Re: methylation (again) long - why do we care?!

[Guest guest]

>>I can not understand this under/over methelator issue at all. For

some reason every time I try to read posts on this one I just get

confused.

I do not think this is one of the all time critically defining

issues. But it may help in the general sense. For one thing, after

poking around a few other message boards, there are several Pfeiffer

patients who do not understand this either. Their " individualized "

supplement protocols from Pfeiffer are not consistent with the

Pfeiffer methylation groups at the site...as we noted here. The

supplement protocols ARE consistent with all the other stuff we

found showing that if you are an undermethylator, you may benefit

from adding more precursors through diet or supplements. This tells

me that there is something missing in their explanation on their web

site. Hopefully will get a good answer.

So why do we care about methylation at all? " methylation " is

like " phenol " in that there are hundreds of " methylation " reactions

in the body. In general, when some compounds receive a methyl group,

it " starts " a reaction (such as turning a gene on). When the methyl

group is " lost " or removed, the reaction stops (or a gene is turned

off).

Some of the more relevant " methylation " reactions would be:

1. getting methyl groups turns " on " detox reactions that detox the

body of chemicals, including phenols. So if you are phenol

sensitive, and you increase your methylation, then theoretically

your body can process more phenols and you can eat fruits without

enzymes!

2. getting methyl groups turns " on " serotonin, and thus melatonin,

production. Therefore, if you under-methylate, you can increase your

methylation and have higher more appropriate levels of serotonin and

melatonin without having to take SSRIs or supplements for sleeping.

3. if you are an over-methylator you can take stuff to decrease the

methylation and turn off reactions that need to be off.

This is the general idea. To what extent this actually works in real

life for any individual is back to " every one is different. " But

this is one thing that Pfeiffer really looks at. I hope this

explanation helps. I am just figuring it out too.

Something to note is that everyone isn't an over OR under

methylator. There are more groups than that or you may be just fine

in regards to methylation. Even if Pfeiffer has an exact count, 45%

+ 15% = 60% so almost half the people are neither.

Where this MIGHT be helpful would be in picking supplements. So

someone may do badly on the high B6 protocol. If that person does

badly on the DMG too this may be a clue that they will do poorly on

ALL the methylation precursors so they can steer clear of that group

in high doses. And vice versa, if they did really well with one,

then they may also do well with others in the group. Of course, they

may not see additional benefit if the methylation process is fixed

with the first supplement, but it is something that might help a

parent know why their child is consistently doing well or poorly

with a group of supplements.

Is there any evidence to support this? Well, I am looking at the ARI

data gathered from parent surveys. Let's say Pfeiffer is exactly

correct and undermethylators are about 45% of the " autism "

population. These are the values for the precursors for methylation:

- calcium 39% saw improvment

- DMG 43% saw improvement

- Folic acid 44% saw improvement

- B6/mag (both of these are precursors) 46% saw improvement

- Zinc 43% saw improvement

So if you look at any of the precursors, really, most are around

that 45% mark of undermethylators (calcium was a little low, but it

is a supporting element). So we have a mark of consistency here.

SAMe, methionine, and B12 were not choices. What this does NOT point

out is which came first. Was zinc low for some reason not related to

methylation and because it was low, methylation dropped? or are you

a genetically low-methylator to begin with and do not utilize the

nutrients at hand well? Or was folic acid the bottle-neck? or

magnesium deficiency? Or an injured gut which cannot adequately

absorb any of the nutrients? or....

This is how I see it, just as a general guideline that may be

helpful, not a cast in stone type of thing.

.

[Guest guest]

Thank you !! This is the first menthelator explanation I have

been able to really follow and understand :-) So...if my daughter

has phenol issues and did well on TMG pre enzymes she is most likely

at at least a bit of an undermenthelator. Interesting that I could

never take her off TMG before enzymes without a bad,bad reaction. For

example, she had a stomach bug once and didn't have anything for a

few days and she started doing this awful humming noise-I had

forgotten she ever did it!! Boy was I glad to get the TMG back in her

and it disappeared immediately. She lost eye contact, etc etc.

However, shortly after starting enzymes I was advised her hyper

behavior/sleep problems might be TMG related and we backed off then

dropped it and voila!! She is fine without it :-)

--

- In @y..., " jornmatt " <kjorn@t...> wrote:

> >>I can not understand this under/over methelator issue at all.

For

> some reason every time I try to read posts on this one I just get

> confused.

>

> I do not think this is one of the all time critically defining

> issues. But it may help in the general sense. For one thing, after

> poking around a few other message boards, there are several

Pfeiffer

> patients who do not understand this either. Their " individualized "

> supplement protocols from Pfeiffer are not consistent with the

> Pfeiffer methylation groups at the site...as we noted here. The

> supplement protocols ARE consistent with all the other stuff we

> found showing that if you are an undermethylator, you may benefit

> from adding more precursors through diet or supplements. This tells

> me that there is something missing in their explanation on their

web

> site. Hopefully will get a good answer.

>

> So why do we care about methylation at all? " methylation " is

> like " phenol " in that there are hundreds of " methylation " reactions

> in the body. In general, when some compounds receive a methyl

group,

> it " starts " a reaction (such as turning a gene on). When the methyl

> group is " lost " or removed, the reaction stops (or a gene is turned

> off).

>

> Some of the more relevant " methylation " reactions would be:

> 1. getting methyl groups turns " on " detox reactions that detox the

> body of chemicals, including phenols. So if you are phenol

> sensitive, and you increase your methylation, then theoretically

> your body can process more phenols and you can eat fruits without

> enzymes!

>

> 2. getting methyl groups turns " on " serotonin, and thus melatonin,

> production. Therefore, if you under-methylate, you can increase

your

> methylation and have higher more appropriate levels of serotonin

and

> melatonin without having to take SSRIs or supplements for sleeping.

>

> 3. if you are an over-methylator you can take stuff to decrease the

> methylation and turn off reactions that need to be off.

>

> This is the general idea. To what extent this actually works in

real

> life for any individual is back to " every one is different. " But

> this is one thing that Pfeiffer really looks at. I hope this

> explanation helps. I am just figuring it out too.

>

> Something to note is that everyone isn't an over OR under

> methylator. There are more groups than that or you may be just fine

> in regards to methylation. Even if Pfeiffer has an exact count, 45%

> + 15% = 60% so almost half the people are neither.

>

> Where this MIGHT be helpful would be in picking supplements. So

> someone may do badly on the high B6 protocol. If that person does

> badly on the DMG too this may be a clue that they will do poorly on

> ALL the methylation precursors so they can steer clear of that

group

> in high doses. And vice versa, if they did really well with one,

> then they may also do well with others in the group. Of course,

they

> may not see additional benefit if the methylation process is fixed

> with the first supplement, but it is something that might help a

> parent know why their child is consistently doing well or poorly

> with a group of supplements.

>

> Is there any evidence to support this? Well, I am looking at the

ARI

> data gathered from parent surveys. Let's say Pfeiffer is exactly

> correct and undermethylators are about 45% of the " autism "

> population. These are the values for the precursors for methylation:

> - calcium 39% saw improvment

> - DMG 43% saw improvement

> - Folic acid 44% saw improvement

> - B6/mag (both of these are precursors) 46% saw improvement

> - Zinc 43% saw improvement

>

> So if you look at any of the precursors, really, most are around

> that 45% mark of undermethylators (calcium was a little low, but it

> is a supporting element). So we have a mark of consistency here.

> SAMe, methionine, and B12 were not choices. What this does NOT

point

> out is which came first. Was zinc low for some reason not related

to

> methylation and because it was low, methylation dropped? or are you

> a genetically low-methylator to begin with and do not utilize the

> nutrients at hand well? Or was folic acid the bottle-neck? or

> magnesium deficiency? Or an injured gut which cannot adequately

> absorb any of the nutrients? or....

>

> This is how I see it, just as a general guideline that may be

> helpful, not a cast in stone type of thing.

>

> .