New research- UV rays, nitric oxide and MS symptom relief

[AMcG]

Sorry I have not posted anything for some time. I have happily used my booth to get a tan in the summer and I have discontinued Vit D supplementation. I am still going ahead with the blood tests as I outlined but I am am a bit late getting started. I have now stopped using the booth for six weeks to get a base-line Vit D reading. That first blood test will be 27th Nov, next week. My doctor has agreed I will then be tested after six weeks using the booth for 5 mins a day. Then again after another six weeks at 10 mins a day then 15 mins for six weeks. So I will not finish until April 2015.

Although I do intend to go ahead with the tests because I would like some numerical data I have read a bit more now about the subject and I am more or less convinced that 5 to 15 mins either daily or even every other day will achieve what I want. It also seems that the dose is probably not at all critical as vitamin D production in your skin can never reach a toxic level. It self limits.

Anyway I will post again as soon as I have something to report. Certainly by April next year.

[AMcG]

My UVB experiment

I had my first Vit D test seven weeks ago and it showed 66 nm/l. I had not taken any Vit D supplements for about five months at that point and had not used my tanning booth for about four and a half weeks. So I thought that reading was my 'background' level vitamin D. I had previously been taking supplements for six years before that (about 5000 iu in summer and 8000 iu in winter) and I had regular tests which showed my levels were always close to 150 nm/l.

For the past seven weeks I have been using the tanning booth for 5 mins a day every day. I was re-tested last week and my level of Vit D was 53 nm/l ! So it looks as if the effect of the booth has been either negilgeable or actually negative. Naturally this surprised me although I have not been feeling well and was thinking that low vitamin D was the culprit.

In an attempt to make sense of these readings I have acquired a UVB meter. My first intention was to see if my booth was actually producing UVB at all. I thought maybe my tubes were past it. I have taken several readings from the middle of the booth where I stand and they seem consistent. The first obvious thing was that there is a 'warm-up' time to my booth which takes more than 5 mins. When I first switch on the reading is about 80-90 and rises slowly to about 300 after five minutes (the numbers are a power reading: microwatts per square centimetre or uW/cm² and measure only the UVB range not UVA) It tops out between 350 and 380 after another minute or so.

The gadget I am using to do the measuring is also used by people who keep lizards and use UV lamps to keep them healthy. There is a web site where they have posted readings they have taken with the same meter pointed at the sun at various latitudes at different times of the year and times of day. So I was able to find among the data they published that a UVB reading of 350 is about the strength of the sun at midday in August in the UK. The tubes in my booth claim to be 'natural' and mimic the sun so it looks as if my booth is working correctly.

Obviously during the last few weeks I was not getting a 'full' dose because of the 'warm-up' period I mentioned so I looked for ways to calculate what the actual dose was. I found an equation published in a paper on Michael Hollick's web site which showed how to convert uW/cm² to iu's. I copied that into a spread sheet and found that 350 uW/cm² equates to about 500 iu's per minute. So a 'full power' 5 mins on my machine should be 2500 iu. For the 5 minute warm up period I calculate about 1400 iu. I cannot be sure I have done that correctly but those values seem credible to me. Hollick recommends 5 to 15 mins a day of full midday sun which would be 2500 to 7500 iu at my latitude which seems to fit with what is recommended by Ashton and others.

So as far as I can tell then I have been getting 1400 iu daily and that is clearly not enough to raise my serum Vit D to what I want. In fact it seems a completely useless amount as a reading of 53 is right at the bottom of the acceptable range used by my GP: the level required to prevent Rickets etc.

I am now doing 10 mins a day which should be about 3900 iu on my machine. I will post again in six weeks time.

[AMcG]

I nearly decided to stop reporting on this as I am not getting very interesting results. But I hate to leave things unfinished so here goes. I have finished the period I was doing 10 mins a day and I have been tested. The results were 67 nm/l ! So the three results I have are 66, 53 and 67. That looks like the tanning booth is having no significant effect at all. But I am getting a tan. Not really what I wanted. I am now doing 15 mins a day and I will have my final test in about a fortnight.

It looks like my body might be too old to produce much vitamin D. It does drop off as you get older. The only other explanation I can think of is that my body is taking time to respond and that six weeks between changing doses is not long enough. I do know that hospitals give huge doses initially when they want to get the level up quickly. So maybe there is hope yet. I will report again soon.

[ElliotB]

I don't know very much about tanning beds but I believe that there are different types of bulbs available different bulbs can have different effects. You may want to check further to have a better understanding. Also, lamps can loose some of their effectiveness over time. Apparently new tanning lamps loose 20% of their efficiency after the first 50 or so hours. And I believe over more time, their efficiency continues to lessen.

[lyndacarol]

I nearly decided to stop reporting on this as I am not getting very interesting results. But I hate to leave things unfinished so here goes. I have finished the period I was doing 10 mins a day and I have been tested. The results were 67 nm/l ! So the three results I have are 66, 53 and 67. That looks like the tanning booth is having no significant effect at all. But I am getting a tan. Not really what I wanted. I am now doing 15 mins a day and I will have my final test in about a fortnight.

It looks like my body might be too old to produce much vitamin D. It does drop off as you get older. The only other explanation I can think of is that my body is taking time to respond and that six weeks between changing doses is not long enough. I do know that hospitals give huge doses initially when they want to get the level up quickly. So maybe there is hope yet. I will report again soon.

I am ignorant about this topic and hope you have information to share with me.

The observation of latitude's affect on MS prevalence has always intrigued me. It seemed logical to me to attribute this to the difference in sunlight, ultraviolet rays, and vitamin D. But when my vitamin D level appeared to have no influence, after D3 supplementation with 8000 IU daily for a year and a half (except the development of a kidney stone!), I have asked myself, "If vitamin D has no effect for me, WHAT other component of sunshine might make a difference?"

I am not a scientist, I only know enough to be "dangerous"and ask questions: Since sunlight is full-spectrum, there is a band of short-wave UV rays on one end of visual light (where all the "focus" has been – I just love puns, don't you?); but, on the other end of visual light is the long-wave infrared and near-infrared band of light. I recently learned that near-infrared is about 40% of sunlight and, in addition to providing heat (which is usually a problem to people with MS – but that might be another sign of a connection… inability to regulate body temperature properly), these longer wavelengths of near-infrared provide metabolic power to the cells.

Do any tanning beds give off the near-infrared wavelengths? Or might the relatively-new infrared saunas I have heard of be helpful in MS? Dr. Terry Wahls hypothesizes that MS is a mitochondrial dysfunction in the cells – the mitochondria are often called the "cells' power plants" because energy emanates from them… If near infrared is supplying power to the cells, could this be the connection?

Could someone shed more "light" on these rambling thoughts that came to me a couple days ago as I soaked up some sunshine? Do you know of research being done in this area? The names of any researchers? Could this be called "heliotherapy?"

[ElliotB]

"The observation of latitude's affect on MS prevalence..."

My two cents... while this seems like a viable explanation, it doesn't explain why there are cases of MS in the sun belt (natives not transplants) and none in Eskimos (native Eskimos) who probably get the least amount of sunlight of anyone on this planet and also had what many would consider to be the worst diet as well.

The mystery continues...

[cheerleader]

Just because you live in a sunbelt, doesn't mean you get UV rays. Modern lifestyles keep people indoors and out of UV rays, Elliot. Inuits and eskimos are native to higher latitudes for millenia, and they have a genetic difference in how they process UV, and their traditional diet provides vitamin D.
http://scienceline.org/2007/06/ask-dric ... iteskimos/

Latitude and UV are turning out to be very important environmental factors. It's crazy to ignore the connection.

Latitude is Significantly Associated With the Prevalence of Multiple Sclerosis
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/750047

In contradiction with work elsewhere,[36] HLA-DRB1 variation did not account for the majority of the gradient in Europe, suggesting a greater role for environmental factors that vary by latitude, with the most prominent candidates being UV and vitamin D.

cheer

[cheerleader]

Lyndacarol---this thread started with new research looking at how UV rays helped MS symptoms, via two methods--t-reg cells being released by lymph nodes to calm inflammation, and nitric oxide being released in the skin to aid blood flow.

Here's the first post from page one, once again....

The sun is free. No prescription needed.
10-15 minutes of sunshine or UVB phototherapy sends Treg cells flowing from the lymph nodes to sites of inflammation in people with MS. People with MS had symptom relief in a study completed by German neurologists and published last week.

Regulatory T cells (Tregs), which are induced locally in the skin-draining lymph nodes in response to UVB exposure, connect the cutaneous immune response to CNS immunity by migration to the sites of inflammation (blood, spleen, CNS). Here, they attenuate the inflammatory response and ameliorate disease symptoms.

Why the skin releases healing T cells when exposed to UV--
as Dr. Richard Weller's research is showing is, it's thanks to nitric oxide.

http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com/2014/04/m ... mptom.html

[ElliotB]

"Latitude and UV are turning out to be very important environmental factors. It's crazy to ignore the connection."

You may be right but no one knows for sure. Years ago there was a cluster of MS cases in Key West, Florida - an obviously very sunny area. I don't know if there is any information as to where those people grew up, they all could have been transplants. There are cases of MS in Sun Belt cities across the planet. Theoretically there shouldn't be any if the latitudfe/UV connection were absolutely true.

With regard to the Eskimos, perhaps the reason they have no MS is because of the high consumption of animal protein/fat high in Omega 3s and Vitamin D. They certainly don't get it from sun exposure. Using the latitude/UV connection, their population group should have the highest incidence

The problem is no one really knows for sure and there is no steadfast rule. MS is a mysterious illness!

Perhaps researchers should be intensely studying the Eskimos...

[lyndacarol]

Perhaps researchers should be intensely studying the Eskimos...

YES, I agree.

Researchers should be intensely studying all the anomalies… the Inuits… the "Sami" people (or Lapps) in Scandinavia… and others. Intensely studying any group that falls outside the geographical observations of MS would reveal much, I'm sure. We should know everything about these groups – not only latitude and UV exposure; but diet, genes, lifestyle practices (even the time they go to bed at night and rise in the morning!), … EVERYTHING we can think of, in complete detail!

[cheerleader]

There is a definite correlation between latitude and MS rates.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25518372

And outlier groups are being rigorously studied.

This, the most comprehensive review of MS prevalence to date, has confirmed a statistically significant positive association between MS prevalence and latitude globally. Exceptions to the gradient in the Italian region and northern Scandinavia are likely a result of genetic and behavioural-cultural variations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21478203
And indigineous peoples that have lived for centuries in one location do develop genetic variations.
Like the Maori http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24852927
And Eskimos http://multiple-sclerosis-research.blog ... ns_19.html

I still believe that endothelial dysfunction, which is now shown to be higher in pw/MS ( http://www.thisisms.com/forum/general-d ... 26107.html ) is behind increasing MS rates as western living practices become global. And endothelial dysfunction is multi-faceted. It is not dependent on one thing, but many. Inadequate nutrition and exercise, lack of UV, stress, smoking, obesity, lack of REM sleep.

In the meantime, especially if you're not an Eskimo, Inuit or Scandinavian, just try getting some rays on a walk, and see how you feel. Exercise and UV on the skin are both scientifically proven to reduce endothelial dysfunction via shear stress and nitric oxide released vasodilation. That's where we're going right now. Check out the links I've provided.
cheer

[lyndacarol]

There is a definite correlation between latitude and MS rates.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25518372

And outlier groups are being rigorously studied.

This, the most comprehensive review of MS prevalence to date, has confirmed a statistically significant positive association between MS prevalence and latitude globally. Exceptions to the gradient in the Italian region and northern Scandinavia are likely a result of genetic and behavioural-cultural variations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21478203
And indigineous peoples that have lived for centuries in one location do develop genetic variations.
Like the Maori http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24852927
And Eskimos http://multiple-sclerosis-research.blog ... ns_19.html

I still believe that endothelial dysfunction, which is now shown to be higher in pw/MS ( http://www.thisisms.com/forum/general-d ... 26107.html ) is behind increasing MS rates as western living practices become global. And endothelial dysfunction is multi-faceted. It is not dependent on one thing, but many. Inadequate nutrition and exercise, lack of UV, stress, smoking, obesity, lack of REM sleep.

In the meantime, especially if you're not an Eskimo, Inuit or Scandinavian, just try getting some rays on a walk, and see how you feel. Exercise and UV on the skin are both scientifically proven to reduce endothelial dysfunction via shear stress and nitric oxide released vasodilation. That's where we're going right now. Check out the links I've provided.
cheer

cheerleader, I am enormously encouraged by the thought that the "outlier groups are being rigorously studied." These are the mines for research gold! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21478203

Latitude is significantly associated with the prevalence of multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION:
This, the most comprehensive review of MS prevalence to date, has confirmed a statistically significant positive association between MS prevalence and latitude globally. Exceptions to the gradient in the Italian region and northern Scandinavia are likely a result of genetic and behavioural-cultural variations.

The association (more than correlation) of latitude to MS prevalence is well-established; but, in my opinion, the explanation/mechanism for this phenomenon has not been proven to be vitamin D, or even UV rays. I am troubled by the conclusion that states, "Exceptions… are likely a result of…" – I would prefer studies and data to support this assumption. Do you know of research in this area?


And the article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24852927), Multiple sclerosis in New Zealand Māori., with its statement "There was no evidence for differences in MS between those with and without Māori ancestry in either clinical features or latitude, confirming that Māori ancestry does not produce the reported increase in prevalence with latitude." does not seem to me to support the genetic variation idea; but, rather, as the final phrase says, "MS prognosis is independent of Māori ancestry."

Science is not in my comfort zone; I am trying to understand; help me out, please. Am I misreading this?

Getting a few rays is always a good idea (ESPECIALLY IF you are an Eskimo, Inuit, or Scandinavian) – it just plain feels good. The sun is out here today, but unfortunately it is TOO cold for a walk, in my opinion.

[marcopolo]

Living on the west coast of Canada doesn't provide a whole lot of sunshine either. I've been taking a supplement called L'Arginine which
also produces nitric oxide.

[cheerleader]

Lyndacarol--
I'll try to explain the Maori paper. The language is confusing. What they found was that the rate of MS prevalence in Maori people was almost four times less than non-indiginous people ---even when they were living at the exact same latitude. So these researchers are saying that there's something else going on in the Maori which is protective, outside of latitude. The Maori are one of those outlier groups, like the Eskimos. Living in a northern latitude does not increase their risk of MS, as it does in non-indigenous people. There is something different in their genetic make-up, diet, lifestyle, clothing (or lack thereof!), time spent outdoors, etc. I'll bet you they have healthy endotheliums! I hope that makes better sense. http://www.msnz.org.nz/Document.Doc?id=122

The Maori are considered an "outlier group" in studying MS. Like I said above, indigenous people have some other protection that has come from centuries of living on the land and in one place. It may be epigenetic, genetic, environmental. But we shouldn't use out-lier groups to deny scientific links. There is certainly a link to MS rates and latitude/UV exposure in non-indiginous people. Especially for those who have a westernized/industrialized diet and lifestyle.

This, the most comprehensive review of MS prevalence to date, has confirmed a statistically significant positive association between MS prevalence and latitude globally. Exceptions to the gradient in the Italian region and northern Scandinavia are likely a result of genetic and behavioural-cultural variations. The persistence of a positive gradient in Europe after adjustment for HLA-DRB1 allele frequencies strongly supports a role for environmental factors which vary with latitude, the most prominent candidates being ultraviolet radiation (UVR)/vitamin D. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21478203

And to get back on topic----UV rays have been shown to improve human health, ouside of raising vitamin D levels.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427189/

HTH!
cheer

[1eye]

Time and again a bacterium, virus, or other invader is found, after many years of "unknown" status, to be a main, and curable, cause of a human disease. I am still hoping.

However inability to raise one's vitamin D level using both supplements and UV exposure would be very troubling to me. It almost makes me want to pay the big bucks to get myself tested.

I would stay away from UVB. UVA is supposed to be enough to promote heart health, possibly via NO production. But melanoma is a very very bad result, definitely linked to UVB. UVC is even worse. JMHO.

Stay away from asbestos, too.