Loading...
 
Toggle Health Problems and D

Only 13 percent decrease in vitamin D in 13 years – Feb 2012

Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Concentrations and Prevalence Estimates of Hypovitaminosis D in the U.S. Population Based on Assay-Adjusted Data.

J Nutr. 2012 Feb 8.
Ganji V, Zhang X, Tangpricha V.
Division of Nutrition, Byrdine F. Lewis School of Nursing and Health Professions, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.

Prevalence of hypovitaminosis D from previous NHANES reports did not account for assay changes and drifts over time.
Thus, published NHANES reports on vitamin D status for the U.S. population were likely either over- or underestimated.

We investigated changes in vitamin D status in the U.S. using assay-adjusted serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] data from NHANES, 1988-1994 (n = 18,641) and three cycles of NHANES, 2001-2006 (n = 23,424). Changes in geometric mean serum 25(OH)D and prevalence estimates for various serum 25(OH)D cut points (<25, <30, <40, <50, and <75 nmol/L) were determined.

From 1988-1994 to 2001-2006, geometric mean serum 25(OH)D significantly decreased by

  • 9% in all participants,
  • 12% in men,
  • 14% in blacks,
  • 16% in 12- to 15-y-old adolescents,
  • 16% in 20- to 30-y-old adults,
  • 13% in nonsupplement users, and
  • 12% in persons with BMI >80th percentile (P < 0.001).

From 1988-1994 to 2001-2006, prevalence of serum 25(OH)D <30 nmol/L increased from

  • 5 to 10% in all participants, from
  • 3 to 8% in men, from
  • 22 to 38% in blacks, from
  • 3 to 8% in 12- to 15-y-old adolescents, from
  • 5 to 12% in 20- to 30-y-old adults, from
  • 6 to 14% in nonsupplement users, and from
  • 8 to 17% in persons with BMI >80th percentile (P < 0.001).

Previous NHANES reports overestimated the increase in prevalence of hypovitaminosis D.
The recent decline in vitamin D status in the U.S. is more likely due to increased prevalence of obesity and other lifestyle changes
but not to changes in milk consumption.

PMID: 22323766
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

See also VitaminDWiki

So, apparently this chart, showing an approximate 50% change was WRONG, it was about 13%

Ginde 2009 - see also the journal article