Brain Fog: 0 VitaminD 3

[Guest guest]

This points to a letter on the article and NOT the article.

> http://tinyurl.com/byux2

>

> I could be too brainfogged to be reading this paper correctly, but

I

> can't see where they measured 1,25-D, so I don't know how this

> citation supports the statement in question.

>

> Matt

>

The link is

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204?

ijkey=fe99627d5acc6955b40ae61731b2cfd88467557d

They talk extensively about " 25-hydroxylation " that is the production

of 1,25D. The author that I cited understood well what they are

talking about --- and I also get it (being trained in Statistics and

Mathematical modeling makes the article readable) -- but I will not

be foolish enough to try to explain it to a brain fog CFIDers....

" The 25-hydroxylation reaction is the prerequisite step for the

subsequent 1a-hydroxylation and 24-hydroxylation reactions in the

kidney. The 1a-hydroxylation reaction produces the active form of

vitamin D3, whereas 24-hydroxylation reaction leads to inactivation.

Both reactions are strictly controlled by parathyroid hormone, 1,25-

dihydroxyvitamin D3, and calcium in a reciprocal manner in the

kidney. "

From http://www.bioscience.org/2004/v9/af/1455/3.htm

Does that explain things adequately?

[Guest guest]

Ken

The tinyURL I gave leads to the same paper that you just gave a

URL for. As I said, the paper can be downloaded free of charge.

When you click on the " FREE full text article at www.ajcn.org " icon

at the URL I provided, do you end up with a different article than

the one you end up with when using your URL? The PubMed

citation my tinyURL leads to is the citation of the relevant paper.

It happens to provide a link to a " Letter to the Editor " but that is

beside the point. Can you provide a different PubMed citation for

the paper in question? One that doesn't have this link to the

letter?

Either way, I don't see how the article supports the statement it is

claimed to support. That was my question.

I don't know what your quote below has to do with my question.

Nor do I understand the relevance of your training in " Statistics

and Mathematics modeling " . I'm not asking for a statistical

analysis of the paper. I'm asking you to show explicitly where the

paper reports data on serum 1,25-D. I don't see any data on

1,25-D.

Here, again, is the quote in question:

" Indeed, neither increased exposure to sunlight nor increased

oral intake of vitamin D raised blood concentrations of

1,25(OH)2D (59-61). "

As near as I can tell, reference #60 refers to the paper I gave a

tinyURL for. The same one you have now given a different URL

for. Either way, how does this paper support the the statement it

is said to support?

Specifically, where does this paper report data on " blood

concentrations of 1,25(OH)2D " ?

Matt

> This points to a letter on the article and NOT the article.

> > http://tinyurl.com/byux2

> >

> > I could be too brainfogged to be reading this paper correctly,

but

> I

> > can't see where they measured 1,25-D, so I don't know how

this

> > citation supports the statement in question.

> >

> > Matt

> >

> The link is

> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204?

> ijkey=fe99627d5acc6955b40ae61731b2cfd88467557d

>

> They talk extensively about " 25-hydroxylation " that is the

production

> of 1,25D. The author that I cited understood well what they are

> talking about --- and I also get it (being trained in Statistics and

> Mathematical modeling makes the article readable) -- but I will

not

> be foolish enough to try to explain it to a brain fog CFIDers....

>

> " The 25-hydroxylation reaction is the prerequisite step for the

> subsequent 1a-hydroxylation and 24-hydroxylation reactions in

the

> kidney. The 1a-hydroxylation reaction produces the active form

of

> vitamin D3, whereas 24-hydroxylation reaction leads to

inactivation.

> Both reactions are strictly controlled by parathyroid hormone,

1,25-

> dihydroxyvitamin D3, and calcium in a reciprocal manner in the

> kidney. "

> From http://www.bioscience.org/2004/v9/af/1455/3.htm

>

> Does that explain things adequately?

[Guest guest]

I can see it because it discusses extensively the various pathways

(giving the pathway names but not the end products such as 1,25D) and

does analysis of them -- unfortunately it does not state it as simply

and clearly as you are seeking.

As I stated in my original post, I found the same information in many

papers --- but never is a very clear and straight forward statement

as this paper. I gather that there was no issues with the other two

papers.

May I suggest that you contact the author of the original paper for

further explanation. I look at this supporting paper and the work to

explain it to a CFIDS brain is not trivial and would be very time

consuming.

> > This points to a letter on the article and NOT the article.

> > > http://tinyurl.com/byux2

> > >

> > > I could be too brainfogged to be reading this paper correctly,