![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 32. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 29, 2006, at 16:39:32
In reply to Magnesium and sore/tender breasts?, posted by LizinManhattan on May 29, 2006, at 13:47:34
> Hi,
> 4 or 5 days ago I began taking 250 mg of magnesium. About 2 days ago I noticed that my breasts are sore! They are actually hurting. It is kind of similar to PMS soreness, but much more severe. Any ideas?
> Thanks!
> LizIt sounds like a paradoxical reaction, as magnesium is generally recommended for women who have that specific symptom. In addition to the magnesium, take between 250 and 500 mg calcium. Take it with the magnesium, whenever you take the magnesium, at a ratio of between 1:1 and 1:2 magnesium to calcium.
If that doesn't clear up the problem, then I can only suggest that you try taking very small amounts spread out throughout the day. If *that* fails, I'd turn my back on magnesium supplements, and try again some time later on.
Lar
Posted by LizinManhattan on May 31, 2006, at 0:44:31
In reply to Re: Magnesium and sore/tender breasts? » LizinManhattan, posted by Larry Hoover on May 29, 2006, at 16:39:32
Hi Lar,
Thanks for getting back to me about my unusual question! I'm going to try combining the magnesium with my calcium and see how that goes.
Liz> > Hi,
> > 4 or 5 days ago I began taking 250 mg of magnesium. About 2 days ago I noticed that my breasts are sore! They are actually hurting. It is kind of similar to PMS soreness, but much more severe. Any ideas?
> > Thanks!
> > Liz
>
> It sounds like a paradoxical reaction, as magnesium is generally recommended for women who have that specific symptom. In addition to the magnesium, take between 250 and 500 mg calcium. Take it with the magnesium, whenever you take the magnesium, at a ratio of between 1:1 and 1:2 magnesium to calcium.
>
> If that doesn't clear up the problem, then I can only suggest that you try taking very small amounts spread out throughout the day. If *that* fails, I'd turn my back on magnesium supplements, and try again some time later on.
>
> Lar
Posted by honeybee on May 31, 2006, at 12:17:27
In reply to Re: Magnesium and sore/tender breasts? » Larry Hoover, posted by LizinManhattan on May 31, 2006, at 0:44:31
Liz,
I thought I'd tried to post, but I agree! Something about the balance of the two. One of the things that has always been successful in reducing monthly breast tenderness for me has been calcium (and evening primrose oil). It's commonly "prescribed" by natural remedy books for that same problem, so, yeah, maybe it's the ratio that was off.
Let us know how it works.
Honeybee
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 12:27:32
In reply to Re: Magnesium and sore/tender breasts?, posted by honeybee on May 31, 2006, at 12:17:27
> Liz,
>
> I thought I'd tried to post, but I agree! Something about the balance of the two. One of the things that has always been successful in reducing monthly breast tenderness for me has been calcium (and evening primrose oil).Yes, evening primrose oil is a very good augment to the magnesium/calcium thing. EPO has something special in it. Not sure what, but it does have something special going on.
Lar
Posted by honeybee on May 31, 2006, at 15:04:52
In reply to Re: Magnesium and sore/tender breasts? » honeybee, posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 12:27:32
It's definitely a mystery.
But, Larry, maybe you can suss out a little more information from this article than I?
http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/eve_0291.shtml
Under "Mechanism of Action" it reads:
The possible anti-inflammatory and anti-aggregatory actions of EPO may be accounted for by examining the role of GLA in eicosanoid biochemistry. GLA is metabolized to the 20-carbon polyunsaturated fatty acid dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid (DGLA; 20: 3n-6), which is a precursor to the 1-series prostaglandins, such as prostaglandin E1 (PGE1). The action of PGE1 on inflammatory cells (e.g., polymorphonuclear leukocytes or PMNs) is mostly inhibitory. PGE1 increases intracellular cyclic AMP (cAMP). This increase reduces the release of lysosomal enzymes, PMN chemotaxis and the margination and adherence of PMNs in the blood vessels. PGE1 is also thought to inhibit lymphocyte function.
PGE1, in addition to its role in suppressing the inflammatory process, inhibits platelet aggregation and has vasodilatory activity.
GLA, via its metabolite DGLA, has an inhibitory effect on leukotriene (LT) synthesis. Leukotriene B4 (LTB4) is an inflammatory mediator. DGLA is metabolized to 15-hydroxyl DGLA, which blocks the conversion of arachidonic acid to LTs, such as LTB4.
In summary, GLA may suppress inflammation through its metabolism to DGLA, which, in turn, can competitively inhibit the pro-inflammatory 2-series prostaglandins and 4-series leukotrienes. The incorporation of GLA and its metabolites in cell membranes may also play a role in the possible anti-inflammatory, antithrombotic, anti-atherogenic and antiproliferative actions of EPO.
It's still greek to me...(and I don't speak Greek.)
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 16:22:55
In reply to Re: Magnesium and sore/tender breasts?, posted by honeybee on May 31, 2006, at 15:04:52
> It's definitely a mystery.
>
> But, Larry, maybe you can suss out a little more information from this article than I?I'm sure I can, actually. It's hard to know what you don't get, so lemme say this:
Gamma-linolenic acid and alpha-linolenic acid are both omega-6 fats. They both have three unsaturated positions, but apart form the omega-6 position and one other one, they have the third double bond in different places.
Because they have these bonds in different positions, the stuff the body turns them into (the prostaglandins and leukotrienes and all that) means different things. The bond position reads like Braille to chemosensors that are exposed to them. The position of each bond really matters.
So, GLA goes on to be elongated and desaturated, but it becomes the 20-carbon 4-unsaturated fatty acid called dihomogammalinolenic acid. Don't ask me what the hell that is supposed to mean, but I don't think it has anything to do with sex. The *usual* 20-carbon omega-6 product is called arichadonic acid. It is what all that alpha-linolenic acid that is in vegetable oils turns into. We are eating about 30 times the amount of alpha-linolenic as ever before. It is not good for you. All that ALNA becomes a heap of arichidonic acid.
Arichidonic acid is converted to pro-inflammatory chemicals, such as the prostaglandin eicosanoids type 2 (PGE2).
Dihomogammalinolenic acid is converted into anti-inflammatory chemicals, such as PGE1.
Eicosapentaenoic acid (from fish oil) goes on to form anti-inflammatory chemicals such as PGE3.
By taking enough fish oil to compete with all that alpha-linolenic acid everybody is swamped with, you also inhibit the GLA going to the wrong stuff. It all works good, if you take a source of GLA with your fish oil. Just take the GLA once in a while, not every day.
Now, there are a few good sources of GLA. Borage oil is much higher in GLA than is evening primrose. The thing is, I thing EPO has something extra, quite apart from the GLA, doing some good stuff. A phytoestrogen? A flavonoid? Something we haven't identified, but something good for PMS. Something good, apart from the GLA content, I mean.
Lar
Posted by honeybee on May 31, 2006, at 17:12:22
In reply to Re: Evening primrose and sore/tender breasts? » honeybee, posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 16:22:55
Wait, really? Why is it important that one take the GLA not every day? Sorry to derail into narcissistic pondering of my own program, but I've been taking EPO and Fish Oil every day, in about a 1:1 ratio (it's about a gram of each). It's rather annoying for me, too, because I want to be taking lots of fish oil, but it seems to make me nervous. I have no earthly idea why.
At any rate, I do, more or less, understand the conversions and the ways that the EPA and the GLA have anti-inflammatory properties. But, why only take GLA every other day, say? Where does it "go in the wrong places," as you described it?
By the way, how was the concert? I'm deliriously curious what it was.
Wishing I were a chem major...
hb
Posted by honeybee on May 31, 2006, at 17:14:19
In reply to Re: Evening primrose and sore/tender breasts? » honeybee, posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 16:22:55
Ooops! Meant to direct this to you, Larry. Here's the message again:
Wait, really? Why is it important that one take the GLA not every day? Sorry to derail into narcissistic pondering of my own program, but I've been taking EPO and Fish Oil every day, in about a 1:1 ratio (it's about a gram of each). It's rather annoying for me, too, because I want to be taking lots of fish oil, but it seems to make me nervous. I have no earthly idea why.
At any rate, I do, more or less, understand the conversions and the ways that the EPA and the GLA have anti-inflammatory properties. But, why only take GLA every other day, say? Where does it "go in the wrong places," as you described it?
By the way, how was the concert? I'm deliriously curious what it was.
Wishing I were a chem major...
hb
> > It's definitely a mystery.
> >
> > But, Larry, maybe you can suss out a little more information from this article than I?
>
> I'm sure I can, actually. It's hard to know what you don't get, so lemme say this:
>
> Gamma-linolenic acid and alpha-linolenic acid are both omega-6 fats. They both have three unsaturated positions, but apart form the omega-6 position and one other one, they have the third double bond in different places.
>
> Because they have these bonds in different positions, the stuff the body turns them into (the prostaglandins and leukotrienes and all that) means different things. The bond position reads like Braille to chemosensors that are exposed to them. The position of each bond really matters.
>
> So, GLA goes on to be elongated and desaturated, but it becomes the 20-carbon 4-unsaturated fatty acid called dihomogammalinolenic acid. Don't ask me what the hell that is supposed to mean, but I don't think it has anything to do with sex. The *usual* 20-carbon omega-6 product is called arichadonic acid. It is what all that alpha-linolenic acid that is in vegetable oils turns into. We are eating about 30 times the amount of alpha-linolenic as ever before. It is not good for you. All that ALNA becomes a heap of arichidonic acid.
>
> Arichidonic acid is converted to pro-inflammatory chemicals, such as the prostaglandin eicosanoids type 2 (PGE2).
>
> Dihomogammalinolenic acid is converted into anti-inflammatory chemicals, such as PGE1.
>
> Eicosapentaenoic acid (from fish oil) goes on to form anti-inflammatory chemicals such as PGE3.
>
> By taking enough fish oil to compete with all that alpha-linolenic acid everybody is swamped with, you also inhibit the GLA going to the wrong stuff. It all works good, if you take a source of GLA with your fish oil. Just take the GLA once in a while, not every day.
>
> Now, there are a few good sources of GLA. Borage oil is much higher in GLA than is evening primrose. The thing is, I thing EPO has something extra, quite apart from the GLA, doing some good stuff. A phytoestrogen? A flavonoid? Something we haven't identified, but something good for PMS. Something good, apart from the GLA content, I mean.
>
> Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 7:24:26
In reply to Re: Evening primrose and sore/tender breasts? » Larry Hoover, posted by honeybee on May 31, 2006, at 17:14:19
> Wait, really? Why is it important that one take the GLA not every day? Sorry to derail into narcissistic pondering of my own program, but I've been taking EPO and Fish Oil every day, in about a 1:1 ratio (it's about a gram of each). It's rather annoying for me, too, because I want to be taking lots of fish oil, but it seems to make me nervous. I have no earthly idea why.
I discovered a mistake I made, so I needed to do it over again, anyway. I got messed up on the trivial or common names of these fatty acids (I really do understand how confusing it all sounds....trust me). I did not verify what I wrote, something I usually do. So, I apologize. I will re-write that older message, and let's just substitute this new one for the old one, shall we?
What do chemists mean when they say "trivial name" or "common name"? Aspirin is a common name for a particular substance, but so is acetyl-salicylic acid. Chemists developed a better naming system, called IUPAC. Aspirin (trivial) is called 2-(acetyloxy)benzoic acid (IUPAC). Maybe that's not a great example. How about the common-named selegeline? Its IUPAC name is N-methyl-1-phenyl-N-prop-2-ynyl-propan-2-amine. With a little patience, I could draw a structure for that, just from the IUPAC name. But I'm not going to give up talking about cholesterol, instead of 10,13-dimethyl-17-(6-methylheptan-2-yl)-2,3,4,7,8,9,11,12,14,15,16,17-dodecahydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]phenanthren-3-ol. Nuh-uh.
Like I say, I got into trouble with the common names of these dang fatty acids. Linoleic acid is not the same thing as linolenic acid. Did you catch that? To make it worse, there are two versions (what chemists call isomers) of linolenic acid. Well, two common versions. There is a third one, too. There are alpha-, beta-, and gamma-linolenic acids. And, some vegetable oils have one or more of those, *and* linoleic acid, in them. It gets confusing. No sh*t, Sherlock.
With the IUPAC nomenclature, I wouldn't have made my mistake. But, to keep my words in accordance with the names you're likely to come across, I'll use both.
Here is the corrected version of what I said earlier:
Gamma-linolenic acid ((Z,Z,Z)-6,9,12-Octadecatrienoic Acid) and linoleic acid ((Z,Z)-9,12-Octadecadienoic Acid) are both omega-6 fats. Usually, where you find GLA, there's also tons of linoleic acid. GLA is just linoleic acid with one more unsaturated bond, but that one is in a different place than where the other 3-times unsaturated fatty acid, alpha-linolenic acid ((Z,Z,Z)-9,12,15-Octadecatrienoic Acid; omega-3, sometimes confusingly just called linolenic acid) has it.
Because they have these bonds in different positions, the stuff the body turns them into (the prostaglandins and leukotrienes and all that) means different things. The bond position reads like Braille to chemo-sensors that are exposed to them. The position of each bond really matters.
So, if GLA goes on to be elongated, but *not* desaturated, becoming the 20-carbon 3-unsaturated fatty acid called dihomogammalinolenic acid ((Z,Z,Z)-8,11,14-Eicosatrienoic Acid). Don't ask me what the hell that is supposed to mean (the dihomo part), but I don't think it has anything to do with sex. The *usual* 20-carbon omega-6 product is called arachidonic acid ((Z,Z,Z,Z)-5,8,11,14-Eicosatetraenoic Acid). It is what all that linoleic acid that is in vegetable oils turns into. We are eating about 30 times the amount of linoleic acid as ever before. It is not good for you. All that LA becomes a heap of arichidonic acid.
Arachidonic acid (AA) is converted to pro-inflammatory chemicals, such as the prostaglandin eicosanoids type 2 (PGE2).
Dihomogammalinolenic acid (DGLA) is converted into anti-inflammatory chemicals, such as PGE1.
Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, from fish oil) goes on to form anti-inflammatory chemicals such as PGE3.
By taking enough fish oil to compete with all that linoleic acid everybody is swamped with, you also inhibit the GLA going to the wrong stuff (AA). It all works good, if you take a source of GLA with your fish oil. Just take the GLA once in a while, not every day.
How does that work? Omega-3 fats have a higher affinity (than do omega-6s) for the enzyme known as delta-6 desaturase. It adds a double bond (desaturates) 18-carbon-long fatty acids. Because enzymes are stupid, it also saturates fatty acids that already have this desaturated spot. Fish oil (already desaturated right there) inhibits the enzyme, by binding in the active site and keeping GLA from binding to it. If GLA binds to that enzyme, it "reverts" from its special biochemical identity, and just goes on to form more of that arachidonic inflammatory stuff. So, by "blocking out" the GLA, it has only one option, to go on to become an anti-inflammatory prostaglandin of the PGE1 category. (That is simplified, but it's the best I can do without totally sounding like that other paper.)
If GLA supps didn't work for you, maybe this is why.
If you take GLA oils in fairly large doses, only once in a while, you minimize all the congestion around those essential enzymes that desaturate these polyunsaturated fats, while simultaneously maximizing the yield of beneficial prostaglandins.
Now, there are a few good sources of GLA. Borage oil is much higher in GLA than is evening primrose. The thing is, I think EPO has something extra, quite apart from the GLA, doing some good stuff. A phytoestrogen? A flavonoid? Something we haven't identified, but something good for PMS. Something good, apart from the GLA content, I mean.
Everybody has a unique tolerance for these oils that happen to be very rich in unusual polyunsaturated fatty acids. That goes for flax oil, fish oil (any marine oil, or algal oil), borage, evening primrose and so on. I urge people to take as much as they tolerate. It's all good, so long as you don't make yourself sick, in a novel way, by taking these oils.
I can't take anywhere near as much fish oil as some people report, but others can't manage nearly as much as I do. There is a vast range of tolerability. Do the experiment, by all means, but if the effect is unpleasant, back down until you find one that is. Then, just keep taking the stuff. Try a higher dose later on, to see if your tolerance has increased.
Lar
Posted by LizinManhattan on June 2, 2006, at 0:09:01
In reply to Re: Magnesium and sore/tender breasts?, posted by honeybee on May 31, 2006, at 12:17:27
Hi,
I have been combining my Magnesium and Calcium now, and it seems to help a bit. However, at the same time I also switched bras, to a looser one. Who knows which helped; I guess I'll try switching bras again to see!
As for EPO, I already take one capsule twice a week because I take fish oil.
Ah, the world of supplements!
Thanks!
Liz> Liz,
>
> I thought I'd tried to post, but I agree! Something about the balance of the two. One of the things that has always been successful in reducing monthly breast tenderness for me has been calcium (and evening primrose oil). It's commonly "prescribed" by natural remedy books for that same problem, so, yeah, maybe it's the ratio that was off.
>
> Let us know how it works.
>
> Honeybee
Posted by LizinManhattan on June 2, 2006, at 0:14:25
In reply to CORRECTED post about polyunsaturates » honeybee, posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 7:24:26
Hi Larry,
I just have to ask you how you got to be so knowledgeable? Is it a lot of reading, or do you have a chemist/doctor type of background? Just curious as you seem to know so much about so many different things. Any good books/websites to recommend about supplements?
Liz
Posted by ClearSkies on June 2, 2006, at 10:21:04
In reply to Re: Evening primrose and sore/tender breasts? » honeybee, posted by Larry Hoover on May 31, 2006, at 16:22:55
> Now, there are a few good sources of GLA. Borage oil is much higher in GLA than is evening primrose. The thing is, I thing EPO has something extra, quite apart from the GLA, doing some good stuff. A phytoestrogen? A flavonoid? Something we haven't identified, but something good for PMS. Something good, apart from the GLA content, I mean.
>
> LarYes!! I've been taking EPO for years for my pms. I took part in a 6-month study, where various things like irritability, breast tenderness and bloating, were charted every day.
Although some women take EPO for about a week before their period, I find it most effective when taken every day, 1300mg.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 3, 2006, at 12:46:28
In reply to Larry Hoover, question for you » Larry Hoover, posted by LizinManhattan on June 2, 2006, at 0:14:25
> Hi Larry,
> I just have to ask you how you got to be so knowledgeable?I don't know, for sure. Other than I needed to learn, because medical science was not up to the task of making me well again.
> Is it a lot of reading, or do you have a chemist/doctor type of background?
Yes. Yes.
> Just curious as you seem to know so much about so many different things.
I've, as they say, "worn many hats", in my life.
The most recent occupation I held was "long-haul trucker." But clearly, there is more to me than that?
I am mostly sort-of self taught. Yet, I graduated #1 in my class, having obtained four scholarships and seven academic awards.... in something or other. ;-)
I don't mean to be obtuse. And yet I do.
I am a freak of nature. Yet, I am not.
I worked for some time, for a very influential non-governmental organization. You would recognize the name, once you got the confusion with professional wrestling out of the way.....
And yet, a Peterbilt was my last professional home.
> Any good books/websites to recommend about supplements?
> LizI shall answer that question, although likely not today.
Regards,
Lar
Posted by llrrrpp on June 4, 2006, at 15:44:26
In reply to CORRECTED post about polyunsaturates » honeybee, posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 7:24:26
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 6, 2006, at 13:11:54
In reply to Larry Hoover, question for you » Larry Hoover, posted by LizinManhattan on June 2, 2006, at 0:14:25
> Hi Larry,
> Any good books/websites to recommend about supplements?
> LizBooks? What is book? Websites, I do.
http://www.beyond-a-century.com/
They are sales oriented, but they often give biochemical arguments for their products. Just a good browze, but has a half decent search, I think.http://www.papanature.com/store/ProductsList.aspx?c=Herbs&cid=health
Another sales oriented site, but they link to a variety of health encylopedia sites.http://www.anyvitamins.com/vitamin-info.htm
Yet another vendor, with a decent reference section.http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/index.html
Linus Pauling invented megavitamin therapy (more or less). They carry on, in his name.http://jn.nutrition.org/
This journal requires subscription for some articles, but a goodly number are full-text to the public.http://lab.nap.edu/
Full-text books, online. If your search terms are specific nutrients, it will pull up books that discuss how they calculated the RDA, and why, etc.http://www.thorne.com/index/mod/amr/a/amr_backissues
http://www.thorne.com/alternative/back.html
Thorne research publishes Alternative Med Review, and you can read some very detailed articles about specific nutrients, by browsing through back issues. You have to log in?, so it's a tiny hassle, to get started.http://web.archive.org/web/20031119104251/http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ah/food/
Food composition data, the *old* USDA database, which was way way better, collated by a buddy at Princeton. This is an archive page, so you can't search other than what's right here.http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=12-35-50-00
The new USDA site. <shrug>http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsLookups/Depletions.html
What drugs do to you. What they deplete.http://fermat.nap.edu/html/fcc/
Food additive monographshttp://nasw.org/mem-maint/awards/01Taubesarticle1.html
I just think everyone should read Taubes.Lar
P.S. Thanks for asking. I forgot I had some of those links. I didn't even check everywhere yet. Links. Links. Links all over the place.
Lar
Posted by dessbee on June 8, 2006, at 10:40:01
In reply to I've tried combining Ca and Mg, posted by LizinManhattan on June 2, 2006, at 0:09:01
Recommended intake for magnesium is 250-350 mg.
Your food intake will give you at the least 200 mg. So you should not supplement more than 100 mg of Mg (preferably together with 200 mg calcium).
Posted by dessbee on June 8, 2006, at 13:07:23
In reply to Magnesium and sore/tender breasts?, posted by LizinManhattan on May 29, 2006, at 13:47:34
Magnesium can worsen depressive symptoms. If you feel fatigue and lack of energy it could be a warning sign of too much magnesium.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 8, 2006, at 15:18:42
In reply to Re: I've tried combining Ca and Mg, posted by dessbee on June 8, 2006, at 10:40:01
> Recommended intake for magnesium is 250-350 mg.
> Your food intake will give you at the least 200 mg. So you should not supplement more than 100 mg of Mg (preferably together with 200 mg calcium).What are your references for this information? I don't believe the situation is anywhere near as clearcut and precise as you are stating it to be.
Lar
Posted by dessbee on June 9, 2006, at 9:15:35
In reply to Re: I've tried combining Ca and Mg » dessbee, posted by Larry Hoover on June 8, 2006, at 15:18:42
I agree that nothing is clearcut, but it would be quite time consuming finding all references of all articles I have read ;-)
My standpoint is that it upsets when supplement industry supply extreme doses of any vitamin.
Consmers should be careful.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 9, 2006, at 12:17:52
In reply to Re: I've tried combining Ca and Mg » Larry Hoover, posted by dessbee on June 9, 2006, at 9:15:35
> I agree that nothing is clearcut, but it would be quite time consuming finding all references of all articles I have read ;-)
>
> My standpoint is that it upsets when supplement industry supply extreme doses of any vitamin.
> Consmers should be careful.I think it is really important to address the assumptions when you give guidance. That's all.
Just in ballpark terms, I'd say a typical fairly robust human specimen has around a kilogram of magnesium, in their body. Somebody has done the elemental analysis, I'm sure....I'm just pulling a number out of thin air, off the top of my head......but it's a significant amount of magnesium, whatever the true value is. A lot more than sodium chloride, for sure. Yet we know sodium deficiency will kill you.
Your body relies on a constant redissolution of bone crystals, which is balanced by redeposition of bone crystals. There are two competing cell lines, the osteoclasts and the osteoblasts, working to undo each other's work. One lays bone down, the other takes it away.
The purpose, I believe, is to provide ready calcium and magnesium. We all know about calcium channels, and how cells fire. No doubt, calcium is important. But in all the rush to trumpet calcium, magnesium has been totally overlooked. The experts know that, too. Government funded studies, the NHANES reports. Fully analyzed. Americans are grossly magnesium deficient. The whole population is. Not enough intake to balance stress in our lives. The rat race requires magnesium replenishment.
The "powers that be" define nutrient intake with reference to overt deficiency. They do not recommend on the basis of optimal intake. They don't even try to do that. And somehow, that has become translated into some magic nutritious intake level. It ain't so, and never was.
I think the minimal sustainable intake for magnesium ions ought to be up around 800-1000 mg/day. If you do have a kilogram of the stuff, that's only 0.1% allocated to the daily flux. The daily in and out. In and out of the gut. In and out of the blood. In and out of the urine.
They're slowly catching on. Here's a good article, below, full text. In the heading is a search function. I don't know why, but you have to pay to read recent articles, pretty much, on this site. But there's a lot of free ones. A lot of full text, well written articles.
Check the correlation between magnesium intake and high blood pressure. It's in one of the papers you can pull up, for free, using the search function. Check the correlation between magnesium and mitral valve problems. Magnesium and asthma/hayfever.
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/9/2879
The RDA numbers are woefully inadequate for optimal health.
Lar
Posted by dessbee on June 9, 2006, at 13:19:23
In reply to Re: I've tried combining Ca and Mg » dessbee, posted by Larry Hoover on June 9, 2006, at 12:17:52
Well, I think you should be more careful with your recommendations. 800-1000 mg Magnesium is going to intoxicate alot of people.
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
Posted by dessbee on June 14, 2006, at 5:28:30
In reply to Re: 800-1000 mg Magnesium ? » dessbee, posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2006, at 20:53:36
I disagree. Your recommendations might actually kill someone. Vitamin D is the most toxic vitamin known to man. 4000 IU of Vitamin D will cause hypercalcemia and calcification of blood vessels.
You seem too think the more the better. It is quite the opposite. Larry, start staking 4000 IU today and I promise you will not be a part of this forum anymore!
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 14, 2006, at 9:41:44
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.
I'm going to just start again. That value was a daily flux. It assumes 200-400 mg magnesium from food and water. Hard water is a significant source of calcium and magnesium ions. Its effect on soap (nothing more than free fatty acids, in pure soap) proves the presence of calcium and magnesium ions. The rest of that 800-1000 must come from supplements, if it isn't coming from diet. That gives a daily supplement intake of 400-800 mg magnesium (the boundaries of the two ranges). I always recommend splitting the dose. I always recommend taking it with food. I always recommend starting low, and going slow. The inference that I was advocating a bolus dose on an empty stomach is incorrect. That would give an adverse reaction, as you have inferred. But it's not going to happen if you follow the rest of what I have said about magnesium supplementation.
Now, to the better graph I spoke of last night. I found it, this morning. With my awake brain.
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/5/1563S/FIG2
Click on it, and it loads the full sized image, so you can read the text embedded in the chart.
RDA is curve 3. I speak to curve 5, in my recommendations. Optimal intake, absent any signs of impairments by even subclinical toxic effects, in even the most sensitive individuals.
The curves they show had to be crammed into the figure. The flat part of the "bowl" shape, in between the two sets of curves, is often incredibly wide. For zinc, though, these curves are pretty much just how it is. For selenium, there are orders of magnitude inside the "bowl".
This is my philosophy of nutrition, being in the bowl, not stuck on the low edge, where RDA is.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 14, 2006, at 9:50:16
In reply to Re: Vitamin D 4000 IU/day???? » Larry Hoover, posted by dessbee on June 14, 2006, at 5:28:30
> I disagree. Your recommendations might actually kill someone. Vitamin D is the most toxic vitamin known to man. 4000 IU of Vitamin D will cause hypercalcemia and calcification of blood vessels.
I'm sorry, but science has moved on from those beliefs. Vitamin D comes in 3 forms, in nature. One of those forms, ergocalciferol, is toxic in overdose. D3, is not. You can't buy the toxic version any more, but the prohibition has stuck around.
> You seem too think the more the better. It is quite the opposite. Larry, start staking 4000 IU today and I promise you will not be a part of this forum anymore!
Here's a recent editorial about megadose vitamin D therapies. There's a study in that same journal issue, where injected doses of vitamin D were 600,000 IU. That is not a typo. The internal links on this page will pull up the full-text of the study I just mentioned.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/183_01_040705/ebe10337_fm.html
Lar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Alternative | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.