On 03/06/2007, at 1:49, cillakat wrote:

> the only people I know holding on to the 'they don't need D
> supplements' theory are those who are still spouting the dermatology
> position that we get enough D from incidental exposure a few times per
> week.
>
> delving into the actual available literature paints a very  
> different picture.

That depends how you define "we". I have read the _local_ literature  
on "Vitamin D", and people with pale skin and typical daily outdoor  
activity levels just aren't getting inadequate D from sunlight in my  
town in Australia. Examples of those at risk include people who are  
confined indoors (some nursing home patients in very unenlightened  
nursing homes, for example), or who cover themselves completely  
outdoors for religious or health reasons, or have very dark skin  
(usually with other risk factors). Context is all, and this is an  
international list.

One reference of note:
<http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/175_05_030901/nozza/nozza.html>
In this study, 54 of the 55 vitamin D deficient infants had  
ethnocultural risk factors. The other had a mother with severe  
agoraphobia.

The people I see who are arguing against universal population hormone  
treatment aren't saying "no one needs it, ever, under any  
circumstances"; they're advocating for risk assessment and  
appropriate management - which may include maternal supplementation,  
infant supplementation, and/or increased sunlight exposure.

Lara Hopkins

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
Mail all commands to [log in to unmask]
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or [log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet or ([log in to unmask])
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]