Is it necessary to do nutritional testing for children

In fact, there is really no unified standard answer. It is neither a "must-check item" that must be arranged for every child, nor is it all a useless gimmick for IQ taxes posted online. Whether or not to do it or what items to do depends on the actual situation of the child.

I have been working in community child care for nearly 6 years, and I have met too many parents who go to extremes. They either ask for the most expensive full set of nutrition tests right from the start, for fear of missing something, or they wave their hands when they hear that they need to prick their fingers and draw blood, saying that these are all scams by the hospital. Last month I met a 2-and-a-half-year-old boy. His parents said that he had barely grown in height in the past six months. He always complains about pain in his legs and often sweats when sleeping. The elders in the family always said that this is a "normal phenomenon of body growth." After several attempts to persuade him, he agreed to take a test. The result was 25-hydroxyvitamin D water. It was only one-third of the normal value, and it was already in the early stage of vitamin D deficiency rickets. Later, I followed the doctor's advice to supplement D, and adjusted my daily outdoor time. After a follow-up visit in less than 3 months, my height increased by 2 centimeters, and my leg pain disappeared. In this case, do you think testing is unnecessary?

But on the other hand, I have also encountered many situations where it was completely unnecessary. Last week, a mother came with her 4-year-old girl. She said that the nutrition test on the Internet can detect and fix whatever is missing. The child is not selective about her meals, her height and weight are above the 75th percentile of the growth curve, and she does not catch a cold twice a year.

In fact, many of the current controversies over children's nutrition testing have been led astray by chaotic commercial organizations. The kind of program that can measure trace elements with just a wrist clip and a haircut has been explicitly stopped by the National Health Commission. Only some private institutions are still using it as a marketing gimmick. There are also "nutritional genetic tests" and "hundreds of food intolerance screenings" that cost thousands of dollars. Most of them do not have sufficient clinical basis. The reference value of the results is extremely low, so it is easy for people to think it is a scam.

To put it bluntly, whether you should do this test is actually the same as buying shoes for your baby. Whether they fit well depends on the feet. The more expensive the better, the more complete the better. If your child eats and drinks normally, exercises and sleeps regularly, has a stable growth curve within the normal range, and has no abnormal symptoms, there is really no need to join in the fun. Make sure you have a balanced mix of meat, eggs, milk, fruits and vegetables, and whole grains, and have enough 2 hours of outdoor time every day. Any test will work. But if your baby’s growth curve has dropped for six consecutive months, is always picky about food, has recurring rashes, constipation and allergies, or always complains about leg pain, and teething is more than half a year later than his peers, then don’t just rely on “experience” to make up for it. Go to the pediatric care department of a regular hospital and let the doctor evaluate it first, and do targeted tests as needed. It is much more reliable than guessing at home and giving your baby random supplements.