Motorway, unless you are a medically qualified researcher with those qualifications being superior to the Associate Professor who reported this study I referred to above, how can you have any valid basis for making such an assumption?
The Ass. Prof. suggested it could have to do with diet or any number of other factors which they have yet to research. She at no stage referred to the possibility of increased Vit D.
There are many studies on Vitamin D
and Vitamin D & MS
This review made this statement
over 70% of MS cases in
the USA and Europe could be prevented by increasing the
serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration of adolescents
and young adults to above 100 nmol/L
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20494325
In the Study You posted
As I said
while the authors tried to show that both sun exposure and vitamin D levels influence risk of MS on their own, some experts were doubtful that this was possible.
"They may have independent roles, but the reality is it's extremely difficult to sort them out," said Alberto Ascherio, who studies the link between vitamin D and MS at the Harvard School of Public Health and was not involved in the current study.
He noted that the authors didn't know the participants' blood levels of vitamin D over the course of their lives, and that it's possible that measuring somebody's sun exposure over the years is really just another way of measuring how much vitamin D they had at those times.
They did not Know The participants Blood levels of Vitamin D over the course of their lives !
So How likely is it that it was always in the optimal range ?
All the time ?
no one can even know !
I have posted material on optimal levels.
The need for stable levels.
How many likely were taking supplements to get into what is being considered a protective level ( and not just bone health ) ?
What is your understanding of the study ?
Mine is that no one was monitored or encouraged over the study period to Take
Vitamin D...
If that is so it tends to be the majority of people have lower levels some just have less lower than others.
According to a report in "Neurology," Robyn Lucas of The Australian National University and colleagues studied 216 adults who has just started having the first symptoms of MS between 2003 and 2006.
They also found a comparison group of nearly 400 people from the same regions of Australia, who matched the subjects in age and gender, but had no signs or symptoms of MS.
Participants in both groups were asked how much time they had spent in the sun and where they had lived at different points in their lives, with skin damage from the sun and the level of vitamin D in their blood also checked.
On average, people with the first signs of MS had been exposed to a smaller "UV dose" -- based on how much time they had spent in the sun and how close to the equator they had lived -- over the course of their lives.
No mention of getting people to take supplements ?
Consider the Tasmanian Study
Australian researchers have provided important evidence about the value of maintaining a high vitamin D level for people with MS. In a prospective study as part of the Southern Tasmanian Multiple Sclerosis Longitudinal Cohort Study, published in the Annals of Neurology, they followed 145 people with MS for an average of 2.3 years.
Many of the cohort were taking vitamin D supplements, although surprisingly most of these were taking a dose below 400IU/day, and supplementation did not have a significant effect on vitamin D levels as expected.
The important findings were that for every 10nmol/L higher the vitamin D level in blood, there was a 12% reduction in the risk of relapse. This effect was linear, that is, the benefit did not seem to reach a threshold level over which there was no additional benefit.
It can be seen that there is essentially a straight line relationship between risk reduction and increasing vitamin D levels. If the line is continued down to no risk, it intersects at a vitamin D level of around 150nmol/L .
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20695012
We observed up to a 12% decrease in relapse risk for each 10-nmol/L increase in
serum 25(OH)D, in line with contemporaneous work by Mowry et al32 who found an
inverse association between higher 25(OH)D levels and risk of relapse in pediatriconset
MS, with each 25 nmol/L increase in serum 25(OH)D reducing the subsequent
relapse rate by 34%. Our data imply that increasing serum 25(OH)D levels by 50
nmol/L could more than halve the risk of relapse, a reduction at least on par with most
immunomodulatory therapies.33 Importantly, these reductions were seen in a cohort
that was largely using immunomodulatory therapy (82%), suggesting that 25(OH)D
has additive beneficial effects.
The thread has listed material on what Vitamin D levels are optimal
and how hard it is to get to those levels without supplementation.
Also how much a Healthy body will utilize ( If it has it )
etc
Why do I think more D might be part of the X
Because of the nature of the study.
Also I pointed out that sunlight is important
with the link to melatonin.
Why is the Mediterranean Diet Healthy compared to Nothern Europe ?
Well one reason might be they live in more sunshine. The foods they eat are grown in more sunlight ( the study above and others like it )
etc
I already pointed to Sunlight and food. Better Day night cycle etc as possible X
The valid reason to hold a view is the research on what happens when you get
levels higher By supplementation.
This study was not about that as far as I can see
This one was==>
http://www.overcomingmultiplesclerosis.org/Recovery-Program/Sunlight-and-Vitamin-D/
In a small Canadian study presented to the American Academy of Neurology meeting in 2009, patients were given increasing doses of vitamin D to determine its safety at high dose. Apart from finding that high doses were safe (the higher dose group averaged 14,000IU per day through the study versus 1,000IU for the group treated with standard doses by their doctors), the researchers found that the higher dose group had 2/3 fewer relapses through the course of the study.
Further, measures of immune activity showed a shift in balance away from an inflammatory profile. This is very important data. The magnitude of the benefit derived from taking vitamin D supplements at high dose was roughly twice as big as the effect of taking disease-modifying drugs like the interferons; and this was in comparison to taking a conventional dose of vitamin D. Had it been compared to taking placebo, the effect would almost certainly have been even bigger. This is compelling evidence that vitamin D supplements should be routinely prescribed for people with MS, and at a substantial dose.
Motorway, unless you are a medically qualified researcher with those qualifications being superior to the Associate Professor who reported this study I referred to above, how can you have any valid basis for making such an assumption?
Well I read what has been posted to this thread and I read the limitations of this study.
In your opinion do the Studies with supplementation give any reason to from an opinion that more Vitamin D might be part of the X ?
Esp seeing that in this study they never mention any supplementation or measured D levels over the course of life times ?
Consider How important the Mothers D status is ? They never took that into account either ?
There are many ways more D could be the X imo
There is some significant material on the importance of expecting mothers Vitamin D levels
( and even before that on hopeful Fathers levels . Hopeful of healthy Children ) and after birth there is only D in breast Milk if The mother has significant D herself etc.
Lots of way more D could be part of the X.
Motorway