or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Women's Health  › REAL folate is much better than folic acid
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

REAL folate is much better than folic acid - Page 2

post #21 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by WuWei View Post
However, the issue regarding the cancers, asthma and other diseases linked to folic acid supplementation is concerning.
Which study you linked above shows this data, please. I clicked on one and it showed no such thing. Thank you.
post #22 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by claddaghmom View Post
So who has a good source of supplemental folic acid? I've just been taking the bottle my mom passed to me...Bronson's labs?
Thorne supplements (multivits, B complexes, prenatal, other products as well, I think) have real folate (look for 5-mthf on the label), Metagenics has a 5-mthf only supp (if you want only folate and no other B vitamins or anything else), I _think_ there are a few other companies that make multis, I'm just not sure of the names. Anyone know the others?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WuWei View Post
I do appreciate the concern regarding the "some people" can utilize folic acid. However, the issue regarding the cancers, asthma and other diseases linked to folic acid supplementation is concerning. And most pregnant women do not know if they are carrying the MTHFR gene and a large portion of the population has some polymorphism variant.

Pat
And to me, that's the reason I would really like prenatals, and really, all vitamin supplements, but especially prenatals, to have actual folate, the same kind found in food. Between so-so diets and long-term, pre-existing health issues, plus all the weird chemicals in our environment that our bodies are trying to attach methyl groups to to excrete, I think many of us would be better off supplementing real folate. You know I'm a firm believer in supplements.
post #23 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talula Fairie View Post
I think that there is no sound evidence to prove any of this, and thinking of it logically, most babies would not be healthy if this were true.

My head is spinning, honestly.

This is what i'm thinking too...

OK- IDEALLY everyone would be eating whole foods, or at least food based natural supplements. But... that's not going to happen. At best, there will be a portion of the population that does this, and more and more people all the time hopefully making an effort to do this.

What about everyone else? Fear mongering about vitamins so they are afraid to take a prenatal and yet aren't able/don't know how to eat well enough to provide for the baby they are growing? Folic acid, for the majority, is better than nothing.

IN my life personally i've known 2 young girls that had to terminate their pregnancies because of sever neural tube defects... moms that had poor nutritional and only starting supplementing vitamins once finding out they were pregnant, and it wasn't enough. Devastating
post #24 of 126
a couple of things have popped out lately:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0817201946.htm -- folic acid additives to food are resulting in excess folic acid floating around the body leading to Pat's list of diseases.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1104111735.htm -- supplemental folic acid in late pregnancy may predispose the child to asthma later in life.

the science is not murky - folate is important for growing fetuses BUT ingest 5-MTHF or eat food folate. avoid folic acid.
post #25 of 126
But it really is not an all or nothing here.

I don't have to only slave over my stove (or juicer) to get food folate and I don't only have to have babies with severe neural tube defects to see the effects of not enough appropriate folate in my body (along with other essential nutrients).

I anticipate getting pregnant soon, so I am supplementing with metagenics 5-mthf supplement, and using a Thorne multi vite. On top of that I am doing normal healthy eating, juicing and adding lentils and liver a couple times a week which contains food folate. And I am doing the lentils and liver now, just in case I can't stand them in the early formative months of my pregnancy.

My boys do not have glaring signs of neural defects, but they do have midline issues (tongue ties, sacral dimple and one spit up to a level that made me suspicious it was a midline defect). Taking appropriate folate will help with these issues. These issues became an important part of them developing their non-ige food allergies. It was definitely a piece of their health puzzle.

Maybe this wouldn't be as much of an issue, except that folic acid is in our food supply, and we are encouraged to supplement it in large quantities. It also wouldn't be as much as an issue if not only lay people, but also doctors were aware of the difference between forms. I have found many doctors (and supplement companies and hfs advisors) either not understand or bother to explain the difference between folate (folinic acid) and folic acid. Often those two words are used interchangabley.

One problem I see is that folic acid is not necessarily better than nothing. It can be worse than nothing in the body, which WhoMe touched upon.
post #26 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by megviolet View Post
Folic acid, for the majority, is better than nothing.
About HALF of the folate-related neural defects are explained by the most common genetic mutation at the MTHFR locus. (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7455/1535)

Seems to me that genetic screening for MTHFR mutations prior to conception (or at least in early pregnancy) should become a de facto standard.
post #27 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Which study you linked above shows this data, please. I clicked on one and it showed no such thing. Thank you.
1. Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ et al. Folate intake, alcohol use, and postmenopausal breast cancer risk in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Apr;83(4):895-904.
Conclusions: Our results do not support the hypothesis that high folate intake reduces breast cancer risk; instead, they suggest that a high intake, generally attributable to supplemental folic acid, may increase the risk in postmenopausal women.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/83/4/895

2. Kim YI. Does a high folate intake increase the risk of breast cancer? Nut Rev; 2006; 64(10PT1) 468-75.
Furthermore, although food folate intake was not significantly related to breast cancer risk, total folate intake, mainly from folic acid supplementation, significantly increased breast cancer risk by 32%.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17063929

3. Figueiredo JC et al. Folic acid and risk of prostate cancer: results from a randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Mar 18;101(6):432-5. Epub 2009 Mar 10.
Folic acid supplementation was associated with increased risk of prostate cancer. By contrast, baseline dietary folate was inversely associated with prostate cancer risk.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c...hort/101/6/432

4. Fife, J et al. Folic Acid Supplementation and Colorectal Cancer Risk; A Meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis. 2009 Oct 27.
In fact, a 2009 meta-analysis of studies of folic acid supplementation showed that those receiving supplements for over three years had an increased risk of pre-cancerous bowel adenomas and bowel cancer.
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/can...r-risk-factors

5. Whitrow MJ. Effect of Supplemental Folic Acid in Pregnancy on Childhood Asthma: A Prospective Birth Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Oct 30.
Asthma was reported in 11.6% of children at 3.5 years (n = 57) and in 11.8% of children at 5.5 years (n = 50). Folic acid taken in supplement form in late pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of childhood asthma at 3.5 years (relative risk (RR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08, 1.43) and with persistent asthma (RR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.69).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19880541

6. Haberg SE, London SJ, Stigum H, Nafstad P, Nystad W. Folic acid supplements in pregnancy and early childhood respiratory health. Arch Dis Child. 2009 Mar;94(3):180-4.
CONCLUSIONS: Folic acid supplements in pregnancy were associated with a slightly increased risk of wheeze and lower respiratory tract infections up to 18 months of age. The results suggest that methyl donors in the maternal diet during pregnancy may influence respiratory health in children consistent with epigenetic mechanisms.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19052032

7. Ebbing M et al. Cancer Incidence and Mortality After Treatment With Folic Acid and Vitamin B12. JAMA. 2009;302(19):2119-2126.
Conclusion Treatment with folic acid plus vitamin B12 was associated with increased cancer outcomes and all-cause mortality in patients with ischemic heart disease in Norway, where there is no folic acid fortification of foods.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/302/19/2119

8. Charles D et al. Taking folate in pregnancy and risk of maternal breast cancer. BMJ 2004;329:1375–6
In women randomised to high doses of supplemental folate, all cause mortality was about a fifth greater, and the risk of deaths attributable to breast cancer was twice as great.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC535452/

9. Harvard School of Public Health; The Nutrition Source: Keep the Multi, Skip the Heavily Fortified Foods; www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/folicacid/ Date accessed: 8/29/08.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...cid/index.html

10. Hirsch S et al. Colon cancer in Chile before and after the start of the flour fortification program with folic acid. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Apr;21(4):436-9.
Conclusion: Our data provide new evidence that a folate fortification program could be associated with an additional risk of colon cancer.
http://journals.lww.com/eurojgh/Abst...e_start.7.aspx

11. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/591111
In an interview with Medscape Oncology, Dr. Mason said that the new data from Chile "contribute to this concern that the total amount of folic acid present in the food stream can potentially contribute to an increase in certain types of cancer."

It is not just a question of folic-acid fortification of food, however; there is also the issue of folic-acid supplementation, such as in multivitamin pills. Dr. Mason noted that recent data from the US Centers for Disease Control suggest that 70% to 80% of the general adult population has detectable levels of folic acid in the blood, but "under more natural conditions, folic acid would not even be present in the blood."

12. Kwan ML et al. Maternal diet and risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Public Health Rep. 2009 Jul-Aug;124(4):503-14.
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that it may be prudent for women to consume a diet rich in vegetables and adequate in protein prior to and during pregnancy as a possible means of reducing childhood ALL risk in their offspring.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19618787

Tower RL et al. The epidemiology of childhood leukemia with a focus on birth weight and diet. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2007;44(3):203-42.
Increased intake of fruits and vegetables has been associated with decreased leukemia risk and, relatedly, lack of maternal folate supplementation has been associated with increased childhood leukemia risk, possibly by causing DNA hypomethylation and increased DNA strand breaks. Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene polymorphisms modify this risk.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs...ournalCode=lab

Petridou E et al. Maternal diet and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in young children.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Aug;14(8):1935-9.
Thompson et al. (45) reported that offspring of women who during their pregnancies received supplements with folate (naturally found in several leafy vegetables) had lower risk of ALL. Additionally, Jensen et al. (46) have found that increased maternal intake immediately before the index pregnancy (and inferentially, during that pregnancy) of vegetables and fruits was associated with decreased risk of ALL.
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/14/8/1935.full

Pogoda JM et al. An international case-control study of maternal diet during pregnancy and childhood brain tumor risk: a histology-specific analysis by food group. Ann Epidemiol. 2009 Mar;19(3):148-60.
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/9/1660.full

14. Sellers TA et al. Dietary folate intake, alcohol, and risk of breast cancer in a prospective study of postmenopausal women. Epidemiology. 2001 Jul;12(4):420-8.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3703376

15. Kim YI. Folic acid fortification and supplementation--good for some but not so good for others. Nutr Rev. 2007 Nov;65(11):504-11.
However, recent human studies have suggested that FA supplementation and fortification may promote the progression of already existing, undiagnosed, preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions, thereby corroborating earlier observations from animal and in vitro studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18038943

17. Bjelakovic G, Nikolava D, Gluud LL, et al. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patient with various diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;16(2):CD00776.
MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-seven randomised trials with 232,550 participants were included.
CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention. Vitamin A, beta-carotene, and vitamin E may increase mortality.

18. Mayne ST. Beta-carotene, carotenoids, and disease prevention in humans. FASEB. 1996;10(7):690-701.
The finding that lung carcinogenesis and cardiovascular disease can be enhanced by supplemental beta-carotene may ultimately lead to a clearer understanding of the role of diet in the etiology and prevention of these diseases.
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/7/690

19. Goodman GE. Prevention of lung cancer. Current Opinion in Oncology 1998;10(2):122-126.
CONCLUSIONS. After an average of four years of supplementation, the combination of beta carotene and vitamin A had no benefit and may have had an adverse effect on the incidence of lung cancer and on the risk of death from lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and any cause in smokers and workers exposed to asbestos.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8602180
CONCLUSIONS: CARET participants receiving the combination of beta-carotene and vitamin A had no chemopreventive benefit and had excess lung cancer incidence and mortality.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8901853

20. Kolata G. Studies Find Beta Carotene, Taken by Millions, Can't Forestall Cancer or Heart Disease. New York Times, Jan 19, 1996.People who took dietary supplements of the nutrient beta-carotene while enrolled in a large cancer prevention trial continued to have increased rates of lung cancer six years after the trial was stopped early and the supplements discontinued, long-term follow-up of trial participants has shown.
http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials...inal-CARET1204


These are excerpts, conclusions and summaries from the above linked medical studies discouraging multi-vitamin supplementation, with links to the actual source documents.

PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION AND THE LINKS WITH YOUR OB/GYN.



Pat
post #28 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by megviolet View Post
IN my life personally i've known 2 young girls that had to terminate their pregnancies because of sever neural tube defects... moms that had poor nutritional and only starting supplementing vitamins once finding out they were pregnant, and it wasn't enough. Devastating
I don't think it's fair to say that the two pregnancies you know of that ended with severe neural tube defects ended that way because the moms had poor nutrition and started prenatal vitamins too late. I also know someone who was very conscientious with nutrition who lost a baby to a severe neural tube defect. It is not fair to always blame the mom.
post #29 of 126
thank you!
post #30 of 126
Study or not, it is best to get your nutrient from food. You cannot go wrong that way. I like Garden of Life products since they are from whole foods.
post #31 of 126
Thread Starter 
My interest in this issue grew from this study:

The researchers also say that they uncovered another interesting trend that some people who received these nutrients from multivitamin pills had an increased risk of developing the disease. According to the researchers, individuals who said they used multivitamins, and whose blood showed traces of these nutrients, had a 139 percent increased relative risk of developing pancreatic cancer.
http://www.huliq.com/23341/dietary-v...ic-cancer-risk
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cg...act/67/11/5553

Another separate study of 81,922 women and men, specific to folate from food sources.
CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that increased intake of folate from food sources, but not from supplements, may be associated with a reduced risk of pancreatic cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16537833

EAT YOUR B-VITAMINS.

Recent research published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute suggests that taking multivitamins more than seven times a week can increase the risks of contracting the disease. This research was unable to highlight the exact vitamins responsible for this increase (almost double), although they suggest that vitamin A, vitamin E and beta-carotene may lie at its heart. The correlation was strongest for men with a family history of the disease, and who also took selenium, beta-carotene or zinc supplements.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6657795.stm

Multivitamin Supplement Use and Risk of Breast Cancer: Discussion
In addition, past use (of multivitamin supplement) for 5 or more years was significantly associated with risk of developing ER–PR– breast cancer and breast tumors without lymph node metastasis. The associations between multivitamin use and breast cancer risk differed according to tumor size; a reduced risk was observed for ≤2-cm tumors but an increased risk for >2-cm tumors.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/578426_3

Antacids and birth control pills inhibit folate bio-availability.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/d...nt-folate.html


L-methyl folate is the most biologically active and usable form of supplemental folate.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/200184-overview#section~workup
http://www.mombu.com/medicine/skin-c...r-1904824.html


Pat
post #32 of 126
If you where like me and unable to eat well in early pg And had a very iffy diet before pg folic acid was a lifesaver.

I have nural tube defects on my moms side, dads side and dh's maternal side of the family. There is no way I would risk not taking folic acid while pg and before pg.

I just cant imagine taking that kind of risk with your childrens health.
post #33 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCatLvrMom2A&X View Post
If you where like me and unable to eat well in early pg And had a very iffy diet before pg folic acid was a lifesaver.

I have nural tube defects on my moms side, dads side and dh's maternal side of the family. There is no way I would risk not taking folic acid while pg and before pg.

I just cant imagine taking that kind of risk with your childrens health.
no one is saying you absolutely shouldn't take something. It is about what form you should be taking if you are taking something. Folate (folinic acid) is the form your body know what to do with. So the discussion about not taking folic acid, is not saying you shouldn't take folinic acid.

Some in this discussion are staunch whole foods only, while others (including me) are happy to include high quality, correct form supplements in our lives.
post #34 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by WuWei View Post
Birth defects often occur due to the absence of adequate food folate, generally not the absence of synthetic B9 (folic acid),
Interesting. Do you have a peer-reviewed source for this statement?
post #35 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by TanyaLopez View Post
Thorne supplements (multivits, B complexes, prenatal, other products as well, I think) have real folate (look for 5-mthf on the label), Metagenics has a 5-mthf only supp (if you want only folate and no other B vitamins or anything else), I _think_ there are a few other companies that make multis, I'm just not sure of the names. Anyone know the others?



And to me, that's the reason I would really like prenatals, and really, all vitamin supplements, but especially prenatals, to have actual folate, the same kind found in food. Between so-so diets and long-term, pre-existing health issues, plus all the weird chemicals in our environment that our bodies are trying to attach methyl groups to to excrete, I think many of us would be better off supplementing real folate. You know I'm a firm believer in supplements.
Thanks, mama! I will check them out. This whole thread makes so much sense to me. I don't think I've quite hit a healthy level of whole foods in our lifestyle so I'd love to get the right supplement. And meanwhile I'll keep eating my collard greens.
post #36 of 126
Wow, WuWei, you're pretty well-read, as far as abstracts go.

I decided to read a few of your articles. The actual articles. Not the abstracts. As you might expect, reading abstracts don't give you sufficient information. For instance,

Quote:
5. Whitrow MJ. Effect of Supplemental Folic Acid in Pregnancy on Childhood Asthma: A Prospective Birth Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Oct 30.
Asthma was reported in 11.6% of children at 3.5 years (n = 57) and in 11.8% of children at 5.5 years (n = 50). Folic acid taken in supplement form in late pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of childhood asthma at 3.5 years (relative risk (RR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08, 1.43) and with persistent asthma (RR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.69).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19880541
So, when you read the whole article, you find out that the authors reported:

Quote:
We found no increased risk associated with supplement use in early pregnancy.
And later:

Quote:
Current recommendations worldwide advocate a daily intake of around 400 lg of folic acid prior to pregnancy and in the first trimester
for the prevention of neural tube defects (4)...Our findings are in agreement with current recommendations pre- and in early pregnancy. However, they highlight the need to consider current supplementation strategies so as to maximize the neuroprotective effects of folic acid while minimizing potential adverse postnatal respiratory effects. We acknowledge
the need for further studies replicating our findings before any specific recommendations against folic acid supplementation in late pregnancy can be made.
The authors do NOT suggest that pregnant women forgo supplements in early pregnancy, and openly recommend that more studies are required before policy on prenatal supplementation (at any time in pregnancy) is reconsidered. They acknowledge the benefit of such supplements for the prevention of neural tube defects...but maybe they really are working for Big Pharma after all.

Oh, they also discussed several shortcomings with the Halberg study that you cite...for the record.

Next:

Quote:
8. Charles D et al. Taking folate in pregnancy and risk of maternal breast cancer. BMJ 2004;329:1375–6
In women randomised to high doses of supplemental folate, all cause mortality was about a fifth greater, and the risk of deaths attributable to breast cancer was twice as great.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC535452/
Yeah, that's what the abstract says. Want to know what the discussion says, IN THE AUTHORS' OWN WORDS?

Quote:
The increase in mortality and in death from breast cancer with high doses of folate could be a chance finding. The number of deaths was small, the confidence intervals were wide, and we had no prespecified hypothesis that taking folate supplements in pregnancy would increase the risk of cancer.
Oh, and that article drew criticism from a few other researchers. The letters are printed in BMJ if you want to bother reading them.

One more?

Quote:
Recent research published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute suggests that taking multivitamins more than seven times a week can increase the risks of contracting the disease. This research was unable to highlight the exact vitamins responsible for this increase (almost double), although they suggest that vitamin A, vitamin E and beta-carotene may lie at its heart. The correlation was strongest for men with a family history of the disease, and who also took selenium, beta-carotene or zinc supplements.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6657795.stm


So...this article is about taking too many mulitvitamins - more than the daily recommended dosage, and its link with PROSTATE cancer, right? Also, how does this study relate to folic acid in prenatals?

Shall I go on? I've got nothing against promoting that pregnant woman eat nutritional food, nor am I suggesting that if a woman can ensure that her diet meets all the recommended dietary requirements, that she needs to take a multi-vitamin. That said, going around *warning* people not to take multi-vitamins based on research that you haven't even read (unless you just ignored the stuff I found?) is not only irresponsible, but dangerous. For crying out loud...
post #37 of 126
I will say that most vitamins are absorbed better if you get them through food, but that can really be a challenge. There's nothing wrong with taking supplements. I had a really hard time recovering from pregnancy as I had hyperemesis and couldn't keep vitamins down, I always wished I could just keep the supplements down!
post #38 of 126
I feel like it's really unfortunate this discussion began and continued on such an inflammatory note. I think the real message here is: folic acid/folinic acid/folate is an incredibly important contributor to reducing neural tube defects.

For many people, folic acid is a perfectly acceptable form of this really important compound. It is not, however, the form found naturally in foods, and some people have genetic mutations or other nutrient deficiencies that make it difficult for them to use folic acid properly. For those people, folic acid can be detrimental (as would many substances your body can't use properly).

More importantly though, especially in a pregnancy forum, for people who have difficulty using folic acid, you won't get the protective benefits against neural tube defects unless you are taking folate (in food or supps form). What I take away from this is that it is a pretty simple thing for me to ensure I get enough of the folate form of this compound, in case I'm one of the people who can't use folic acid well.

I know the OP, and I fully believe she simply wants the best for babies, and to get word out about an important and simple thing pregnant mamas can do so you don't end up in the allergies forum with many of us who popped into this thread, wishing you'd known about folate earlier (instead of when you have a child with midline defects and/or allergies and/or other issues because of an inability to handle folic acid well). That said, I don't think it's the message I would have taken from the original post. There is such pressure on all us mamas to do the very best for our babies, and it's so hard to know what those things are!

Blessings to all the little ones you're growing...
post #39 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delicateflower View Post
Interesting. Do you have a peer-reviewed source for this statement?
Role of parental folate pathway single nucleotide polymorphisms in altering the susceptibility to neural tube defects in South India.

Variants of folate metabolism genes and the risk of conotruncal cardiac defects.

The methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene variant (C677T) as a susceptibility gene for tetralogy of Fallot.

Genetics of human neural tube defects.

MTHFR C677T polymorphism as a risk factor of neural tube defects in Malay: a case control study.

High milk consumers have an increased risk of folate receptor blocking autoantibody production but this does not affect folate status in Spanish men and women.

Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase deficiency and low dietary folate increase embryonic delay and placental abnormalities in mice.

[A case-control study on the risk factors of neural tube defects in Shanxi province]

Genetic and biochemical determinants of serum concentrations of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, a potential neural tube defect risk factor.

Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase, common polymorphisms, and relation to disease.

Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene polymorphisms resulting in suboptimal oocyte maturation: a discussion of folate status, neural tube defects, schizophrenia, and vasculopathy.

Has enhanced folate status during pregnancy altered natural selection and possibly Autism prevalence? A closer look at a possible link.

Polymorphisms in genes related to folate and cobalamin metabolism and the associations with complex birth defects.

Two MTHFR polymorphisms, maternal B-vitamin intake, and CHDs.

Of interest is the significant interaction (p = .008) towards a nearly twofold increased risk (CHD) in mothers carrying the MTHFR 1298C allele and using a periconception folic acid supplement.


Pat
post #40 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanguine_speed View Post
I don't think it's fair to say that the two pregnancies you know of that ended with severe neural tube defects ended that way because the moms had poor nutrition and started prenatal vitamins too late. I also know someone who was very conscientious with nutrition who lost a baby to a severe neural tube defect. It is not fair to always blame the mom.
Totally true, and i didn't mean to imply that. I'm just going by what i know of these 2 specific cases, one was a friend in highschool and the other was a different friend's cousin... and what they/I were told at the time was it was folic acid... one had an eating disorder and the other had (according to her) an allergy to bread and cereal... so... i wasn't trying to overgeneralize, sorry




Quote:
Originally Posted by mamafish9 View Post
I feel like it's really unfortunate this discussion began and continued on such an inflammatory note. I think the real message here is: folic acid/folinic acid/folate is an incredibly important contributor to reducing neural tube defects.

For many people, folic acid is a perfectly acceptable form of this really important compound. It is not, however, the form found naturally in foods, and some people have genetic mutations or other nutrient deficiencies that make it difficult for them to use folic acid properly. For those people, folic acid can be detrimental (as would many substances your body can't use properly).

More importantly though, especially in a pregnancy forum, for people who have difficulty using folic acid, you won't get the protective benefits against neural tube defects unless you are taking folate (in food or supps form). What I take away from this is that it is a pretty simple thing for me to ensure I get enough of the folate form of this compound, in case I'm one of the people who can't use folic acid well.

I know the OP, and I fully believe she simply wants the best for babies, and to get word out about an important and simple thing pregnant mamas can do so you don't end up in the allergies forum with many of us who popped into this thread, wishing you'd known about folate earlier (instead of when you have a child with midline defects and/or allergies and/or other issues because of an inability to handle folic acid well). That said, I don't think it's the message I would have taken from the original post. There is such pressure on all us mamas to do the very best for our babies, and it's so hard to know what those things are!

Blessings to all the little ones you're growing...
I can see this.... the initial post came across wrong and i don't think anyone would debate that folate is better than folic acid.
I've been waiting over a month to get the supplements i ordered online and in the meantime taking a multivitamin sparingly while dealing with morning sickness and making a huge effort to get what i need from a whole foods diet
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Women's Health
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Women's Health  › REAL folate is much better than folic acid