surprizing, really, given that almost no food has any vitamin D in it (pretty much just some types of fish and a wee tiny bit in egg yolks). It's unnatural to get vitamin D from food -- the natural source is the sun.

Because of this I use very little sunscreen for my kids. Pretty much just a dab on the nose and ears when they're out all day. (There's also evidence that many sunscreens stop the red inflammation more than they actually prevent DNA damage, by the way, but that's another story.)

I try to make sure they get outside time in the sun regularly but moderately. They've never burned -- I'm still careful with shirts and hats to not overdo sun exposure. Burning's no good.

One of the replies mentioned getting UV through a window. It varies a bit, but most window glass blocks nearly all UV light, so I wouldn't depend on that. (They do it on purpose, otherwise your carpet's color would fade in just a few weeks where it's in the sun.)

The dermatologists, by the way, are dragging their feet on this. I've heard they don't want to reverse their official position because they're worried about being sued for telling people to stay out of the sun and causing deaths. Plus, those who aren't in complete denial mode are probably just embarrassed, I'm sure. People have a hard time admitting to mistakes -- especially people who are supposed to be experts.

I think this issue is kind of like the way doctors used to say margarine was better for you, although now it's clear that the trans fats in most margarines and shortenings are way worse than any other fat. And lots of natural fatty foods, like fish oils and nuts, are actually among the healthiest for your heart. Most doctors were about 20 years behind the evidence on that issue -- hopefully it won't take so long in the case of UV and vitamin D.

Here is a link to a popular article on the benefits of sun exposure:

Medical News: Vitamin D Benefits from Sun Exposure Outshine Cancer Risk - in Hematology/Oncology, Skin Cancer from MedPage Today

and here is a link to an abstract of a scientific paper on this subject in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, one of the leading scientific journals:

Addressing the health benefits and risks, involving vitamin D or skin cancer, of increased sun exposure ? PNAS

 

[Xero]

I don't think the sun will kill my son. I think sun exposure damages your skin. Everyone I've known that has gone out of their way to tan, whether it be outside or in the booth, might look nice and bronzed but their skin ranges from ok to just gross. I think people that tan a lot look old. My mom's skin looks like crap because of all the sun she's gotten. I have even had friends MY age and younger that looked basically... <I>old </I>because of all the tanning. I have never had the urge to look tan or try to tan, in my opinion I have great skin. My friend and her dad have this strange kind of skin where somehow it WONT tan, like it wont absorb rays from the sun or something. Who knows. But they've always been white as a ghost and they both have the most beautiful skin I've ever seen. Not like looks are everything and not like a little sun here and there will hurt, but I'd rather just put sun block on him for my own peace of mind. Some people out there might have lots of vitimin D in their bodies, but their skin is ugly as crap. So yay for them?

I hardly EVER get outside and when I do there is sun screan on my face, and I've always been that way. I've never liked it outside, I always wanted to hang out inside. There's nothing wrong with my vitimins.

And how can you just say "The sun doesn't cause cancer - EXCEPT" ? Um, so it does cause cancer then. And who wants cancer that hurts your physical appearance? I mean, I don't think I'd be looking at some nasty thing on my face and be thinking 'Well, at least it wont kill me'. Or a bunch of ugly splotches on my arms and think 'Well they're NOT dangerous to my health. Only to my self esteem. (plus they're uncomfortable)'. The only thing anybody ever said the sun would do bad was give people skin cancer, and you said right in your post that it does. Just not the kind that kills you (most of the time???)? So the dermatologists were and are right. They may have just been exagerating before, or something.

I don't see how the idea that tells me the kind of cancer my son will get wont KILL him would make me want to keep sunblock off of him more. No skin cancer at all, thank you.

And basically exposure to the sun can help keep you from getting certain cancers that you more than likely wouldn't have gotten in the first place, but all the while can also give you skin cancer in the process? That would be like taking a pill to get rid of some disease you think you might have, and in the process the pill gives you another disease. Um...why? Where THAT disease wouldn't KILL you, the chances of you getting the other one at ALL were slim to begin with.

Well I'll leave it alone. I just thought that was stupid, sorry to sound rude. Vitimin frickin D whatever. That's just the tanning salon's new way to lure people in.

 

[acceptTheChaos]

Jeeze, Xero, don't shoot the messenger.

Like I said, the issue is a little weird, in that the evidence is that UV from the sun both causes some (mostly non-dangerous, non-metastatic) cancers and prevents many other (mostly dangerous metastatic) cancers.

That's actually not that unusual, it's a balance thing. Like exercise. Getting no exercise at all is bad for you. Moderate exercise is good for you. But way too much exercise can be hard on your body (especially if you ramp up too soon).

The point is that when you sum up the costs and benefits of the sun, the <I>net</I> effect of getting a moderate amount of sun exposure apparently prevents cancer deaths overall. (And other diseases, too, especially auto-immune disorders like M.S.)

And I was just trying to point out a health issue that I think is important. You're entitled to your opinions and you can certainly make your own choices for you and your family, but calling it "stupid" is a bit unfair, I think. It should be possible to disagree without calling someone stupid.

By the way, I would <I>never </I>set foot inside a tanning salon, I wouldn't trust their artificial "sun" at all. I agree that the tan-o-holics that frequent those places are messed up. I think that's a different issue.

 

[Xero]

I wasn't calling anyone stupid, I don't know you in real life. I was calling the idea stupid. It just seems that way to me. I apologize if it offended you though. And yeah, I get what you mean as far as getting none, getting some, and getting too much. I agree getting some makes sense. The thing is that sun block doesn't block all of the sun's rays. They have different strengths and even the highest strength doesn't block it all (at least baby stuff, I'm not sure if that exists for adults). So even if you do always wear sun block, it seems like if you're outside to begin with, you should be okay as far as getting sun goes.

It's just annoying because the tanning salon at the end of the street from us has a sign that says "Come on in and get your Vitimin D". And people are walking out of it and their skin just looks not so great.