Diet

Do any of you follow the dietary guidelines of Swank or George Jelinek? I'm newly diagnosed and began a diet eliminating meat (with the exception of seafood), dairy, and oil as well as limiting my fat intake to 20 grams/day. I've been doing this for 3 weeks now and it hasn't been nearly as difficult as I expected. My neurologist wasn't convinced of the benefit of the diet but said to "do it if I wanted". I am also using DMD so I am not relying on diet alone.

Just curious if any of you have experience in this. The evidence in the Swank study seems very compelling. Enough that I think it's worth trying. Any other opinions?

[jujuminx]

Yes, I followed a Swank diet for about 9 months. I am now on a sort of modified one.

My MS sx have always gone completely away after a relapse (3 in 20 yrs) and each time, since I didn't know I had MS, I didn't follow the Swank diet. This past time my sx went away following the diet but as I said, they always have gone away w/o following the diet.

Yes, his study is compelling but not sure I would call it evidence of anything scientific, mostly antidotal.

I say, as most here would say, do whatever you feel you need to do to get better. It certainly is a healthy way to eat and will leave you feeling good physically b/c you are eating cleaner. Whether or not that actually helps the sx of MS, I cannot say.

Good luck!

Julie

[Quixotic1]

Hi, I am in favor of any diet that is healthy and helps anyone feel better.

The Swank diet's data is seriously flawed, though it does look good on the surface. He began with an faulty premise and drew unsupported conclusions from 40 years of observation.

First, Dr. Swank began with an erroneous assumption - that people with MS selectively ate a diet rich in red meat, dairy, sugar, fats and some other things.  While it was generally true of his population in Portland, Oregon in 1960, it was also true of populations elsewhere that did not have a high incidence of MS.  As a aside we have newly diagnosed people here that have followed a similar diet for a long time and still developed MS.

Second, he had no control group with who you might compare the people (140 or so) that he followed for 40 years.  A control group would have been matched in age, previous diet, gender, and other factors, but would not have had MS.  Also he should have had data on people with MS who tried his diet and was not helped by it, and followed them for the same 40 years to compare their course of MS.  Also, his data on those who thought they had improvement initially, but who subsequently dropped out is weak at best.

His methods were very casual.  It is very easy to see that people who tried the diet and felt better, also noticing that they had few relapses, might feel that this was due to the diet and whould have adhered to it well.  But, we know that about 15% of all people with MS will have a "benign course" no matter what they do or eat.  It is human nature to try to attribute this kind of thing to doing something special like following a special diet or taking particular supplements.  We have no idea, because of Dr. Swank's methods, how many of his 130+ people would have had a benign course anyway.

On the other hand people who began the diet and did not see an improvement were likely to have dropped out and looked elsewhere for help.  Dr. Swank did not follow them.  We don't know if that number is 10 or 1000.  So all we know is that one group of people have done well for 40 years and they and Dr. Swank attribute this to the diet.

Julie is correct that this kind of information is not scientific.  It is anecdotal.  In medicine anecdotal evidence is something noticed by an observer and reported.  It is more like a story (anecdote).

There have been literally thousands of studies done studying people who get MS and those that don't.  No link to diet has been shown, that holds up to scientific study.  There is even one researcher that uses a diet rich in dark chocolate. (yum)

Now, that said, Swank's diet is not unhealthy and many people feel better when they remove red meat, dairy, and sugar from their diet.  The same can be said for removing gluten, or all meat.  I would encourage people to eat healthily, just not delude themselves into thinking that what they are doing has good science behind it with regard to improving their course of MS.

I have not looked at the Jelinek diet and can't speak to it.

Just remember that if you follow a diet or stand on your head for 30 minutes daily, if you go a year without a relapse you really don't know whether you would have been relapse-free without the diet or the headstands.  That's why controlled studies are needed to let us know if our attempts at changing our lives have any usefulness.

Quix, MD

[cjldb]

The DMD studies face many of the same criticisms because they also do not count the number of people who drop out because they see no improvement so the results are skewed in favor of drugs. I am not saying they don't work just that the studies face many of the same issues. They also have a vested financial interest in convincing us that these drugs work. I think it is much easier to adjust to giving ourselves a shot every day or a few times a week than it is to adjust to a new healthier lifestyle. It is also easier to study people who are willing to take medicines rather than trusting that they will honestly report what they eat every day. I'm sure you a familiar with the China Study, which also presents compelling evidence (you may not consider it scientific evidence) that diet is the cause of many of our modern, primarily western diseases.

I suppose I just feel I have an obligation to myself and my family (who are my potential future care givers) to do everything possible to keep myself healthy and mobile so I choose to do both. If diet works I'm thrilled, if meds work, I'm thrilled because I'm doing that too. I really don't care which works for me I just hope one of the two does. And at this point I'm not willing to miss an opportunity to improve my prognosis because I like food too much.

[Sumanadevii]

Like with anything in life...extremes are never good.  Steve Jobs is the face of this issue.  My cousin another.  

Sad to see so many taken down a path that leads to their death.  

[tingletingle]

Hi,

From my strictly lay point of view the evidence of the Swank diet working is compelling. The big drain is having to wait 1 to 5 years to see maximum benefits. With respect, I don't believe anyone here has been on the diet for that period of time. If anyone is interested in the actual Swank paper here it is:

http://www.overcomingmultiplesclerosis.org/News-And-Events/Whats-New-Out-There/Detail/For+those+who+have+never+read+Swank's+paper+in+the+Lancet/

I've only been on the diet for 8 weeks but it is my sincere hope that I will be here in 5 years to let you all know whether the diet has made any improvement. It may very well be a complete waste of time but then again it just may work and I'll still be able to walk.

Don't give up your DMD.

Blessings
Alex

[cjldb]

Alex, I agree that it is hard to wait so long to see results. However, I would much rather be proactive while I wait than sit back to wait to see what happens while I don't do everything I can. I will definitely keep up the DMD, like I said I'm doing ALL I can to stay healthy and mobile.

Like you, I hope in 5 years we will all be here and active and sharing what has worked for us.