Methylfolate vs Folic Acid: Myths vs. Facts

[nandixon]

He's clearly very biased in his beliefs. I only could stomach watching about the first third of the video (plus the part at 19:20), because I felt like I was listening to a spokesperson for the folic acid lobby.

I did a little googling on this guy, Stephen Chaney (aka Steve Chaney), because his video presentation contains too many distortions and it's not what you would expect to hear from an unbiased scientist researcher, at least in my opinion as someone formerly in a similar field.

On the one hand he does appear to be a (retired?) Professor of Biochemistry, but on the other I found a number of websites containing blog pieces that he has written over the years, that appear to be "reviews" especially focusing on the merits of folic acid. At the end of these blogs, below where he signs off, he often does a "PS" or similar with a link to a folic acid-containing product(s).

A particularly telling example, perhaps, is found in a blog from 2011 where the blog host wrote:

Below is an article written by Dr Steve Chaney, who is a high level sales leader in our field, remarkable published researcher and professor in the department of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of North Carolina’s Medical School.

[Bold added]

So it would seem that he receives some sort of product endorsement fee or royalty for his postings, and if this is true he obviously has a serious conflict of interest in presenting anything that has the appearance of being an objective analysis with respect to folic acid.

I didn't spend much time on this, so if anyone has an interest they might double-check the situation.

 

[dannybex]

I did a little googling on this guy, Stephen Chaney (aka Steve Chaney), because his video presentation contains too many distortions and it's not what you would expect to hear from an unbiased scientist researcher, at least in my opinion as someone formerly in a similar field.

On the one hand he does appear to be a (retired?) Professor of Biochemistry, but on the other I found a number of websites containing blog pieces that he has written over the years, that appear to be "reviews" especially focusing on the merits of folic acid. At the end of these blogs, below where he signs off, he often does a "PS" or similar with a link to a folic acid-containing product(s).

So it would seem that he receives some sort of product endorsement fee or royalty for his postings, and if this is true he obviously has a serious conflict of interest in presenting anything that has the appearance of being an objective analysis with respect to folic acid.

Since his video is entitled "The Truth About Methylfolate", perhaps someone should make one entitled "The Truth About Dr. Stephen Chaney".

Thanks @nandixon.

 

[mgk]

There's plenty conflict of interest on the methylfolate side as well. Looking at the biggest advocate, Ben Lynch: he has a supplement company and a company where he trains doctors on MTHFR and methylfolate. Same deal with Amy Yasko.

I can't speak to Chaney's credibility, but I think it's irrelevant. The only thing we can do is look at their arguments and try to validate them with scientifically valid sources.

 

[dannybex]

There's plenty conflict of interest on the methylfolate side as well. Looking at the biggest advocate, Ben Lynch: he has a supplement company and a company where he trains doctors on MTHFR and methylfolate. Same deal with Amy Yasko.

I can't speak to Chaney's credibility, but I think it's irrelevant. The only thing we can do is look at their arguments and try to validate them with scientifically valid sources.

I think the difference with Lynch is that he didn't start the supplement company until about 2 years ago. Up until then he was studying and researching as much as he could about MTHFR, etc..

 

[Sea]

I think the difference with Lynch is that he didn't start the supplement company until about 2 years ago. Up until then he was studying and researching as much as he could about MTHFR, etc..

...and charging money for his opinions and access to his online talks

 

[mgk]

I think the difference with Lynch is that he didn't start the supplement company until about 2 years ago. Up until then he was studying and researching as much as he could about MTHFR, etc..

I don't want to argue the point too much because as I said, I think it's ultimately irrelevant.

I'll respond to your specific point though. He actually started Seeking Health in 2010, and he had another supplement company before that called Health E Goods which he started in 2005. You can see it in his LinkedIn profile here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjaminlynch

I've browsed mthfr.net quite a bit and when recommending supplements he always links to either Seeking Health (in his newer posts) or Health E Goods (older posts).

 

[dannybex]

Good points. I thought it was later. Time flies when you're not having fun.

 

[drob31]

I too am concerned when doctors prop up supplement companies and profit from their theories...

 

[nandixon]

There's plenty conflict of interest on the methylfolate side as well. Looking at the biggest advocate, Ben Lynch: he has a supplement company and a company where he trains doctors on MTHFR and methylfolate. Same deal with Amy Yasko.

I can't speak to Chaney's credibility, but I think it's irrelevant. The only thing we can do is look at their arguments and try to validate them with scientifically valid sources.

I think the difference is that Ben Lynch is upfront that he sells methylfolate related supplements and he provides information in a scientifically unbiased manner.

Chaney on the other hand appears to me to pretend to do objective reviews that are actually an underhanded way of selling products he's compensated for, and he seems willing to make whatever distortions and lapses in scientific reasoning are necessary to accomplish that. For example, his attempting to make methylfolate appear to be an artificial substance, and his claim that the two individuals testing positive for folic acid was proof that folic acid is produced in the human body. To me, as a former chemist who understands what's involved, that creates great problems with his credibility.

I think that the proper, scientifically unbiased way to view the folic acid/methylfolate situation is to realize that although methylfolate (or folinic acid) seems generally to be preferred, folic acid might also sometimes be useful. Although it's a purely artificial substance, folic acid could potentially have the benefit of allowing the body to make all the downstream folate products, including methylfolate, at whatever (slower) rate it wishes. That might be useful for some people. (Some people tolerate neither methylfolate nor folinic acid, but do tolerate folic acid.)

 

[mgk]

I think the difference is that Ben Lynch is upfront that he sells methylfolate related supplements and he provides information in a scientifically unbiased manner.

I don't want to go any further down this path because it's unproductive. I'll just say that I disagree with your assessment of Lynch and leave it at that. Chaney is probably biased too, but there's not much we can do about it other than look at their claims with skepticism, which we should be doing anyway.

For example, his attempting to make methylfolate appear to be an artificial substance, and his claim that the two individuals testing positive for folic acid was proof that folic acid is produced in the human body. To me, as a former chemist who understands what's involved, that creates great problems with his credibility.

I agree that he misrepresented the study somewhat. He made it seem as if the folic acid peaks happened in all subjects when it happened only in 2. His explanation of the peaks isn't supported by any evidence that I can find, and the authors of the paper were hypothesizing about the liver binding theory, so that phenomenon still hasn't been adequately explained.

Here's my understanding of the two theories, just to make sure we're on the same page:

1. Methylfolate displaced previously-ingested folic acid that was tightly bound to folate-binding proteins in the liver. (Paper authors)
2. Folic acid was non-enzymatically formed and because there was already enough folate, it was pushed out of the cell. (Chaney)

I think that the proper, scientifically unbiased way to view the folic acid/methylfolate situation is to realize that although methylfolate (or folinic acid) seems generally to be preferred, folic acid might also sometimes be useful. Although it's a purely artificial substance, folic acid could potentially have the benefit of allowing the body to make all the downstream folate products, including methylfolate, at whatever (slower) rate it wishes. That might be useful for some people. (Some people tolerate neither methylfolate nor folinic acid, but do tolerate folic acid.)

What do you think of the point I mentioned in my reply to Valentijn, that taking methylfolate could override MTHFR's inhibition by SAMe? I haven't found any evidence that that's what happens or that it causes problems, but it makes sense when looking at the biochemistry.

 

[PeterPositive]

Sorry, I didn't read all the replies in the thread but I just wanted to offer an example from my experience.

I have the double MTHFR C677T mutation. In 2011 my homocysteine (first time I tested it in my whole life) was at 98. I was immediately put on high dose folic acid, B12 and B6.

At the time I was bed ridden and could not handle neither B12 nor B6 which gave me too much anxiety, so I just started with 400mcg of folic acid (normal dose) for a couple of months with a couple of very low dose B12 every week.

Two months later the Hcy serum level dropped at 58. It seems pretty clear that my MTHFR enzyme was still working pretty well.

Later I was finally able to introduce higher doses of B12 and B6 and finally the values returned within range, around 14-15. At that point I was able to switch to methylfolate and metyl B12 and the homocysteine level finally dropped around 11...

So yeah... in my case folic acid seem to have worked pretty well. Maybe I was lucky, maybe things are more complicated than what we think (as usual)

 

[mgk]

@PeterPositive: Did you stay on 400mcg folic acid that whole time when your Hcy dropped from 98 to 14-15? If so, that's amazing, I would've thought more would've been needed! Also how much did your day-to-day health improve after the Hcy drop?

 

[PeterPositive]

@PeterPositive: Did you stay on 400mcg folic acid that whole time when your Hcy dropped from 98 to 14-15? If so, that's amazing, I would've thought more would've been needed! Also how much did your day-to-day health improve after the Hcy drop?

After the first two months (Hcy dropped from 98 to 58) I was able to raise B12 to a decent dose (~500mcg) and added B6 (10mg) and I remained on 400mcg of folic acid.

About six months later serum homocysteine was ~15 and stayed there for the subsequent months. Meanwhile I had done the 23andMe test and noticed the MTHFR problem so my doc switched to methylfolate and methyl-B12. This helped a little bit by pushing the level down to ~11.

cheers

 

[nandixon]

What do you think of the point I mentioned in my reply to Valentijn, that taking methylfolate could override MTHFR's inhibition by SAMe? I haven't found any evidence that that's what happens or that it causes problems, but it makes sense when looking at the biochemistry.

Taking excess methylfolate would definitely increase SAMe, not only by (over-)driving the formation of methionine from homocysteine, but also because methylfolate acts as an inhibitor of glycine N-methyltransferase (GNMT) and thus reduces the amount of SAMe the body disposes of via that enzyme. (Methylfolate inhibits GNMT similarly to the way SAMe inhibits MTHFR, and these two processes are normally in a sort of balancing act with one another.)

The extra SAMe will increase at least some of the large number of different methylation reactions that SAMe is used for, including, for example, methylation of DNA.

Most healthy, normal people wouldn't notice any difference from taking even many milligrams of methylfolate (at least not over the short term). For people with ME/CFS or other health conditions, though, the consequences of increasing one or more of the myriad methylation reactions might be very noticeable - good or bad.

 

[Santino]

What blood marker is measured when u ask your doctor for testing folate?

I live in Germany and no matter what you ask, on every lab test, they name it folic acid. However if folic acid is only synthetic and naturally not found in the body, how could the find that I have normal folic acid levels?



So either they are measuring something different and label it wrong as folic acid or folic acid occurs naturally in our body.

 

[PeterPositive]

What blood marker is measured when u ask your doctor for testing folate?

I live in Germany and no matter what you ask, on every lab test, they name it folic acid. However if folic acid is only synthetic and naturally not found in the body, how could the find that I have normal folic acid levels?

Yes, that is a problem with most labs. I have the same problem in Italy.

A couple of years ago I did a methylation panel with the ELN ( http://www.europeanlaboratory.nl/ ) and they provide a breakdown of all major forms of folate, including folic acid, folinic, THF, 5-MTHF etc...

 

[alicec]

What blood marker is measured when u ask your doctor for testing folate?

All forms of folate which are present in blood. The most prevalent form (and the most stable) is methyltetrahydrofolate, but folic acid would be present in significant amounts if it is supplemented or if fortified foods are eaten. Minor amounts of other forms could be present also.

The usual assay is a competitive binding assay using a naturally occurring folate binding protein. The binding protein binds all forms of folate and the assay works by quantitating the degree of competition for binding of a test sample compared with known amounts of folate. The more competition, the more folate is present in the test sample.

I live in Germany and no matter what you ask, on every lab test, they name it folic acid. However if folic acid is only synthetic and naturally not found in the body, how could the find that I have normal folic acid levels?

Strictly speaking it should be called a folate assay and many labs do use this term. However folic acid assay is widely used, even by scientists and labs that should know better.

I think this just shows that industry has succeeded in their brainwashing campaign to convince us that folic acid is a perfect, if not better, substitute for naturally occurring folate.

So either they are measuring something different and label it wrong as folic acid or folic acid occurs naturally in our body.

They are measuring all forms of folate which the binding protein recognises; this includes folic acid. Because the naturally occurring binding protein recognises folic acid doesn't mean that folic acid is naturally occurring however. It just means that the structure is similar enough to natural forms that it can bind.

Folic acid does not occur naturally in the body. As has been noted earlier in this thread, we don't have the enzymes to synthesise it. It can be processed in the body (more or less well depending on various other things) because of structural similarities to naturally occurring forms.

Much of the confusion arises because of loose terminology. Folic acid is used to mean folate which it most definitely isn't.

 

[Santino]

Thanks for your replies.

I will need to start take b vitamins as my homocysteine is skyrocketed (50, while norm is max 12).

However I had horrible crash when I once tried to take a active b complex with methylcobalamin, methyfolate and active b6 as well as all other b vitamins + ascorbylpalmitate.

I had horrible symptoms for 3 days which are typical for extreme mast cell degranulation. I suffer from extreme sensitivites, histamine intolerance and have a mast cell disorder.


I can tolerate hydroxocobalamin, folic acid and inactive b6. Should I stick with those better then?

Oder should try methylcobalamin?

My mutations should be seen below. I am not sure if I have a CBS problem. But one person told me that I have not because if I had then my homocysteine would be low.

 

[PeterPositive]

I can tolerate hydroxocobalamin, folic acid and inactive b6. Should I stick with those better then?

For lowering homocysteine they will work just fine.

 

[Santino]

Despite being compound heterozygous for the MTHFR genes? Prior to measuring my homocysteine I injected folic acid 2,5mg once a week (thought 400mg each day should be enough) and 10mcg b12.

My b12 level was above normal any m folic acid level lower normal. 1 month later both were lower normal but I did not control for the homocysteine.

couldn´t it be harmful to take 2.5mg folic acid daily?


Studies found that some doses of b6, b12 and folic acid work synergistically and that altering the relation reults in lowering the effectiveness.

The optimal dose was 50mg B6, 1mg Folic acid and 1mg cyanocobalamin.


Never tried cyanocobalamin but only hydroxo as injection....