4 posts Page 1 of 1
Especially saturated fat.

I’ve been off the forums for a while (life!) but when I saw this I knew I had to post it immediately.

More evidence for the OMS evidence-based approach!

Be well, everyone.

http://www.neurologyadvisor.com/multipl ... le/699175/
Too lazy to edit but I wanted to add the text of the article and add this to my extremely brief executive summary: Veggies seemed to be protective.

Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis Relapse Associated With Fat Intake

October 19, 2017 Share this content:
HealthDay News — For children with multiple sclerosis, increased fat intake is associated with an increased risk of relapse, while vegetable intake may be protective, according to a study published in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

Saeedeh Azary, MD, MPH, from the UCSF Regional Pediatric MS Center in San Francisco, and colleagues conducted a study at 11 US pediatric MS centers involving 219 patients with relapsing-remitting MS or clinically isolated syndrome with disease onset before 18 years of age. The validated Block Kids Food Screener was used to assess dietary intake during the week before enrollment.

The researchers found that each 10% increase in energy intake from fat was correlated with a 56% increased risk of relapse (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.56); each 10% increase in saturated fat was correlated with a 3-fold increase in risk (adjusted HR 3.37).

The risk of relapse was reduced by 50% for each 1 cup equivalent of vegetables (adjusted HR 0.5). These correlations persisted with mutual adjustment and after adjustment for 25-hydroxyvitamin D serum level at baseline. There was no correlation between other studied nutrients and relapse.

"This study suggests that in children with MS, high energy intake from fat, especially saturated fat, may increase the hazard to relapse, while vegetable intake may be independently protective," the authors wrote.

Disclosures: Several authors disclosed financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.


Azary S, Schreiner T, Graves J, et al. Contribution of dietary intake to relapse rate in early paediatric multiple sclerosis [published online October 9, 2017]. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2017-315936
I just posted the folloiwng in a topic in the Miscellaneous forum, but it bears repeating here............

Re the study in children about diet, fat, and vegies - it's generally a good idea to read the "fine print" before raising hopes too high. Paediatric MS has quite a few issues where there are unknowns and it is not as "straightforward" as adult MS (mind you - MS is not straightforward for anyone!)

If you look more closely at the study in children it involved only 219 kids. The analysis was based on a ONE WEEK food diary filled out by the study's subjects, which is hardly likely to be an accurate record of their diet over the maximum two year period in which they were tracked. The study was also conducted in the USA where the average diet across the nation generally includes far more fat content (of all types) than most other countries. So, while we ALL know that everyone needs to eat more vegies, this research is not particularly groundbreaking, and only serves to confirm that the devil is often in the detail where such studies are concerned. Leaping upon reports like this with cries of glee about how they support OMS (or any other specific approach to MS) is probably a bit premature.

Some relevant points made in the article on the link below include:
"...each additional cup of vegetables eaten was associated with a halving in risk of relapse, independent of fat consumption."

"This is an observational study so no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect, ..."

"In a linked editorial, Dr Kathryn Fitzgerald of John Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, emphasises the caveats for an observational study of this kind which relies on food frequency questionnaires that are not fully able to describe different types of fat"

"it is probably long term diet rather than diet captured over the short term that is going to be of greater influence, she says"

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 100617.php

Unfortunately it costs over two hundred pounds a year to subscribe to the journal where the original article was published, and I ain't a subscriber!!!
Great points, all of them. Still, this result is better than its opposite.

Dr. Swank’s work was also a small cohort and is flawed by today’s standards, but it’s the foundation on which many great results have been based.
4 posts Page 1 of 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests