If you are considering invasive surgery as a preventive measure, you might be interested in optimizing nutritional status prior to, or in conjunction with, any CCSVI investigations.
The first thing to understand when beginning nutrition investigations, is the unfortunate language of the lab. Specifically, the statistical term 'normal'.
The 'normal' range (perhaps more familiarly an area under a 'bell curve') is often quite a broad range (ie the mean +/- 2 standard deviations, which covers 95% of the population under the curve. the remaining 5% considered non-normal are represented by the 2.5% under the left tail (below normal) and right tail (above normal) respectively).
*if only* 95% of the population were actually healthy. we're not, therefore in many cases the normal range includes both sick and healthy people, much in the way that the curve describes the range of typical results on academic tests. sure we're all normal, but that doesn't mean we're all geniuses.
There is sometimes a much smaller range within the normal range that can be described as 'optimal'. levels can travel out of this section of the range for many reasons. One possibility to consider is suboptimal general status due as applicable to low intake, absorption, utilization, stores, or saturation.
For example, a normal range for zinc might be 10-20 umol/L (depending which lab you go to and which test is run; different labs use different settings eg plasma vs serum, which have different ranges since serum results can be affected by red blood cell zinc content). for serum zinc, ms patients typically average in the low teens. healthy controls often average in the high teens.
One example of the danger of the word 'normal' is this: recently a patient here at TIMS asked for a zinc test and was told the level was fine. When the patient asked for specifics the result info was 10.083 umol/L (normal range was 10-20 there). This patient was not told that the level was suboptimal, or even borderline deficient, just that it was 'fine' - ie the computer did not red flag it because the value was within the min and max setpoints. meanwhile by my hospital lab's standards, at which the normal range for zinc is 11.5-18.5 umol/L (adheres to the regional standard), the same TIMS patient would be considered deficient. but, given a different lab set up, in her case everything was apparently just fine
Another example: the normal range for uric acid can range from as low as 90 umol/l to as high as 480 umol/L (and at my lab, 140-360).
MS patients have been found to average 194 umol/L (lower in relapse, higher in remission). Healthy controls sat in the 290-300 umol/L range. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 384.x/full
(update: Low serum uric acid levels in patients with multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica: An updated meta-analysis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27645338 )
(update 2: Is it time to revise the normal range of serum uric acid levels?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24867507
in the 2nd update above, authors suggest 360 should be considered the upper limit of the normal range)
Interestingly, some studies have demonstrated a positive correlation between uric acid levels and zinc levels. So if you are low in zinc you may be low in uric acid too. read more: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1787800416
https://link.springer.com/article/10.13 ... :113:3:209
Suspect nutrients for MS patients include but are not limited to:
vitamin b complex (all of them, particularly b12)
vitamin d3
vitamin e
magnesium
selenium
zinc
essential polyunsaturated fatty acids
All of the above are also important for optimal vascular health.
