Hi
@ChetRoi,
I didn't certainly didn't mean to insult you or anyone with my original comments. I also may be misreading the study in some way, but it's my understanding that almost every study uses the terms 'folic acid' and 'folate' interchangeably. And when a different form is in the study, like methylfolate or folinic (or the various scientific names for methylfolate or folinic) then those forms are mentioned specifically. Like this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16889122
I don't see anywhere in this current study where they say they used methylfolate. In fact, it seems like it's not available in Sweden, judging from this paragraph:
"In Sweden, the common form of B12 injective substrate has for more than forty years been hydroxocobalamin, provided in 1 mL ampoules with 1 mg/mL. By the end of last century, also methylcobalamin became available, in 2 mL ampoules with 5 mg/mL; i.e. an ampoule of methylcobalamin contains ten times more cobalamin than an ampoule of hydroxocobalamin. Folate in pharmacological doses is available by
using tablets of folic acid (1 mg or 5 mg)."
If they did use folic acid and got some benefit, then it does indeed make the study more intriguing, as it goes against what Rich and Fred and quite a few doctors have been saying for 7-8 years now.
As for figure one, that seems to be just a generic, simplified diagram of one part of the methylation cycle. I've never heard the term "methylene-folate" used before, but note that in figure one, that comes
before MTHFR changes it to methylfolate. But I'm definitely not the methylation brain on this forum so perhaps
@caledonia,
@Valentijn,
@Hip, or others could weigh in on this?
Again, I could definitely be wrong, and hope I am. I too would love to see more studies -- any studies -- that confirm the benefits of methylation supplementation for our disease. They're certainly long overdue.