Different minerals

[Petr75]

2019 Apr 30
From the Departments of Nutrition (M.C., A.A., K.L.M.) and Epidemiology (A.A.), Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA; Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care (M.C.), University of Bergen, Norway; and Partners Multiple Sclerosis Center (T.C.) and Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine (A.A.), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston
Total intake of different minerals and the risk of multiple sclerosis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30944237

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To investigate the association between mineral intake (potassium, magnesium, calcium, phosphorus, iron, zinc, manganese, copper) and multiple sclerosis (MS) risk.
METHODS:
In a prospective cohort study, we assessed dietary and supplemental mineral intake by a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 4 years to 80,920 nurses in the Nurses' Health Study (1984-2002) and 94,511 in the Nurses' Health Study II (1991-2007). There were 479 new MS cases during follow-up. We estimated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association of energy-adjusted mineral intake with MS risk using Cox regression, adjusting for age, residence latitude at age 15, ancestry, body mass index at age 18, supplemental vitamin D, smoking, and total energy intake.
RESULTS:
We did not find any association between the minerals and MS risk, either for baseline or cumulative intake during follow-up. The associations were null comparing women with highest to those with lowest intakes in quintiles or deciles and there was no significant trend for higher intakes (p trend across baseline quintiles: potassium 0.35, magnesium 0.13, calcium 0.22, phosphorus 0.97, iron 0.85, zinc 0.67, manganese 0.48, copper 0.59).
CONCLUSIONS:
Our findings suggest that mineral intake is not an important determinant of MS risk.

[Leonard]

A short of minerals could derail anti-oxidant working, but then only in the progressive phase.
And one would need to be clearly deficient as well to see an effect.

The oxidative stress cycle only starts gradually after the inflammatory cycle(s). But here they look more to the onset and thus inflammation. Minerals and anti-oxidant working are no factor at the early stage.

Selenium is a key mineral for our anti-oxidant enzymes but it was not part of the experiment.

Altogether, even for the best controlled experiment, there are so many factors involved that a clear outcome will always be difficult to get. So the finding that mineral intake is not an important determinant of MS risk does not surprise me.

The medical system better starts to think seriously about the very mechanisms underlying MS.
My view - this skeleton - could get them in the right direction: general-discussion-f1/topic15188-825.html#p251748

It is then and only then that the medical world will be able to make real progress...

[jimmylegs]

in less detail, this article appears in the context of this post also
viewtopic.php?t=30924