Methylfolate and Methyl B12 – Myths or Lies? Part 1

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in Methyl folate

How Did The Myths Arise?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

methylated b liesHow did methylfolate become the center of a myth? 

How are the lies of the food supplement industry created? Some of them start innocently enough. They are often based on a kernel of truth which is misinterpreted by some well-meaning medical doctors. It’s not their fault. We teach future doctors what I call “metabolism light” in medical school. There simply isn’t room in the medical curriculum to teach all the details and nuances of human metabolism. We also try to teach them the basics of how to interpret the scientific literature. However, it takes years of experience to get really good at picking out the strengths and weaknesses of clinical studies.

The doctors form their hypothesis and test it on a few patients. If it works, they publish a paper. At that point their idea is picked up by the “sensationalist” bloggers. These are the bloggers who like to focus on the sensational. They delight in writing about “new findings” that go against what the medical profession has been telling you for years. The bloggers don’t stop there. They usually expand the claims. They ‘cherry pick” the scientific literature by quoting only studies that support their viewpoint, and ignoring studies that refute it. In short, they put together a very compelling story. Soon the story is picked up by other bloggers who embellish it further. After it appears in enough sites, people start believing it. A myth is born.

Then supplement companies get in the act. They sense there is money to be made. They manufacture supplements to provide nutrients supported by the myths. They embellish the mythology even more and put together a compelling story to market their products. This is where the mythology becomes deception. Companies have the responsibility to design their products based on the best science. They have an obligation to tell the truth about their products. They know, or should know, that all their claims are not true. When they make claims they know cannot be true, they are lying to you.

The saga of the methylated B vitamins is a perfect example of how observations based on a kernel of truth became myths and eventually became downright lies. Let me share that story with you.

 

The Kernel Of Truth About Methylfolate

 

methylated b folic acidLet’s start with the “kernel of truth” that launched the whole methylfolate saga. It started with a doctor who was having a very difficult time finding a solution for a patient with some significant health issues. The doctor ordered a genetic test and discovered the patient had a deficiency in the methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene. The doctor remembered the reaction catalyzed by MTHFR, and a light bulb went off. “Eureka”, he said. His patient must be unable to make N5-methyltetrahydrofolate (commonly referred to as methyl folate), and methylfolate is required for some very important methylation reactions in the cell.

He gave his patient methylfolate, and the patient’s symptoms got better. The doctor leapt to the conclusion that other patients with MTHFR deficiency needed methyl folate as well. Many of those patients responded to methylfolate as well. He didn’t bother to check whether they responded equally well to folic acid. He just assumed methylfolate was the magic elixir. He wrote a paper on his clinical observations, and the methylfolate story was launched. It all seemed so logical. However, the story was not nearly as straight forward as the doctor and the people publicizing his findings assumed. Let me walk you through some “Metabolism 101”. Don’t worry. There won’t be a quiz.

 

Why The Original Assumptions About Methylfolate Were Misleading

 

MTHFR mutants only have a partial loss of activity.

  • Individuals with 2 copies of a mutation from A to C at position 1298 of the MTHFR gene(A1298C homozygotes) comprise about 5% of the US population. They have 60% enzyme activity and appear to be normal in clinical studies.
  • Individuals with 2 copies of a mutation from C to T at position 677 of the MTHFR gene (C677T homozygotes) have 30% enzyme activity. They comprise about 10% of the US population. C677T homozygotes often have elevated homocysteine levels. The homozygous C677T mutation is associated with depression, anxiety, and mood swings in some people, but not in others (I will come back to the significance of that qualifying statement later).
  • C677T heterozygotes (one mutant gene) have 65% activity and are normal.

We Don’t Need 100% MTHFR Activity

space shuttleOur human body is wonderfully designed. For many of our most essential metabolic reactions we have built in redundancy. We don’t require 100% activity of key enzymes. This helps protect us from bad effects of mutations as they arise.

The best analogy I can think of is the US space program. Most space vehicles had built in redundancy so that if one system failed, the mission could go on. For example, you may remember the Hubble space telescope. It was launched with four gyroscopes to keep the telescope pointed in the right direction. After a few years, one gyroscope gave out. That was not a problem because there were three left. A few years latter the second gyroscope gave out. Again, there was no problem because there were still two gyroscopes left. It was only after the third gyroscope gave out that Hubble became a bit “wonky”, and a space shuttle was sent up to replace the gyroscopes. It is the same with MTHFR. Only when you get down to around 30% activity, does it become a bit wonky”. (That’s about as non-technical as I get.)

Not Everyone With MTHFR Deficiency Experiences Symptoms

This is due to a phenomenon my geneticist friends refer to as penetrance. Simply put, that means that not everyone with the same mutation experiences the same severity of symptoms. That is because the severity of a mutation is influenced by diet, lifestyle, and genetic background. Let me start with genetic background. In terms of MTHFR mutants you can think of genetic background as being mutations in a related methylation pathway. People who have a mutation in both MTHFR and a gene in a related pathway will experience more severe symptoms and are more likely to require methyl folate. Once you understand penetrance, you realize that individuals requiring methyl folate may represent only a small subset of people with MTHFR mutations.

Penetrance is a concept that most proponents of the methylfolate hypothesis completely ignore. The most severe MTHFR mutation (C677T homozygote) increases the probability that individuals will exhibit symptoms, but some individuals with that mutation are completely normal. Now that you understand the concepts of redundancy and penetrance, you can understand why that is.

 

When Did The Kernel of Truth About Methylfolate Become A Myth?

 

methylated b mythsUp to this point the hype around methylfolate could be chalked up to an honest misunderstanding. The doctors who published the original papers may not have known that MTHFR mutations only resulted in a partial reduction in enzyme activity. They probably didn’t know the concepts of redundancy (our cells don’t need 100% enzyme activity) or penetrance (the same mutation may cause severe symptoms in some patients and have no effect in others). It seemed logical to assume that everyone with a MTHFR mutation might do better with methyl folate supplementation. That was incorrect, but it was an honest mistake.

However, the message was picked up by the bloggers who specialize in sensational stories, especially stories that contradict what experts have been telling you for years. They picked up the methyl folate story and distorted it beyond recognition. They knew that “natural” is a buzz word, so they told you that methylfolate was natural and folic acid is synthetic (I exposed that lie earlier). They told you that methylfolate was better utilized than folic acid. They told you that methylfolate was more effective than folic acid. They told you folic acid was toxic. It was going to increase your risk of heart disease and cancer. Suddenly, it was no longer about people with MTHFR deficiency. You were being told that everyone should avoid folic acid and use methylfolate instead.

methylated b folicOn the surface, these pronouncements should not have passed the “If it sounds too good to be true…” test, or in this case, the “If it sounds too bad to be true…” test. You were being asked the believe that folic acid, which has been in use for over 80 years and is backed by hundreds of studies showing it is safe and effective, was neither safe nor effective. You were asked to believe that the government was poisoning you by fortifying foods with folic acid.

However, to make their blogs sound more convincing, they listed clinical studies supporting their stories. The problem is they “cherry picked” the studies that supported their story and ignored the rest. Their bias was particularly outrageous when it came to the “story” that folic acid increases cancer risks. They ignored 10 or 20 studies showing no cancer risk and reported one suggesting it might increase risk. I call that deceptive.

Unfortunately, the myths created by the bloggers have been repeated often enough that many people now believe they are true. I will debunk their myths next week, but first let me touch on how their deceptions became downright lies.

 

When Did The Myths About Methylfolate and Methyl B12 Become Lies?

 

If you are writing a blog, you are covered by “freedom of speech.” You can say whatever you want. It doesn’t have to be true. However, if you are a supplement manufacturer, you are held to a higher standard. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. You can no longer cherry pick the “facts” you like and ignore the rest. You are ethically obligated to research all the available literature and be guided by the best scientific evidence.

Reputable companies have been guided by the scientific evidence and have not jumped on the methylfolate bandwagon. They know folic acid is both safe and effective in a wide variety of clinical situations. They also know that, while methylfolate may be just as effective as folic acid, its potential is largely unproven at this point. It has not been tested in many clinical situations.

Less reputable companies, however, sensed money to be made by capitalizing on the buzz around methylfolate. They repeated the myths of the bloggers to claim that their products were superior to others on the market. They call it marketing. I call it lying. They have an obligation to fact check their claims, and only make claims that are true.

It gets worse. Since lots of people already believed they needed methylfolate, why not extend the claim to one of the methylated B vitamins, methyl B12? That would boost sales even more. The claims for methyl B12 were even more outrageous than for methylfolate. There wasn’t even a “kernel of truth” like MTHFR deficiency to serve as a foundation. The claim was the methyl B12 was needed because of some sort of ambiguous “methylation deficiency”. The lies had become whoppers.

Next week I will debunk the methylfolate and methyl B12 myths. Stay tuned.

 

The Bottom Line

 

This week I have shared the story about how the myths about methylfolate and methyl B12 arose and how they eventually became lies. Next week I will debunk the myths.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (3)

  • Caroline

    |

    I can remember in my DAOM doctoral studies one presenter was talking about methylation and everyone but me knew nothing, so he asked if our Shaklee was methylated and knowing how our B Complex is made, I said yes because I knew he would discuss it as not because of your article. Love our B Complex and sell lots of it, and I even call it a “cheap drunk” for lighting the spirit, energy and well being. I do enjoy your articles because of your educational teaching/history and that always helps me.

    Reply

  • Fran

    |

    I am a person who almost died because of MTHFR. Because my ability to detox was so poor, chemical pollution built up to extreme levels. All this happened while I was taking Shaklee B complex for thirty years prior to becoming sick. I contend that I would not have become so deathly ill if the B vitamins I was taking had been the correct methyl form!! I also will say that your “scientific” research is flawed and gives the wrong answer because you tested blood, not what actually gets into the cells. It does not matter what is in the blood, if it cannot get into the cells. That is the case with folic acid. Contact Dr. Ben Lynch. He has been researching this for many years. He has the correct answers. YOU do not.
    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell you about this. I’d be happy to speak directly with you regarding my severe experience with MTHFR, and how the methyl forms of folate and B12 saved my life.

    Reply

    • Dr. Steve Chaney

      |

      Dear Fran,

      I have consistently said that there are a few people who need methylfolate. These are individuals with several other mutations affecting pathways involving methylation reactions in addition to MTHFR. Situations like yours are exceedingly rare because multiple mutations are required. Published clinical studies show that most people with MTHFR deficiency do quite well with folic acid.

      Folic acid gets into cells quite easily and is immediately converted to folates, including methylfolate – even in individuals with MTHFR deficiency. Again, this is based on published clinical studies.

      I have been in touch with Dr. Ben Lynch and have pointed out the errors in his assertions. Many of his “answers” are contradicted by published clinical studies.

      Dr. Chaney

      Reply

Leave a comment

Recent Videos From Dr. Steve Chaney

READ THE ARTICLE
READ THE ARTICLE

Latest Article

What Is The Planetary Diet?

Posted May 21, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is Your Diet Destroying The Planet?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

Earth Day has come and gone, but you are still committed to saving the planet. You save energy. You recycle. You drive an electric car. But is your diet destroying the planet?

This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019 ) serves as a dire warning of what will happen if we don’t change our ways. I touched on this report briefly in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor,” What Is The Flexitarian Diet , but this topic is important enough that it deserves an issue all its own.

The commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose diet.” It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win diet.”  It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet.”

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

How Was The Study Done?

The study (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019 ) was the report of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. This Commission convened 30 of the top experts from across the globe to prepare a science-based evaluation of the effect of diet on both health and sustainable food production through the year 2050. The Commission included world class experts on healthy diets, agricultural methods, climate change, and earth sciences. The Commission reviewed 356 published studies in preparing their report.

 

Is Your Diet Destroying The Planet?

When they looked at the effect of food production on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • “Strong evidence indicates that food production is among the largest drivers of global environmental change.” Specifically, the commission reported:
  • Agriculture occupies 40% of global land (58% of that is for pasture use).
  • Food production is responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of freshwater use.
  • Conversion of natural ecosystems to croplands and pastures is the largest factor causing species to be threatened with extinction. Specifically, 80% of extinction threats to mammals and bird species are due to agricultural practices.
  • Overuse and misuse of nitrogen and phosphorous in fertilizers causes eutrophication. In case you are wondering, eutrophication is defined as the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (such as phosphates from commercial fertilizer) that stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plant life, usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen. This creates dead zones in lakes and coastal regions where fish and other marine organisms cannot survive.
  • About 60% of world fish stocks are fully fished and more than 30% are overfished. Because of this, catch by global marine fisheries has been declining since 1996.
  • “Reaching the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming…is not possible by only decarbonizing the global energy systems. Transformation to healthy diets from sustainable food systems is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement.”
  • The world’s population is expected to increase to 10 billion by 2050. The current system of food production is unsustainable.

When they looked at the effect of the foods we eat on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • Beef and lamb are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and land use.
  • The concern about land use is obvious because of the large amount of pasture land required to raise cattle and sheep.
  • The concern about greenhouse gas emissions is because cattle and sheep are ruminants. They not only breathe out CO2, but they also release methane into the atmosphere from fermentation in their rumens of the food they eat. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it persists in the atmosphere 25 times longer than CO2. The single most important thing we can do as individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to eat less beef and lamb. [Note: grass fed cattle produce more greenhouse gas emissions than cattle raised on corn because they require 3 years to bring to market rather than 2 years.]
  • In terms of energy use beef, lamb, pork, chicken, dairy and eggs all require much more energy to produce than any of the plant foods.
  • In terms of eutrophication, beef, lamb, and pork, all cause much more eutrophication than any plant food. Dairy and eggs cause more eutrophication than any plant food except fruits.
  • In contrast, plant crops reduce greenhouse gas emissions by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

What Is The Planetary Diet?

In the words of the Commission: “[The Planetary Diet] largely consists of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated oils. It includes a low to moderate amount of seafood, poultry, and eggs. It includes no or a very low amount of red meat, processed meat, sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.”

When described in that fashion it sounds very much like other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable. Here is a more detailed description of the diet:

  • It starts with a vegetarian diet. Vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, soy foods, and whole grains are the foundation of the diet.
  • It allows the option of adding one serving of dairy a day (It turns out that cows produce much less greenhouse emissions per serving of dairy than per serving of beef. That’s because cows take several years to mature before they can be converted to meat, and they are emitting greenhouse gases the entire time).
  • It allows the option of adding one 3 oz serving of fish or poultry or one egg per day.
  • It allows the option of swapping seafood, poultry, or egg for a 3 oz serving of red meat no more than once a week. If you want a 12 oz steak, that would be no more than once a month.

This is obviously very different from the way most Americans currently eat. According to the Commission:

  • “This would require greater than 50% reduction in consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, and greater than 100% increase in the consumption of healthy foods, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes.”
  • “In addition to the benefits for the environment, “dietary changes from current diets to healthy diets are likely to substantially benefit human health, averting about 10.8-11.6 million deaths per year globally.”

What Else Did The Commission Recommend?

In addition to changes in our diets, the Commission also recommended several changes in the way food is produced. Here are a few of them.

  • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel used to transport food to market.
  • Reduce food losses and waste by at least 50%.
  • Make radical improvements in the efficiency of fertilizer and water use. In terms of fertilizer, the change would be two-fold:
    • In developed countries, reduce fertilizer use and put in place systems to capture runoff and recycle the phosphorous.
    • In third world countries, make fertilizer more available so that crop yields can be increased, something the Commission refer to as eliminating the “yield gap” between third world and developed countries.
  • Stop the expansion of new agricultural land use into natural ecosystems and put in place policies aimed at restoring and re-foresting degraded land.
  • Manage the world’s oceans effectively to ensure that fish stocks are used responsibly and global aquaculture (fish farm) production is expanded sustainability.

What we can do: While most of these are government level policies, we can contribute to the first three by reducing personal food waste and purchasing organic produce locally whenever possible.

What Does This Mean For You?

If you are a vegan, you are probably asking why the Commission did not recommend a completely plant-based diet. The answer is that a vegan diet is perfect for the health of our planet. However, the Commission wanted to make a diet that was as consumer-friendly as possible and still meet their goals of a healthy, environmentally friendly, and sustainable diet.

If you are eating a typical American diet or one of the fad diets that encourage meat consumption, you are probably wondering how you can ever make such drastic changes to your diet. The answer is “one step at a time.”  If you have read my books “Slaying The Food Myths” or “Slaying the Supplement Myths,”  you know that my wife and I did not change our diet overnight. Our diet evolved to something very close to the Planetary Diet over a period of years.

The Commission also purposely designed the Planetary Diet so that you “never have to say never” to your favorite foods. Three ounces of red meat a week does not sound like much, but it allows you a juicy steak once a month.

Sometimes you just need to develop a new mindset. As I shared in my books, my father prided himself on grilling the perfect steak. I love steaks, but I decided to set a few parameters. I don’t waste my red meat calories on anything besides filet mignon at a fine restaurant. It must be a special occasion, and someone else must be buying. That limits it to 2-3 times a year. I still get to enjoy good steak, and I stay well within the parameters of the Planetary diet.

Develop your strategy for enjoying some of your favorite foods within the parameters of the Planetary Diet and have fun with it.

The Bottom Line

 

Is your diet destroying the planet? This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report serves as a dire warning of what will happen to us and our planet if we don’t change our ways.

The Commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The Commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose diet.”  It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win diet.”  It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet.”

The Planetary Diet is similar to other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable (for details, read the article above).

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

For more details read the article above.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

 

UA-43257393-1