This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

NZer1 wrote: The (Vitamin) Hormone D, Cholesterol, Calcium & Magnesium Connection
1 January 2014 at 20:06
Vitamin D is a Hormone NOT a Vitamin!
References: Morley Robbins http://gotmag.org/
Dr. Mildred Seelig http://www.mgwater.com/Seelig/Magnesium ... ndex.shtml
Nigel

Vitamin D is both Vitamin and Hormone. It is not just one of the those two, it exists in many forms in our bodies. The authors take a narrow view and say all problems are down to Magnesium deficiency. All problems in all pwMS are not due to magnesium deficiency, just some of them. Please take the time to read through this thread and you will see that other elements may be deficient, for instance Zinc. I take a cheap and quick fix approach to anyone who has problems adsorbing D3 - take a multi-mineral and let the body sort out what it needs. The body will excrete water soluble minerals that are not required.
The issue of Vitamin D requires a big picture answer not a narrow answer, as given in this article. It has lots of useful info but missed the big picture answer on D3.
MarkW

i consider the passing mention of multimineral use only in the context of those with poor d3 absorption to be irresponsible, especially if people take high doses, absorb it, then experience side effects without understanding possible links to mineral depletion. oversimplification, but i've hammered that gong plenty on this thread already.

Thanks for the reality check once again Mrs Leggs!

The whole debate is based on the various understandings of what is required by our systems to correct a perceived problem in managing the immune system.

The work of some of the best Professors (Hayes and Ebers) have listed calcitriol as the key factor in the issue for PwMS. So I personally don't understand why there is so much confusion about Vit D OTHER THAN lack of knowledge, understanding and acceptance that CALCITRIOL needs to be the focus at this point in the learning curve NOT supplementing the commercial 'Vit D' products.

Calcitriol does not come as a non prescription supplement, so why are people assuming that commercial/not natural supplements of precursor products are of any use?

The various processes that occur and the variety of additional minerals etc PLUS gene expression is very complex in the production of calcitriol and also the dysfunction of calcitriol supply to the various receptors or end users of calcitriol is very complex.

If supplementing Vit D by/with commercial products were the answer in MS we would have already come to that knowledge through the studies so far on Vit D supplementing over time. The studies so far have opened new possibilities but not given a true direction or understanding, they have highlighted the complexity of the way the body processes and produces calcitriol, the end usable product or bio-available product, but the studies have not clarified the best approach to calcitriol deficiencies.

Open mindedness is required more than ever as information expands awareness.

The more we learn the less we know as reality!

;)
Nigel

NZer1 wrote:The work of some of the best Professors (Hayes and Ebers) have listed calcitriol as the key factor in the issue for PwMS. So I personally don't understand why there is so much confusion about Vit D OTHER THAN lack of knowledge, understanding and acceptance that CALCITRIOL needs to be the focus at this point in the learning curve NOT supplementing the commercial 'Vit D' products.

Calcitriol does not come as a non prescription supplement, so why are people assuming that commercial/not natural supplements of precursor products are of any use?Nigel

Nigel,
This is partially true, but the Hayes protocol is based on resetting the immune system with a single dose of calcitriol which then allows the body to convert D3 to calcitriol.

After that single dose of calcitriol, the real work is done by vitamin D3 which is why it is important. And the co-factors are important. In one of the early studies, Hayes found that maintaining calcium levels was important. And she also recognizes that there will be people who have deficiencies in magnesium, copper and zinc which have to be corrected for this to work.

She has said that for most people, worrying about these co-factors is something that as Mark suggests, you do if supplementation is not working to raise the 25(OH)D3 level. And in a small number of people, there may be genetic issues in Vitamin D metabolism that prevents levels from being raised beyond any issue with co-factors, but she suggests that these be looked at only if supplementation with co-factors fails to raise levels which again is what Mark is saying: don't worry about these other things unless something isn't working.

Finally, this isn't a magic potion. Improvement is going to depend on a healthy lifestyle which includes both exercise and a well balanced diet. These may well be as important as calcitriol and D3 to achieving benefit.

Squeakycat wrote:

NZer1 wrote:The work of some of the best Professors (Hayes and Ebers) have listed calcitriol as the key factor in the issue for PwMS. So I personally don't understand why there is so much confusion about Vit D OTHER THAN lack of knowledge, understanding and acceptance that CALCITRIOL needs to be the focus at this point in the learning curve NOT supplementing the commercial 'Vit D' products.

Calcitriol does not come as a non prescription supplement, so why are people assuming that commercial/not natural supplements of precursor products are of any use?Nigel

Nigel,
This is partially true, but the Hayes protocol is based on resetting the immune system with a single dose of calcitriol which then allows the body to convert D3 to calcitriol.

After that single dose of calcitriol, the real work is done by vitamin D3 which is why it is important. And the co-factors are important. In one of the early studies, Hayes found that maintaining calcium levels was important. And she also recognizes that there will be people who have deficiencies in magnesium, copper and zinc which have to be corrected for this to work.

She has said that for most people, worrying about these co-factors is something that as Mark suggests, you do if supplementation is not working to raise the 25(OH)D3 level. And in a small number of people, there may be genetic issues in Vitamin D metabolism that prevents levels from being raised beyond any issue with co-factors, but she suggests that these be looked at only if supplementation with co-factors fails to raise levels which again is what Mark is saying: don't worry about these other things unless something isn't working.

Finally, this isn't a magic potion. Improvement is going to depend on a healthy lifestyle which includes both exercise and a well balanced diet. These may well be as important as calcitriol and D3 to achieving benefit.

Thanks Ed,
I must add that the Hayes protocol is for EAE and yet to be confirmed in PwMS, so there is much more to be learned than there is to be assumed!


Nigel

NZer1 wrote:Thanks Ed,
I must add that the Hayes protocol is for EAE and yet to be confirmed in PwMS, so there is much more to be learned than there is to be assumed!


Nigel

Too true! But hopefully we are going to get a trial underway soon.

After that single dose of calcitriol, the real work is done by vitamin D3 which is why it is important. And the co-factors are important. In one of the early studies, Hayes found that maintaining calcium levels was important. And she also recognizes that there will be people who have deficiencies in magnesium, copper and zinc which have to be corrected for this to work.

Would these deficiencies be of the intracellular levels of the minerals, or merely of the serum levels
Magnesium, and I would guess other minerals', total body levels are poorly represented by serum measurements.
The underestimated problem of using serum magnesium measurements to exclude magnesium deficiency in adults; a health warning is needed for "normal" results. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20170394

THX1138

just because the serum normal range is not an optimal range and is poorly understood, does not mean serum magnesium can't be used to good effect. you (and others here) know perfectly well, thx, that pushing serum levels to the upper end of the normal range makes a difference in symptoms!

Yes, the "Normal" ranges are not to be equated with "Healthy" because the lab samples that are used for the "Normal" range are drawn from a mix of people that range from sickly to healthy. But I still have read too many negative assessments of the serum Mg test as to its poor correlation to intracellular levels. I do, however, fully believe that there is some correlation between intracellular and extracellular Mg.
My serum Mg is still a ways from the healthy target, so I don't know the full "difference in symptoms". I still have a lot of improvement to go.

THX1138

Perhaps I spoke a little too strongly against the serum lab tests.

jimmylegs knows more about them than I do.

I would appreciate her comments on serum lab tests and their usefulness.

THX1138

re your level, you'll get there thx i think you know more than sources that disparage the use of serum magnesium. case in point, the fact that you know what a healthy average serum level is, and that there's a whole lot of not healthy in that normal range. yes, there are other tests that can tell you more but if serum mag is so useless, why is it so consistently used in research? because it does tell you something.
that said, there are 151 results in a google scholar search of 'rbc magnesium' patients controls (vs 12,400 substituting serum mag in the search) so there should be enough info in there to have a look at rbc mag's range and associated healthy optimal levels
overall, i would think it's time to run additional kinds of tests when all the serum nutrient levels are optimized and there's still something wrong. i have yet to encounter such a scenario though...

Thanks jimmylegs.
Your value to this community becomes more obvious ever day!

THX1138

...there will be people who have deficiencies in magnesium, copper and zinc which have to be corrected for this to work.

"LIKE"

aw, shucks thx

just found this, by the way, in that WHO pdf i sent you:
Serum and red blood cell magnesium concentrations have been shown to be poor predictors of intracellular magnesium concentration.

let's unpack that.

Magnesium Metabolism
A Review With Special Reference to the Relationship Between Intracellular Content and Serum Levels
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article ... eid=610730
"The intracellular content can be low, despite normal serum levels in a person with clinical Mg++ deficiency."

so duh, we're back to our idiotic serum 'normal' range and in fact serum mag probably IS a good predictor of intracellular content. if you tighten up the serum range used, to exclude deficiency states.

the WHO report goes on to deal with the magnesium normal range issue quite nicely

loving this WHO thing: "Using data from the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I) in the United States and a United States population of 15 820 between the ages of 1 and 74 years, established the reference interval (central 95th percentile) for the serum magnesium concentration of 0.75–0.955 mmol/l. This study used atomic absorption spectroscopy, the reference method for determining serum magnesium, and is scientifically and statistically valid. However, we do not know what percentage of this population had an inadequate intake of magnesium and may have been magnesium deficient. Thus, the lower limit of the reference interval may have been flawed by having subjects in the “normal” population that were deficient in magnesium."
gee.. ya think? guess it's true what they say re the average american not consuming enough mag. all 15820 of them were in trouble, or close to it. i am certainly glad that this is not the range being used at labs i see.
might move this discussion elsewhere. quite the hijack.