Vitamin D and Multiple Sclerosis | Preventive Care?

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in current health articles, Vitamins and Health

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

vitamin d and multiple sclerosisA new study (Mokry et al, PLOS Medicine, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001866, August 25, 2015) suggests that people who are genetically prone to low vitamin D levels are at increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS). To understand the importance of this study and what it means for us, we need to first review what is already known about vitamin D and multiple sclerosis.

  • MS is an autoimmune disease in which the immune system attacks the myelin sheath that coats our nerves. Conceptually, that’s the equivalent of a fraying cord on a lamp. Eventually, the cord is going to start shorting out and the lamp won’t work very well. On a very basic level MS is similar. As our myelin sheath is damaged over time, our nervous system starts working less well.
  • The earliest evidence that vitamin D status might be associated with MS was the observation that the prevalence of MS was highest for people who lived in northern regions with little exposure to sunlight.
  • Numerous studies since then have shown that MS patients generally have lower 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels in their blood.

These studies clearly show an association between low vitamin D status and MS, but association does not prove causation. There are two limitations of association studies that significantly reduce their predictive value – reverse causation and confounding factors.Those are both somewhat highfalutin scientific terms, so let me put them in plain English – and in terms that are relevant to our discussion of vitamin D status and MS.

Reverse causation simple means that the MS might have caused low vitamin D status. For example, individuals with MS might spend less time outdoors because of their physical limitations. That would result in less sun exposure, which would decrease their blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D.

A confounding factor would be something else that increased the risk for MS and happened to be associated with low vitamin D status. Suppose, for example, that exercise decreased the risk of MS. People who spend most of their time inside in front of a TV or computer screen would have low levels of exercise and low sun exposure. If it was the lack of exercise rather than the low vitamin D status that actually predisposed to MS, lack of exercise would be a confounding factor for any clinical study comparing vitamin D status with risk of developing MS.

 

What Can Genetics Tell Us About The Relationship Between Vitamin D and Multiple Sclerosis?

does-vitamin-d-prevent-msThe authors of this study had previously identified mutations in 4 genes that decrease blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D (the most commonly used measure of vitamin D status). In this study(Mokry et al, PLOS Medicine, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001866, August 25, 2015)they analyzed the frequency of those genetic mutations in 14,498 MS cases compared with 24,091 healthy controls. Their study showed:

  • Genetic mutations that decrease 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels are associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing MS.
  • Based on the relationship of those mutations with 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels, they calculated that every 50% increase in 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels was associated with a 50% decreased risk of developing MS.

This was a very large, well designed study. It has some limitations of its own, but because it used a genetic approach it largely avoids the concern about reverse causation and confounding factors. In short, this study strongly supports the conclusion from previous studies that low vitamin D status significantly increases the risk of developing MS.

The authors concluded “The identification of vitamin D as a causal susceptibility factor for MS may have important public health implications, since vitamin D insufficiency is common, and vitamin D supplementation is both relatively safe and cost effective.”

 

Is Vitamin D Supplementation Effective In Preventing And Treating MS?

Vitamin DThe authors of the study also concluded “These findings provide the rationale for further investigating the therapeutic benefits of vitamin D supplementation in preventing the onset and progression of MS.”

While more studies are still needed, the Nurses’ Health Study (Munger et al, Neurology, 62: 60-65, 2004) provides pretty convincing evidence that vitamin D supplementation can prevent the onset of MS. That study followed 187,563 nurses for at least 4 years, during which time 173 of them developed MS. The study showed that supplementation with 400 IU/day of vitamin D reduced the risk of developing MS by 40%.

The efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in preventing the progression of MS is much less well established. Several studies have shown that low vitamin D status is associated with higher levels MS relapse and more rapid progression of MS symptoms.However, studies of vitamin D supplementation conducted to date have been too small and too short in duration to be definitive.

What Is The Significance Of This Study?

On one hand MS is a very rare disease, affecting around 0.1% of the adult population. On the other hand, it is a debilitating disease. If something as simple as assuring adequate vitamin D status can reduce the risk of developing MS by 40-50%, it is an important public health measure, especially since 40% of the US population has insufficient blood levels of vitamin D (Looker et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 88: 1519-1527, 2008).

What Does This Study Mean For You?

SunWhat does this study mean for you and me? We already know that adequate vitamin D status is essential for building strong bones, and there is pretty good evidence that adequate vitamin D status is important for a strong immune system. Now we can add autoimmune diseases to the list. It is pretty clear that adequate vitamin D status is important for preventing MS. It may help prevent other autoimmune diseases as well.

One interesting wrinkle for MS is that it may be vitally important to assure adequate vitamin D in our younger years. Studies looking at people who grow up in northern latitudes and then move south and vice versa suggest that the risk of developing MS is much more strongly associated with sun exposure during the first 10-15 years of life than with sun exposure later in life.

It is, therefore, not just important that we assure adequate vitamin D status for ourselves. It may be even more important that we assure that our kids and grandkids have adequate vitamin D status.

The problem is that in today’s world we are told to slather industrial strength sunscreen on ourselves from head to foot before we leave the house and very few foods in nature provide significant amounts of vitamin D, so most of us rely primarily on vitamin D fortified dairy products and supplements to assure adequate intake of vitamin D. Click here for the latest RDA recommendations for vitamin D intake.

Some people do appear to need greater than RDA levels of vitamin D because they don’t metabolize vitamin D efficiently. They can have adequate intake of vitamin D, but their blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D are low. I recommend that you ask your doctor to check your 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels at your next physical. If they are low, work out a vitamin D supplementation regimen with your doctor to bring your 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels into the optimal range.

 

The Bottom Line

  • A recent study showed that genetic mutations which decrease 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels are associated with a significantly increased risk of developing MS. Based on the relationship of those mutations with 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels, the investigators calculated that every 50% increase in 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels was associated with a 50% decreased risk of developing MS. This study strongly supports the conclusion from previous studies that low vitamin D status significantly increases the risk of developing MS.
  • An earlier Nurses’ Health Study has shown that supplementation with 400 IU/day of vitamin D decreases the risk of developing MS by 40%.
  • The authors of the most recent study concluded “The identification of vitamin D as a causal susceptibility factor for MS may have important public health implications, since vitamin D insufficiency is common, and vitamin D supplementation is both relatively safe and cost effective.” I agree.
  • While MS is a very rare disease, it can be devastating. This alone, is a good enough reason to be sure that you maintain adequate vitamin D status.
  • There is evidence that vitamin D status in our childhood years may be more important than our vitamin D status in later years for determining our risk of developing MS. It is, therefore, not just important that we assure adequate vitamin D status for ourselves. It may be even more important that we assure that our kids and grandkids have adequate vitamin D status.
  • While these and other studies demonstrate the health benefits of maintaining adequate vitamin D status, many Americans don’t do a good job of it. Government surveys show that 40% of Americans are deficient in vitamin D. That’s because we are continually being advised to slather on industrial strength sunscreen before we leave the house, and most naturally occurring foods are relatively poor sources of vitamin D.
  • While the evidence that vitamin D supplementation is effective for preventing MS is strong, evidence that vitamin D supplementation can slow the progression of MS is inconclusive at present. More and better studies are needed before we will have a definitive answer to this question.

 

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.

Leave a comment

Recent Videos From Dr. Steve Chaney

READ THE ARTICLE
READ THE ARTICLE

Latest Article

A Low Carb Diet and Weight Loss

Posted January 15, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Do Low-Carb Diets Help Maintain Weight Loss?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

low carb dietTraditional diets have been based on counting calories, but are all calories equal? Low-carb enthusiasts have long claimed that diets high in sugar and refined carbs cause obesity. Their hypothesis is based on the fact that high blood sugar levels cause a spike in insulin levels, and insulin promotes fat storage.

The problem is that there has been scant evidence to support that hypothesis. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of 32 published clinical studies (KD Hall and J Guo, Gastroenterology, 152: 1718-1727, 2017 ) concluded that low-fat diets resulted in a higher metabolic rate and greater fat loss than isocaloric low-carbohydrate diets.

However, low-carb enthusiasts persisted. They argued that the studies included in the meta-analysis were too short to adequately measure the metabolic effects of a low-carb diet. Recently, a study has been published in the British Medical Journal (CB Ebbeling et al, BMJ 2018, 363:k4583 ) that appears to vindicate their position.

Are low carb diets best for long term weight loss?

Low-carb enthusiasts claim the study conclusively shows that low-carb diets are best for losing weight and for keeping it off once you have lost it. They are saying that it is time to shift away from counting calories and from promoting low-fat diets and focus on low-carb diets instead if we wish to solve the obesity epidemic. In this article I will focus on three issues:

  • How good was the study?
  • What were its limitations?
  • Are the claims justified?

 

How Was The Study Designed?

low carb diet studyThe investigators started with 234 overweight adults (30% male, 78% white, average age 40, BMI 32) recruited from the campus of Framingham State University in Massachusetts. All participants were put on a diet that restricted calories to 60% of estimated needs for 10 weeks. The diet consisted of 45% of calories from carbohydrate, 30% from fat, and 25% from protein. [So much for the claim that the study showed low-carb diets were more effective for weight loss. The diet used for the weight loss portion of the diet was not low-carb.]

During the initial phase of the study 161 of the participants achieved 10% weight loss. These participants were randomly divided into 3 groups for the weight maintenance phase of the study.

  • The diet composition of the high-carb group was 60% carbohydrate, 20% fat, and 20% protein.
  • The diet composition of the moderate-carb group was 40% carbohydrate, 40% fat, and 20% protein.
  • The diet composition of the low-carb group was 20% carbohydrate, 60% fat, and 20% protein.

Other important characteristics of the study were:

  • The weight maintenance portion of the study lasted 5 months – much longer than any previous study.
  • All meals were designed by dietitians and prepared by a commercial food service. The meals were either served in a cafeteria or packaged to be taken home by the participants.
  • The caloric content of the meals was individually adjusted on a weekly basis so that weight was kept within a ± 4-pound range during the 5-month maintenance phase.
  • Sugar, saturated fat, and sodium were limited and kept relatively constant among the 3 diets.

120 participants made it through the 5-month maintenance phase.

 

Do Low-Carb Diets Help Maintain Weight Loss?

low carb diet maintain weight lossThe results were striking:

  • The low-carb group burned an additional 278 calories/day compared to the high-carb group and 131 calories/day more than the moderate-carbohydrate group.
  • These differences were even higher for those individuals with higher insulin secretion at the beginning of the maintenance phase of the study.
  • These differences lead the authors to hypothesize that low-carb diets might be more effective for weight maintenance than other diets.

 

What Are The Pros And Cons Of This Study?

low carb diet pros and consThis was a very well-done study. In fact, it is the most ambitious and well-controlled study of its kind. However, like any other clinical study, it has its limitations. It also needs to be repeated.

The pros of the study are obvious. It was a long study and the dietary intake of the participants was tightly controlled.

As for cons, here are the three limitations of the study listed by the authors:

#1: Potential Measurement Error: This section of the paper was a highly technical consideration of the method used to measure energy expenditure. Suffice it to say that the method they used to measure calories burned per day may overestimate calories burned in the low-carb group. That, of course, would invalidate the major findings of the study. It is unlikely, but it is why the study needs to be repeated using a different measure of energy expenditure.

#2: Compliance: Although the participants were provided with all their meals, there was no way of being sure they ate them. There was also no way of knowing whether they may have eaten other foods in addition to the food they were provided. Again, this is unlikely, but cannot be eliminated from consideration.

#3: Generalizability: This is simply an acknowledgement that the greatest strength of this study is also its greatest weakness. The authors acknowledged that their study was conducted in such a tightly controlled manner it is difficult to translate their findings to the real world. For example:

  • Sugar and saturated fat were restricted and were at very similar levels in all 3 diets. In the real world, people consuming a high-carb diet are likely to consume more sugar than people in the other diet groups. Similarly, people consuming the low-carb diet are likely to consume more saturated fat than people in the other diet groups.
  • Weight was kept constant in the weight maintenance phase by constantly adjusting caloric intake. Unfortunately, this seldom happens in the real world. Most people gain weight once they go off their diet – and this is just as true with low-carb diets as with other diets.
  • The participants had access to dietitian-designed prepared meals 3 times a day for 5 months. This almost never happens in the real world. The authors said “…these results [their data] must be reconciled with the long-term weight loss trials relying on nutrition education and behavioral counseling that find only a small advantage for low carbohydrate compared with low fat diets according to several recent meta-analyses.” [I would add that in the real world, people do not even have access to nutritional education and behavioral modification.]

 

low carb diet and youWhat Does This Study Mean For You?

  • This study shows that under very tightly controlled conditions (dietitian-prepared meals, sugar and saturated fat limited to healthy levels, calories continually adjusted so that weight remains constant) a low-carb diet burns more calories per day than a moderate-carb or high-carb diet. These findings show that it is theoretically possible to increase your metabolic weight and successfully maintain a healthy weight on a low-carb diet. These are the headlines you probably saw. However, a careful reading of the study provides a much more nuanced viewpoint. For example, the fact that the study conditions were so tightly controlled makes it difficult to translate these findings to the real world.
  • In fact, the authors of the study acknowledged that multiple clinical studies show this almost never happens in the real world. These studies show that most people regain the weight they have lost on low-carb diets. More importantly, the rate of weight regain is virtually identical on low-carb and low-fat diets. Consequently, the authors of the current study concluded “…translation [of their results to the real world] requires exploration in future mechanistic oriented research.” Simply put, the authors are saying that more research is needed to provide a mechanistic explanation for this discrepancy before one can make recommendations that are relevant to weight loss and weight maintenance in the real world.
  • The authors also discussed the results of their study in light of a recent, well-designed 12-month study (CD Gardener et al, JAMA, 319: 667-669, 2018 ) that showed no difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat versus a healthy low-carbohydrate diet. That study also reported that the results were unaffected by insulin secretion at baseline. The authors of the current study noted that “…[in the previous study] participants were instructed to minimize or eliminate refined grains and added sugars and maximize intake of vegetables. Probably for this reason, the reported glycemic load [effect of the diet on blood sugar levels] of the low-fat diet was very low…and similar to [the low-carb diet].” In short, the authors of the current study were acknowledging that diets which focus on healthy, plant-based carbohydrates and eliminate sugar, refined grains, and processed foods may be as effective as low-carb diets for helping maintain a healthy weight.
  • This would also be consistent with previous studies showing that primarily plant-based, low-carb diets are more effective at maintaining a healthy weight and better health outcomes long-term than the typical American version of the low-fat diet, which is high in sugar and refined grains. In contrast, meat-based, low-carb diets are no more effective than the American version of the low-fat diet at preventing weight gain and poor health outcomes. I have covered these studies in detail in my book “Slaying The Food Myths.”

Consequently, the lead author of the most recent study has said: “The findings [of this study] do not impugn whole fruits, beans and other unprocessed carbohydrates. Rather, the study suggests that reducing foods with added sugar, flour, and other refined carbohydrates could help people maintain weight loss….” This is something we all can agree on, but strangely this is not reflected in the headlines you may have seen in the media.

The Bottom Line

 

  • A recent study compared the calories burned per day on a low-carb, moderate-carb, and high-carb diet. The study concluded that the low-carb diet burned significantly more calories per day than the other two diets and might be suitable for long-term weight control. If confirmed by subsequent studies, this would be the first real evidence that low-carb diets are superior for maintaining a healthy weight.
  • However, the study has some major limitations. For example, it used a methodology that may overestimate the benefits of a low-carb diet, and it was performed under tightly controlled conditions that can never be duplicated in the real world. As acknowledged by the authors, this study is also contradicted by multiple previous studies. Further studies will be required to confirm the results of this study and show how it can be applied in the real world.
  • In addition, the kind of carbohydrate in the diet is every bit as important as the amount of carbohydrate. The authors acknowledge that the differences seen in their study apply mainly to carbohydrates from sugar, refined grains, and processed foods. They advocate diets with low glycemic load (small effects on blood sugar and insulin levels) and acknowledge this can also be achieved by incorporating low-glycemic load, plant-based carbohydrates into your diet. This is something we all can agree on, but strangely this is not reflected in the headlines you may have seen in the media.
  • Finally, clinical studies report averages, but none of us are average. When you examine the data from the current study, it is evident that some participants burned more calories per hour on the high-carb diet than other participants did on the low carb diet. That reinforces the observation that some people lose weight more effectively on low-carb diets while others lose weight more effectively on low-fat diets. If you are someone who does better on a low-carb diet, the best available evidence suggests you will have better long-term health outcomes on a primarily plant-based, low-carb diet such as the low-carb version of the Mediterranean diet.

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