Vitamin D Status: United States, 2001–2006

[Guest guest]

About two-thirds of the U.S. population takes in sufficient amounts of

vitamin D, but 8 percent may be at risk for vitamin D deficiency, according

to a March data brief published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics.

Anne C. Looker, Ph.D., of the CDC in Atlanta, and colleagues report the

latest data on vitamin D status in the U.S. population based on four

categories recently defined by the Institute of Medicine according to serum

25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels: risk of deficiency; risk of

inadequacy; sufficiency; and above, for which there may be reason for

concern.

The researchers determined that, between 2001 and 2006, 67 percent of the

population aged 1 year and older had sufficient 25(OH)D levels, while about

a quarter were at risk of vitamin D inadequacy and 8 percent were at risk

for deficiency. Also, 1 percent had a high serum 25(OH)D level that could be

harmful. Deficiencies were less common in younger, male, and non-Hispanic

white individuals. In women, risk for deficiency was lower in those who were

pregnant or lactating.

" The risk of vitamin D deficiency increased between 1988 to 1994 and 2001 to

2002 in both sexes but did not change between 2001 to 2002 and 2005 to

2006, " the researchers write.

Full details here <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db59.htm>

--

Ortiz, MS, RD

*The FRUGAL Dietitian* <http://www.thefrugaldietitian.com>

Check out my blog: mixture of deals and nutrition

Eversave: $25 for $50 worth of impeccable plus-sized clothing from

WomanWithin.com <http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=17801>The Children’s

Place: 25% off 3/31; 20% off 4/1; 15% off 4/2 + 3%

cashback<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=17795>Made

my own " funny but real " movie: Me interviewing a " potential " Dietetic

student <

*Healthy Diet at any Age: We are NOT just looking

*

*at the years people have behind them but also the

*

*quality of the years ahead of them.*

[Guest guest]

I agree even though more are now. I think the big debate is what is a

normal level....I have read some write above 30 while others say less is OK.

I will search for an article about being below 30 is ok.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Linke wrote:

>

>

> I really have to question these statistics...... most patients never get

> tested for vitamin D during regular check-ups unless I ask the physician to

> test them (or I test them through one of the many labs that will do it for

> us directly). About 90% of my patients are either deficient or in the

> low-normal range. Granted, most of my patients have compromised guts (IBS

> and other food sensitivities), but even my vitamin D was below normal and

> I'm in Texas and fairly healthy. Those of us that regularly test our

> patients will likely give you a similar scenario........

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Subject: Vitamin D Status: United States, 2001–2006

> To: " RD-USA " <rd-usa >

> Date: Thursday, March 31, 2011, 7:25 AM

>

>

> About two-thirds of the U.S. population takes in sufficient amounts of

> vitamin D, but 8 percent may be at risk for vitamin D deficiency, according

> to a March data brief published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and

> Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics.

>

> Anne C. Looker, Ph.D., of the CDC in Atlanta, and colleagues report the

> latest data on vitamin D status in the U.S. population based on four

> categories recently defined by the Institute of Medicine according to serum

> 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels: risk of deficiency; risk of

> inadequacy; sufficiency; and above, for which there may be reason for

> concern.

>

> The researchers determined that, between 2001 and 2006, 67 percent of the

> population aged 1 year and older had sufficient 25(OH)D levels, while about

> a quarter were at risk of vitamin D inadequacy and 8 percent were at risk

> for deficiency. Also, 1 percent had a high serum 25(OH)D level that could

> be

> harmful. Deficiencies were less common in younger, male, and non-Hispanic

> white individuals. In women, risk for deficiency was lower in those who

> were

> pregnant or lactating.

>

> " The risk of vitamin D deficiency increased between 1988 to 1994 and 2001

> to

> 2002 in both sexes but did not change between 2001 to 2002 and 2005 to

> 2006, " the researchers write.

> Full details here <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db59.htm>

> --

> Ortiz, MS, RD

> *The FRUGAL Dietitian* <http://www.thefrugaldietitian.com>

>

> Check out my blog: mixture of deals and nutrition

> Eversave: $25 for $50 worth of impeccable plus-sized clothing from

> WomanWithin.com <http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=17801>The Children’s

>

> Place: 25% off 3/31; 20% off 4/1; 15% off 4/2 + 3%

> cashback<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=17795>Made

>

> my own " funny but real " movie: Me interviewing a " potential " Dietetic

> student <

>

> *Healthy Diet at any Age: We are NOT just looking

>

> *

>

> *at the years people have behind them but also the

> *

>

> *quality of the years ahead of them.*

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree even though more are now. I think the big debate is what is a

normal level....I have read some write above 30 while others say less is OK.

I will search for an article about being below 30 is ok.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Linke wrote:

>

>

> I really have to question these statistics...... most patients never get

> tested for vitamin D during regular check-ups unless I ask the physician to

> test them (or I test them through one of the many labs that will do it for

> us directly). About 90% of my patients are either deficient or in the

> low-normal range. Granted, most of my patients have compromised guts (IBS

> and other food sensitivities), but even my vitamin D was below normal and

> I'm in Texas and fairly healthy. Those of us that regularly test our

> patients will likely give you a similar scenario........

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Subject: Vitamin D Status: United States, 2001–2006

> To: " RD-USA " <rd-usa >

> Date: Thursday, March 31, 2011, 7:25 AM

>

>

> About two-thirds of the U.S. population takes in sufficient amounts of

> vitamin D, but 8 percent may be at risk for vitamin D deficiency, according

> to a March data brief published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and

> Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics.

>

> Anne C. Looker, Ph.D., of the CDC in Atlanta, and colleagues report the

> latest data on vitamin D status in the U.S. population based on four

> categories recently defined by the Institute of Medicine according to serum

> 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels: risk of deficiency; risk of

> inadequacy; sufficiency; and above, for which there may be reason for

> concern.

>

> The researchers determined that, between 2001 and 2006, 67 percent of the

> population aged 1 year and older had sufficient 25(OH)D levels, while about

> a quarter were at risk of vitamin D inadequacy and 8 percent were at risk

> for deficiency. Also, 1 percent had a high serum 25(OH)D level that could

> be

> harmful. Deficiencies were less common in younger, male, and non-Hispanic

> white individuals. In women, risk for deficiency was lower in those who

> were

> pregnant or lactating.

>

> " The risk of vitamin D deficiency increased between 1988 to 1994 and 2001

> to

> 2002 in both sexes but did not change between 2001 to 2002 and 2005 to

> 2006, " the researchers write.

> Full details here <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db59.htm>

> --

> Ortiz, MS, RD

> *The FRUGAL Dietitian* <http://www.thefrugaldietitian.com>

>

> Check out my blog: mixture of deals and nutrition

> Eversave: $25 for $50 worth of impeccable plus-sized clothing from

> WomanWithin.com <http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=17801>The Children’s

>

> Place: 25% off 3/31; 20% off 4/1; 15% off 4/2 + 3%

> cashback<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=17795>Made

>

> my own " funny but real " movie: Me interviewing a " potential " Dietetic

> student <

>

> *Healthy Diet at any Age: We are NOT just looking

>

> *

>

> *at the years people have behind them but also the

> *

>

> *quality of the years ahead of them.*

>

>