Vit D3>125nmol/L (50ng/ml) in blood. Goal for pwMS

[muse]

I don’t get it. Why should someone play a guessing game ordering a dodgy serum Mag-test if you can get accurate results with a Mag-RBC test, which will cost you ~50 bucks or less?
Proper testing is essential for Magnesium & “Vitamin” D! and if people would have started at this point instead of running in circles and behaving like “MS”-ologists the thread would have needed most likely a lot less posts to get to this point, wouldn't it? ....better crawling back in my FB-hole now.

=======================================================================

How to test for Vitamin D properly:

Want to find out the true status of your active “Vitamin”-D and bypass BIG-Pharma ("Vitamin-D Council") brainwash?
No problem! To avoid the latest $$$pharma scam$$$ paired with the stupidity of the medical establishment please ask for these 4 blood tests before you take an insanely high dosage of a synthetic hormone called “Vitamin D”.
The 4 basic blood tests are:

1. Magnesium RBC (amount of Mg in red blood cell and NOT in blood serum!)
2. 25(OH)D (Storage form of Hormone-D)
3. 1,25(OH)2D3 (Active form of Hormone-D)
4. "Ionized" Calcium blood test

If test No.1 is 6.0mg/dL (this is a sufficient amount of Mg in the body tissue needed for the production of "Vit.-D" because Mg-deficiency causes Vit.-D resistance/deficiency!) and test No.3 is low, and test No.4 is low too then and only then taking supplemental "D" (e.g cod-liver oil) would be advised.

Test No.2 it's essentially a distortion of reality because low "Calcidol" (storage form) is caused by to much Calcium in the blood, which means there is too little Mg in the blood. Much better to know is the true status of your active hormone and its mineral focus Calcium. Excess Calcium is the precursor to inflammation and more excess Calcium to Magnesium is the cause of hormonal imbalances, disease & death.....
Source & more links: https://www.facebook.com/notes/arne-kam ... 9175731987

[jimmylegs]

because the serum test is not dodgy. just the range and interpretation.

Methods of assessment of magnesium status in humans: a systematic review
http://www.jle.com/en/revues/bio_rech/m ... icle.phtml
"Available data analysis suggests that serum/plasma magnesium concentration, red blood cell (RBC) concentration and urinary magnesium excretion responded to dietary manipulation."

i think it's wise for ms patients (and anyone in suboptimal health) to test an array of measures above and beyond just cal/mag/d3 interactions. failing that, to spend some time looking really closely at diet ... and given a few combined factors including (but not limited to) a) RDAs are set to prevent deficiency according to flawed measures and b) general dietary nutrient density is not what it was prior to modern industrial food and water systems, that supplementation will likely be required.

[muse]

I will get my Zinc/sCopper/Ceruloplasmin panel + Mg RBC AND! serum Magnesium test results next Tuesday so I don’t need a Ca and Hormone-D test because this panel will also tell me when something is out of balance with the other stuff. Anyway, if you are interested in the comparison of the Mg-test results let me know, jimmylegs.
Btw., the serum Mag-test was ordered by a GP who got fired for this arrogant paternalism (not the first one) and Medicare Australia paid for both tests.

[Anonymoose]

Muse,
I've had the mag rbc and serum rbc done pretty close together. They both showed I needed to work on my magnesium levels a lot (both in "normal" range but low by JL standards). I switched to rbc for now because it comes in the zn-cu-mag-ceruloplasmin panel. I think as long as you are using optimal levels, not normal ranges, you'd be safe using either test. That's just me though.

I'm interested to see how yours compare! Maybe I'll change my mind.

[muse]

Will post the results if I don't forget, Anonymoose Mine where done pretty close together as well (1 day between). Was a challenge to find another GP so fast who was willing to give me a referral for the Mag-RBC. So, will be interesting to compare the results. Btw., what do you mean with "serum rbc", "serum-Mg" I guess?

[Anonymoose]

Yep...serum mag. Multi-tasking will get me every time.

[jimmylegs]

i will definitely be interested, muse

[Squeakycat]

This list is from an excellent review article on vitamin D and auto-immune diseases which looks at genetic and cellular basis for the link.

Source URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23359064
PMID: 23359064
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12016-013-8361-3
Journal Title: Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology
Journal Date: Oct 2013
Journal Issue: 2
Journal Volume: 45
Journal First Page:217-26
Abstract URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2335 ... t=abstract
Article Title: The implication of vitamin D and autoimmunity: a comprehensive review.
Article Authors: Chen-Yen Yang,Patrick S C Leung,Iannis E Adamopoulos,M Eric Gershwin



Hiremath et al. 2009 Large numbers (84 %) of MS patients had insufficient levels (≤100 nmol/L) of 25(OH)D.
Hiremath GS, Cettomai D, Baynes M et al (2009) Vitamin D status and effect of low-dose cholecalciferol and high-dose ergocalciferol supplementation in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 15:735–740

Correale et al. 2009 Serum 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D levels were lower in MS patients. The levels were lower during MS relapses than remission.
Correale J, Ysrraelit MC, Gaitan MI (2009) Immunomodulatory effects of Vitamin D in multiple sclerosis. Brain 132:1146–1160

Kragt et al. 2009 Higher circulating levels of 25(OH)D were associated with a lower incidence of MS.
Kragt J, van Amerongen B, Killestein J et al (2009) Higher levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D are associated with a lower incidence of multiple sclerosis only in women. Mult Scler 15:9–15

Smolders et al. 2008 Low serum 25(OH)D levels were associated with high disability and relapse rate in MS patients.
Smolders J, Menheere P, Kessels A, Damoiseaux J, Hupperts R (2008) Association of vitamin D metabolite levels with relapse rate and disability in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 14:1220–1224

Soilu-Hanninen et al. 2008 Seasonal variation of 25(OH)D was similar in MS patients and controls, but 25(OH)D serum levels were lower during MS relapses than in remission.
Soilu-Hanninen M, Laaksonen M, Laitinen I, Eralinna JP, Lilius EM, Mononen I (2008) A longitudinal study of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and intact parathyroid hormone levels indicate the importance of vitamin D and calcium homeostasis regulation in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 79:152–157

van der Mei et al. 2007 Vitamin D insufficiency was only observed in MS patients with higher disability but not in those with lower disability. [74]
van der Mei IA, Ponsonby AL, Dwyer T et al (2007) Vitamin D levels in people with multiple sclerosis and community controls in Tasmania, Australia. J Neurol 254:581–590

Munger et al. 2006 High circulating levels of 25(OH)D were associated with a lower risk of MS among whites but not blacks and Hispanics.
Munger KL, Levin LI, Hollis BW, Howard NS, Ascherio A (2006) Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and risk of multiple sclerosis. JAMA 296:2832–2838

Soilu-Hanninen et al. 2005 Serum 25(OH)D concentrations were lower in MS patients from June to September. The levels were lower during MS relapses than remission.
Soilu-Hanninen M, Airas L, Mononen I, Heikkila A, Viljanen M, Hanninen A (2005) 25-Hydroxyvitamin D levels in serum at the onset of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 11:266–271

[jimmylegs]

yep don't think anyone's arguing that d3 is not an issue in ms patients. it's just not an independent actor.

[MarkW]

.....................taking supplemental "D" (e.g cod-liver oil) would be advised.

A serious warning on Cod Liver Oil - it contains vitamin A which is toxic in high doses. i recommend vitamin D3 from a natural source (lanolin, fish body oil, krill oil) dissolved in oil (olive oil or similar) to aid adsorbion. Do not use synthetic vitamin D2, D3 is best.

MarkW

[MarkW]

yep don't think anyone's arguing that d3 is not an issue in ms patients. it's just not an independent actor.

None of these vitamins and minerals are independant actors. Ed has shown that D3 is the leading actor in the majority of pwMS. Co-factors are supporting actors in a minority of pwMS, we need to be aware of them if supplementing with natural D3 does not cause a rise in bloodlevels of D3.
MarkW

[jimmylegs]

nope, we've been over it already, at a minimum mag is an international problem as recognized by the WHO, and what study we do have for folks with ms indicates that we are even worse off than the general population. i'll agree that d3 has had more than its fair share of the research attention, but that's about it.
d3 will rise to some extent with supplementation, even when cofactor status is suboptimal. it's not an on-off switch. asserting that people only need to worry about co-factors if their d3 levels don't rise with supplementation is misleading and troubling.

[MarkW]

I don’t get it. Why should someone play a guessing game ordering a dodgy serum Mag-test if you can get accurate results with a Mag-RBC test, which will cost you ~50 bucks or less?

The starting point for pwMS in UK and many managed healthcare systems in Europe is that they cannot get any tests free of charge. Given this starting point, I advise pwMS to get D3 and calcium tests as a baseline. Many UK GPs will do this as a check on bone health, free of charge. For most pwMS a natural (not Cod Liver Oil) supplement is needed to move their D3 in blood levels to 125-150nmol/L. If 5000IU D3 per day does not work then co-factors need to be considered. However in the UK this will be at the expense of pwMS.
If (big if) pwMS in the UK could get co-factors and D3 tested free of charge on the NHS my advice would be different. However the cost of a Mag-RBC test is a lot of money for many pwMS in the UK. So if you cannot afford lots of tests do the pwMS:
A - do nothing as a percentage of pwMS are low in Magnesium, Zinc etc.
B - take 5000IU of natural D3/day with tests for D3 and calcium if possible.
My recommendation is to take natural D3 even if you cannot get/afford the tests for the co-factors. I balance the risks of uncovering a magnesium issue for a few people against the weight of the scientific evidence which says pwMS with high D3 do better than those with low D3.
I acknowledge that having all tests is better but I am giving advice in the real world of the UK and many European countries.

The question for muse, jimmylegs, NZer1: what do you advise if the pwMS cannot get/afford the desired tests. Answer A or B please.
MarkW

[Squeakycat]

Ed has shown that D3 is the leading actor in the majority of pwMS. Co-factors are supporting actors in a minority of pwMS, we need to be aware of them if supplementing with natural D3 does not cause a rise in bloodlevels of D3.
MarkW

Were I king of MS diagnosis, I think I would make testing for magnesium and B-12 insufficiency on par with testing vitamin D levels. These seem fairly widespread and both insufficiencies manifest neurologically.

I think we are beating this poor horse to death.

Test if it can be done at no cost or is affordable.

I don't see the harm in taking vitamin D3 and if there are no positive results, testing for co-factor insufficiency, but am open to hearing what they might be.

[Squeakycat]

i'll agree that d3 has had more than its fair share of the research attention, but that's about it.
d3 will rise to some extent with supplementation, even when cofactor status is suboptimal. it's not an on-off switch. asserting that people only need to worry about co-factors if their d3 levels don't rise with supplementation is misleading and troubling.

Vitamin D has gotten this level of research because of how crucial vitamin D is to so many critical aspects of health. It has gotten this level of attention because epidemiology, genetics and basic biochemistry as well as because birth month and latitude suggest that is a key factor in the etiology and severity of MS.

To the extent that the co-factors limit the ability of vitamin D to work, then they are equally of concern.

I have actually suggested to several groups researching MS and vitamin D that they look at co-factors. I'm not at all opposed to this. I think where cost isn't an issue, it would be worthwhile to do testing. But I don't see testing as a sine qua non of taking vitamin D.

I also think that testing isn't simply a question of whether 25OHD levels rise. but also whether there are benefits from supplementation.

You say the notion of not worrying about co-factor levels is "misleading and troubling." Can you elaborate please?