Talk:Rickets

message: As you may know, the correct term for this condition is known as 'Osteomalacia. Several dictionary definitions refer to it as "Osteomalacia within Children" - but the illness is very unlikely to develop in adults because as you know, it is during growth, so may be a problem within people who have diseases which inhibit or elongate such growth periods. As you know, the wikipedia is about facts, and- through my experience, "Rickets" refers to an analogy to describe the condition; as you know, rickets are also the name of bolts used within large machinery, which, bend after years of pressure through steam, or etc.
If you wish to discuss this further, i am more than willing to talk to anyone concerned. Thank you for your concern.
Spum 12:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, I think you may be thinking of rivets, not rickets.  But I agree that they should be (remain) separate. Mauvila 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to [[Osteomalacia]] 

message: how widespread is vitamin D supplementation in milk? I know the US does it—who else? Vicki Rosenzweig
:Don't remember reading anything about it in the UK. I think our milk is generally just pasteurised. This isn't definitive, though, it's just a "well, if it happens, it's news to me." --AW
:: A number of other products are fortified with vitamin D, so stating 'not consuming fortified milk' to be at risk is not necessarily true. The lactose intolerant can drink a non-dairy beverage, for instance. I added a link to the article on vitamin D in the top section, since it has already has detailed & well-cited info about sources of vitamin D. I don't recall any rule for multiple links to the same wikipedia article, but I avoided linking from elsewhere in this article Hexalm (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Milk isn't vitamin D fortified in Australia either. I removed 'not drinking milk' as a risk factor, because this would only apply in the US and other countries where milk is fortified. This needs to be mentioned if it's put back in.Txupitzin (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vit D 

message: I would like to create a separate article about Congenital Rickets, which is particularly interesting in connection with child abuse.
For instance referring to some articles like Rickets vs. Abuse.
Algernon71 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congenital rickets 

message: *STRONG OPPOSE.  The conditions are treated by different health care providers and impact different populations.  If you feel the articles are so closely tied it has to be recorded somewhere very clearly-- write a disambig like article called Vitamin D deficiency.  In any case, gigantism and acromegaly have separate articles and arguably they have the same relationship as rickets and osteomalacia-- except it is an excess of something (growth hormone) as opposed to a deficiency. Nephron  T|C 07:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - Thanks for your vigorous input. I put the proposed merge there because the two articles seem to blur the distinction between the "rickets" and "osteomalacia", so I honestly wasn't sure if they were the same thing or not. I sought guidance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine because of this. If these two conditions are really different, the articles should make that clearer for non-doctors. I proposed the merge and approached the medicine-related WikiProjects because I don't have the necessary background to sort this out myself. Mike Dillon 07:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment - P.S. the Gigantism article doesn't even mention Acromegaly (and that latter barely mentions the former near the bottom of the article). These things may be obvious to the medically trained, but Wikipedia a general-purpose encyclopedia and should at least try to make all topics as approachable as reasonably possible. Mike Dillon 07:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it would be good if someone created a page called growth hormone excess--to clarify the relationship between acromegaly and gigantism.  More generally, it might be interesting to have a couple of solid articles about hormone imbalance and subarticles about hormone deficiency and hormone excess that discuss how the disregulation of hormones-- (hyper- & hypo- function) can be used to classify diseases.  The article would be lists more than anything else I think-- but I think that would provide a good overview for someone that doesn't deal with the stuff on a frequent basis.  Related to the more immediate discussion-- there is a page called Vitamin deficiency (and a page called vitamin poisoning, which could in first approximation be redirected to a vitamin excess article).  The relationship between rickets and osteomalacia is vitamin deficiency-- specifically vitamin D.  What seems to be missing a series of links that make the relationships clear and/or categories and/or a nice template. Nephron  T|C 08:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that some more structure is needed for the endocrine topics. But I'm thinking there might be a better name for the blanket article than "hormone imbalance" since endocrine disorders can be caused by things other than inappropriate hormone levels (eg, hormone insensitivity). What about just endocrine disorder (currently a redirect to endocrinology)? --David Iberri (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  Agree-- endocrine disorder (or perhaps endocrine disorders) should be the name.  I think the "Diseases" section of  endocrinology could be split-out into a different article to start us on that way.  I'm going to propose that there... Nephron  T|C 00:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment - Here is a quote from Kumar & Clark 'Clinical Medicine' (Sixth Edition) (), which is a bit of a bible for medical students. "Rickets (in children) and osteomalacia (in adults) result from inadequate mineralization  of bone matrix (osteoid). They are usually caused by a defect in vitamin D availability or metabolism." Dunno if this helps, but I thought I'd share :). Cheekyal 13:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: Was this disease a problem historically on sailing vessels? -Falcon8765 (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the ages would be wrong -- rickets is a developmental disease (from the discussion above, its adult counterpart is osteomalacia). Of besetting nutritional deficiencies on sailing vessels, the most celebrated is scurvy -- vitamin C deficiency. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nautical 

message: Is there any source of the statement "The Greek derived word "rachitis" (ραχίτις, meaning "inflammation of the spine") was later adopted as the scientific term for rickets, due chiefly to the words' similarity in sound."?  I can accept that the vulgar name is older than the medical term, but the idea that 'rachitis' was chosen to sound similar to 'rickets' seems pretty suspect.
95.117.222.116 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: ???--Pawyilee (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First mention: Roman physician Soranus, or Greek Soranus of Ephesus? --Pawyilee (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The introduction to the article seems wrong, half-quoting an article as definition of the disease, but the cited article appears to deal with specific cases of the disease and speaks of rickets in general as something already known. Can someone with the adequate medical knowledge write a proper introduction in appropriate style? Asuranceturix 14:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Hyopercalcification fits the Norse Legends that Trolls would turn into stone if they  stayed out in the sunlight.101.171.213.67 (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolls & Sunlight 

message: How much sun (hours/day) do we need?
71.139.165.172 (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much sun? 

message: doi:10.1210/jc.2015-2175 JFW | T@lk 17:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Consensus Recommendations on Prevention and Management of Nutritional Rickets 

message: As noted above, the etymology seems suspect. It gives an origin in an Old English word despite the fact that it only became known in the 17th century (Old English was till 1150). A derivation from Rachitis seemw much more likely. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have better sources please update. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology again

message: In the table that accompanies Mineral (nutrient)#Elements considered possibly essential but not confirmed, excess Strontium is identified as "Rachitogenic", i.e. causing rickets.  I've cut and pasted most of that remark, with reference, into Rickets.  GeeBee60 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strontium 

message: I have seen credible medical research papers that evaluate the amount of Vitamin-D in breast-milk and breastfed infants.
It was determined that breast-milk was a perfectly adequate source of infant Vitamin-D if the mothers Vitamin-D levels were at a natural level.  In the one paper I think the level was around 114nmol/l (45.6ng/ml) and was used as one of the determinants of what should be a natural blood concentration (cannot find this link just now so the number is from memory).  Another was investigating the health of children and came to the conclusion that supplementation of 160ug (6400IU) per day raised the blood levels of the mothers to around 125nmol/l (50ng/ml) and provided what the child needed.
So the blanket statement that breastfed infants need supplementation is proven false and should be corrected.  The assumption is obviously wrong as Viramin-D supplements are a recent invention in human society and advanced rickets causes pelvic deformation to the point of making childbirth impossible.  In fact this information is vital to understanding the error in Vitamin-D reporting.  When the blood levels are natural the rest of the discussion becomes rational instead of trying to find ever more interesting ways to justify low supplementation doses that are not enough to generate rational trial results.
Another interesting paper (perhaps one of these below) mentioned that results with Vitamin-D2 were minor but results using Vitamin-D3 supplementation were clear so the difference should be noted, there is controversy on this still.
* Hollis BW, Wagner CL 2004 Vitamin D requirements during lactation:
high-dose maternal supplementation as therapy to prevent
hypovitaminosis D for both the mother and the nursing infant.
Am J Clin Nutr 80:1752S–1758S
* https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/136/4/625.full.pdf
* Maternal Versus Infant Vitamin D Supplementation During Lactation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bruce W. Hollis, Carol L. Wagner, Cynthia R. Howard, Myla Ebeling, Judy R. Shary,
Pamela G. Smith, Sarah N. Taylor, Kristen Morella, Ruth A. Lawrence and Thomas
C. Hulsey
* doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.106385
Maternal vitamin D3 supplementation at 50 mg/d protects against low
serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D in infants at 8 wk of age: a randomized
controlled trial of 3 doses of vitamin D beginning in gestation and
continued in lactation
Kaitlin M March, Nancy N Chen, Crystal D Karakochuk, Antonia W Shand, Sheila M Innis, Peter von Dadelszen,
Susan I Barr, Michael R Lyon, Susan J Whiting, Hope A Weiler, and Tim J Green
Idyllic press (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breastmilk is a source if mothers Vitamin-D levels are replete. 

message: Howdy I am a student and will be hanging around and editing this page. I have seen some comments on this page about rickets and osteomalacia and the difference and the confusion on if they are the same, and this page I believe is very beneficial because rickets is the term for vitamin D deficiency in children only while the osteomalacia is the correct term for vitamin D deficiency in adults, editing the page and making it more understandable would give the audience for the article a better understanding of the article and the difference between the two terms
Samanthajones101 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Editor  

message: Howdy, I recently made a couple of edits for example I deleted the sentence that was there that did not have a reason to be. I thought that since it was already split into the subsections of the different treatments and it already mentions in those the most and least common that it was just extra. 
Samanthajones101 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits recently made