Re: Vitamin D Status: United States, 2001–2006

[Guest guest]

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]

The vitamin D experts..... Drs. Cannell, Holick, etc are saying that optimum

levels should be between 50-60.   This is what I strive for with my

patients.  

 

>

>

> 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 ! The majority of those who were being tested showed that they

were deficient in Vitamin D.

I was just waiting for the attack on the success of Vitamin D, and it faithfully

came - from the IOM no less.

There are a multitude of diseases in which Vitamin D deficiency is part of the

reason for the

condition, and I believe that Western medicine & Big Pharma see that as a

threat and will do anything

at this point to counterattack the success of Vitamin D. Big

Pharma/scientists/MD's play around with blood levels a lot in order to make

things work out in their favor - hence bringing the parameters down for blood

pressure and

cholesterol so more people will be taking medication, and now they are

suggesting Vitamin D

levels should be brought to a lower level (so it will not be as necessary to

take it). This is a lot of

manipulation, not for our wellness, but for the sake of big business!!! The

bottom line is this: the average person doesn't know what

to believe anymore so they will go the route of who they THINK is the authority.

Unfortunately the

" authority " who wins out is the one with the loudest voice (not the most honest

voice), and many scientists have

admitted to changing research results to favor the use of medications.

Jacquelyn A. Pressly, RD, CLT

The NATURAL dietitian

Specializing in Wellness and Prevention, Personal Nutrition Coaching

and Designer Lifestyle Plans to help you get on the health track

Northeast Ohio & Western Pennsylvania

Internet and telecounseling available for distance clients

jpress50@...

If you are what you eat, then dietitians are the doctors of the future

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.*