Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 20 May 1997 22:46:49 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I appreciate the input from Drs. Dettwyler and Newman. My original reason
for making my statement that dark skin alone was not a risk (without
restriction of sunlight and vitamin D in mother's diet) was the suggestion
from someone who heard Dr. Lawrence's talk that dark-skinned mothers need
vitamin D supplementation. We've also had one post from British
Columbia about a white mother who restricted sunlight exposure and dairy
intake whose baby got rickets.
My real question is: should
we be recommending vitamin D supplements to all dark-skinned mothers in
temperate climates or just to mothers of *any* skin pigmentation who also
cover themselves and their
babies, don't take in vitamin D-enriched dairy, *and* nurse exclusively
beyond 6 months (1 year?).
From all the posts I've seen so far, it seems
that these are the only cases, [except for Barbara Heiser's recent post
about babies in day care - for those I would ask whether those mothers are
also avoiding dairy and sunlight exposure and feeding exclusive EBM beyond
6-12 months (whatever the age at which stores may be depleted) - before I
would suspect vitamin D loss from pumping]. So far, I can't see any
rationale for supplementing anyone but mothers in this particular
situation. Although it may be cumbersome, my personal bias would be to
get a history of mothers' cultural practices and diet and individualize
supplementation rather than wholesale supplementing anyone with dark skin.
Any suggestions? Alicia.
|
|
|