I think that study is nearly ten years old, I'm sure it's getting worse every year, I think now there is even a link with gestational diabetes and lack of vitamin d! I just tell everyone to check their levels, especially pregnant women !
+ Reply to Thread
Results 21 to 30 of 84
25-01-2012 00:46 #21
25-01-2012 00:53 #22Senior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Yes absolutely. I think I'm just resistant to the idea that we would blame breastfeeding - we should be making sure Mums have adequate vit d esp if from certain population groups.
My DH who is very dark-skinned was diagnosed vit d deficient a few months ago.
I am fluro white, and our children who are breastfed (extended) all have good levels. Obviously htey are fairly dark-skinned. My vit d is fine. I mean I seriously burn hanging out the washing.
It may interest you to know that the sun also leads to the degradation of folate, which is why light skinned ppl need to supplement with folate in hot countries (and why people become dark over generations in hot climates - folate protection).
(Of course, you may have found that extremely boring in which case I apologise )
Anyway...... it is extremely easy to supplement vit d so as you say a really good reason to check levels when pg.
*not* a reason to not breastfeed though!
The Following User Says Thank You to Chew the Mintie For This Useful Post:
25-01-2012 01:38 #23
Oh no way breastfeeding by far is more beneficial but it's good to check all levels like you said
25-01-2012 08:57 #24
I'm s bit confused by the article, as it says vitamin d in breastmilk is low in any case, whether or not the mother is deficient, and that the primary source of vitamin d is the sun.. But it then goes on to say mothers who are vitamin d deficient pass this on to their babies? That doesn't totally make sense.
If our main source is the sun, why not just make sure bubby gets a small safe amount of sun exposure each day? And mum for that matter? We sure aren't short of sunshine!!!
25-01-2012 09:03 #25
Also one more question : if we are talking about vitamins and minerals in BM for toddlers, wouldn't thu be getting the rest of their vitamin needs from eating family foods? Even in the stats I put up, they only get 45% of vitamin a, so it is assuming the remainder is made up from other foods. Would this not also be true for vitamin d, since only a small
Amount is passed trough BM anyway, they would get the rest from family food and sunshine?
25-01-2012 09:04 #26Senior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
Breastmilk contains stem cells, so to me, that is another excellent reason to BF as long as possible.
25-01-2012 09:07 #27Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
I dare say that mothers who don't get enough sun themselves probably wouldn't be out enjoying the sun with their babies.
OP, breastmilk also contains antibodies that isn't available for babies from any other source. And, if you've had a fussy baby/toddler like I have, you will know that BM is a godsend!!
It's funny on the one hand, we're worried about third world countries where mothers won't be receiving enough food so encourage them to breastfeed to nourish their toddlers/children, but here where we have access to food and children get their nutrients from BM *and* food, we could be deficient in something so don't breastfeed??? I don't understand!
25-01-2012 09:08 #28
Here is some info that is quoted from a dietician, in a separate conversation about vitamin d and a discussion on this same
Topic in a book. It lists the level if sun exposure required for enough vitamin d, and thought you may be interested:
"Strictly-speaking, the book is right. It is just that it singles out
vegans when there is widespread vitamin D deficiency in Australia in
those eating a conventional diet too. The cancer people have been too
efficient in their message to make us all terrified of the sun - kids
have 'no hat, no play' policies, covered playgrounds, arms and legs
covered in clothing, kept inside all day, sunscreen dispensed at
every turn, all year round, etc etc. Recipe for vitamin-D deficiency
at a time when we are just finding out that vitamin D is more
important than just for bones and calcium absorption. We need even
higher minimum amounts for immune system health. It is being
suggested that it helps explain why MS (an auto-immune disease) is
more common in higher latitudes, for example.
Peak times are still OK as long as the time exposed without
protection is limited to sensible periods (about 5-9 mins/day in
Dec-Jan depending on where in Australia you are, to 9-47 minutes in
July-Aug. This is ranging in geography from Cairns to Hobart. 7-29
minutes at noon in winter. And this is assuming exposure of arms or
legs, not just the face, plus is for 'moderately fair skin'. People
with highly pigmented skin require 3-6 times more.
If you live in southern Australia, I don't believe we need sunscreen
at all in winter (try finding face moisturisers without SPF - it's
quite hard) nor hats, as the face is about all that is exposed when
it is cold! We were never designed to *eat* vitamin D for our major
needs - just maybe top it up. One study I recall (can't find it now)
of submariners who never saw the sun showed that even with all the
dietary supplementation they could give them, the sailors were still
vitamin D deficient. We *need* the sun exposure.
When I was a baby, my mother was instructed to make sure we babies
got our daily 'sun bath'. Seems the pendulum has swung too far the
other way now"
25-01-2012 09:09 #29Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
Cancer people? Lol
The Following User Says Thank You to Benji For This Useful Post:
share a book (25-01-2012)
25-01-2012 11:53 #30Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Interesting thread. My understanding was that breastfeeding until 2 is recommended because the first two years are the most rapid period of brain development and the essential fatty acids in BM are crucial building blocks for brain growth and are difficult to substitute with family food. Additionally, the probiotics and antibodies in breastmilk are important for the immune system which doesn't mature until around 2 years old. These immune system benefits are lifelong, not just for the duration of breastfeeding. I can't check at the moment but I think it is that Kellymum article linked above that links to a peer reviewed study showing not only that breastfed children in the study had higher IQs and less illness but that the longer the duration of breastfeeding, the greater the benefits. It divided the children into categories of those who were breastfed for 0-6 months, 6-12 months, 12-18 months and 18-24 months. The children breastfed 18-24 months had the highest IQs and greatest resistance to illness and these attributes lessened incrementally with lessened duration of breastfeeding. This is a first world study. With regards to the effect of the mother's diet on the quality of the milk, my understanding is that the breastmilk will always get first dibs on any nutrients and if the mother's diet is lacking then she is the one who will suffer the most. Because breastmilk is so high in essential fatty acids it's crucial that breastfeeding mothers consume lots of EFAs, particular as EFA defficiency has been implicated in PND.
The Following User Says Thank You to wrena For This Useful Post:
ProSwimProSwim runs learn to swim classes for babies, children and adults. Our indoor centre in Plympton Park has lessons all ...
LATESTToilet training: when is the best time to start?Why it is OK for your child to be differentWhat is a blessing way? How is it different to a baby shower?
POPULARWhen can I start giving chores to my children?New baby nursery checklist – a guide to newborn essentialsWhat to pack for labour and hospital – a checklist
FORUMS - chatting now ...
Married At First Sight 2017Movies / Music / Books / TV Chat
High Natural Killer Cells #9Reproductive Immunology
Egg Donation in Greece #5Egg Donation
Situations - ok or not ok?General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
Early waking/routine help 17 month oldToddlers (1 year olds)