Posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2006, at 20:53:36
In reply to Re: 800-1000 mg Magnesium ? » Larry Hoover, posted by dessbee on June 9, 2006, at 13:19:23
> Well, I think you should be more careful with your recommendations. 800-1000 mg Magnesium is going to intoxicate alot of people.
That's a long-term target. I always recommend starting at 200-300 mg. Always. If taken without preparing the body for it, yes, that dose could intoxicate. The problem is, the flaw in your argument is, that typical magnesium intake is abnormal. Intoxication by that amount (1 gram) of magnesium is abnormal. It would not happen, if you also followed my advice to split the dose over the day, with food. I would not recommend a bolus dose of that quantum. Never. That intoxication could happen is not relevent, barring kidney disease. You will simply spill the excess into urine at the proximal tubules, and fail to bring it back in the distal ones.
Assuming that what is typically observed is also normal is not an a priori assumption that I will ever make.
Look at vitamin D. Over the last decade, the RDA has increased by ten-fold. And it has another order of magnitude yet to go, IMHO. I would not attribute that to fast evolution of the human genome. I would attribute it to actually testing for optimal functioning. A first! Vitamin D is the first vitamin whose recommended intake is to be optimized for human health. 4000 IU/day.
The paper I cited put a low-normal value on magnesium intake about twice that you noted, without citation. And that was a very conservative paper. But also one written during this millenium. Times change, but somehow, I don't think it's people who are changing. It's the thinking that changes, as we improve our observations of healthy people.
There will always be those lucky sods who get by famously on the RDA intake thresholds. Statistically, they are not all that uncommon. However, it seems to be those very people who wish to extrapolate their benificient good fortune upon all the rest of us, who need more than the RDA to avoid health problems. That they can do it is of no use to me, because I cannot. There are people who just plain need more than the RDA. And, it is not so hard to sort it all out, without using blanket prohibitions based on misunderstandings of the statistics underlying the recommendations.
http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309065542/html/19.html
Just look at the figure. RDA is an inadequate intake level, by definition. It is in terms of "overt deficiency", which means what, precisely? Rickets, for vitamin D? I don't know, but overt deficiency sounds unwell to me. Moreover, the definition goes on to assume that it is true for "normal healthy" people. And what of all the rest of us? The ones with health problems, I mean.
I seek a level closer to the UL, one called the TDI. Tolerable Daily Intake, i.e. that level beyond which the most sensitive individuals begin to show signs of adverse effects. Somewhere around one half of the TDI, is what I tend to recommend, unless the interval between RDA and TDI does not permit that luxury, as with zinc.
There's a better graph of the various nutrient intake curves. I'll find it tomorrow.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:650131
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20060601/msgs/656646.html