Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Support Focus Groups > LC Parenting & Pregnancy
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Jul-31-12, 16:00
Zuleikaa Zuleikaa is offline
Finding the Pieces
Posts: 17,049
 
Plan: Mishmash
Stats: 365/308.0/185 Female 66
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Maryland, US
Default Meta-analysis: Gestational diabetes linked to low vitamin D

Meta-analysis: Gestational diabetes linked to low vitamin D[B]
Posted on July 26, 2012 by John Cannell, MD


Diabetes during pregnancy (gestational diabetes) occurs in about 10% of all pregnancies. It leads to higher Caesarean section rates, pre-eclampsia, birth complications, and infant distress syndrome. Later the child suffers from a higher risk of obesity and type-2 diabetes.




Dr. Y.H.M. Poel and colleagues from the Netherlands recently conducted the first ever meta-analysis of vitamin D levels and gestational diabetes (GD), finding seven studies that met their criteria. Overall, the risk of having GD was higher in women with lower vitamin D levels with an odds ratio of 1.6.

Poel YH, Hummel P, Lips P, Stam F, van der Ploeg T, Simsek S. Vitamin D and gestational diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Intern Med. 2012 Jul;23(5):465-9. Epub 2012 Feb 21.


What I found interesting was the corrections some of the studies used. One initially positive study used in the meta-analysis turned negative after the authors corrected for age, weight, season, and ethnicity. When one corrects for factors closely associated with vitamin D levels, such as age, weight, season, and ethnicity, one simply over-corrects away any findings. That is, all these factors are associated with GD, but they may be associated via a vitamin D mechanism. This means that correction for these factors is like correcting for vitamin D levels, a correction that will always result in a negative study.

My advice is that couples thinking of getting pregnant should each take 5,000 IU/day for a year before conception. Then both continue until the woman is in her third trimester, at which time she should increase to 6,000 IU/day, 5,000 for her and 1,000 for her rapidly growing baby.

After birth, the parents should continue 5,000 IU per day for the rest of their lives. If breastfeeding, the mother should go back up to 6,000 IU/day and the infant will get all the required vitamin D from her breast milk. If not breastfeeding, children require 1,000 IU/day for every 25 pounds of body weight, rounded up. Therefore, a 10-pound infant should take 1,000 IU/day.

Increasingly, it looks as if following these recommendations will lead to a lifetime of bad things not happening.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:11.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.