Magnesium sulphate as a supplement

[Helge Gund]

I have a kilo of mangnesium sulphate, a.k.a. Epsom salts. Is
there anything wrong with taking it as a cheap supplement for
magnesium deficiency? I take 300 mgs of magnesium daily in
multi-supplements, but it doesn't seem to be enough, and I
don't want to up the iron intake in those multi-supplements.
If I'm not mistaken, sulphate is not as well absorbed as
conventional magnesium supplements, which means that I could
take a bit more than I otherwise would have done, right? Half
of the salts is magnesium, right? What about the sulfur?

-- Helge

[Mbansch314]

If I'm not mistaken, sulphate is not as well
> absorbed as conventional magnesium supplements, which means
> that I could take a bit more than I otherwise would have
> done, right? Half of the salts is magnesium, right? What
> about the sulfur?
>
Helge,

There are many different forms of magnesium available in
supplements. Yes, the form does affect bioavailability.

This is similiar to the issue that Alf raised for contaminants
in fish oil supplements. Some people are going to insist on no
contamination. While theoretically possible, what is the
benefit versus the cost? If people really understood how much
mercury, cadmium and pesticides were already going into their
body every day from the foods that they eat, they would not
worry about fish oil supplements.

Could a bad batch get produced with mercury at a detectable
level (higher than what you would like to see?). Probably, but
if you look for the data for canned tuna you are more likely
to get a high dose of mercury from this rather than from fish
oil supplements.

More bioavailable forms of magnesium will cost more money. If
you want to spend the extra money fine, it's your decision.

You can compensate for lower absorption by taking more of the
supplement. Even with the higher intake, it will still be
cheaper in the long run.

If you know that you have a problem with too little stomach
acid, then the difference in absorption may be enough to
seriously consider a better form of magnesium.

I reviewed an awful lot of company data for raw material for
supplements. Some made a lasting impression on me. Natural
versus synthetic vitamin E. Different forms of Coenzyme Q10.
Different forms of Chromium.

For minerals, and this includes chromium, Albion produced the
best chelates currently available. Every one of their mineral
supplements was absorbed so much better than anything else
available I told Ken Frank, M.D., the owner of APP
supplements, that he should consider using Albion minerals for
his entire supplement line. Just for iron, the absorption was
over 50%. I said you compensate for this much better
absorption by lowering the dose.

He put his pencil to the paper and figured out that it would
not really increase the cost of his supplements that much. He
decided not to use Albion chelates though because he feared
that anyone reading his product label would not buy his
supplements because the mineral dose was too low.

Several years ago I responded to a poster who was having
trouble with the iron supplement that she had been prescribed
by her doctor for iron deficiency anemia. I told her to find a
source of the Albion iron-chelate. I did not hear back from
her so I do not know if she was able to locate a source.

Just yesterday I was thinking about this issue again,
mineral bioavailablity and decided to see how Albion was
doing. At the time that I reviewed their data, they were a
new supplier of minerals for supplement companies to use in
their product lines.

I hoped that at least a few companies would realize how good
they were and use them. If you do a google serach for Albion,
you will find Albionlabs website.

There are a few companies using their mineral chelates. I went
into Carlson's site because I use their High DHA supplement.

I do not have a problem with stomach acid production so I
would not purposely seek out these kinds of supplements. But
if I did, this is what I would use.

What would be useful is a table of all of the different
forms of minerals and then the data for human absorption for
each form of the mineral. This data has been collected but
to my knowledge no one has taken the time to compile all of
this data.

The Albion chromium was so much better absorbed than either
the picolinate or polynicotinate forms that I wonderd if the
data could actually be true? I decided that all of their data
was indeed accurate.

What they have done is to cage each mineral in an amino acid
cage. Normal chelates only react with the carboxylic acid
group of the amino acid or organic acid. They developed a
process to completely cage the mineral just like iron and
cobalt are completely caged.

But unlike iron and cobalt, their cage is much smaller. The
gut will take up pieces of protien and completely digest it.
If a mineral is seen on an amino acid, my understanding is
that the gut will not take it up. The mineral has to be
released before the gut will take up the amino acid.

Mineral-amino acid complexes are more soluble in water than
mineral-phytic acid complexes.

Albion has done such a good job of hiding the mineral that the
gut linning appears to take up their chelates extremely well
and then strip off the amino acids. This then results in much
better mineral absorption.

They are more expensive than amino acid or organic acid
chelates. But the improvement in absorption is much better
than what is seen in moving from something like magnsium
sulfate to magnesium citrate.

Because the absorption is so much better than anything else
currently available, you are going to have to lower the dose
in the supplement. I did not have time to see if all of the
companies using their chelates did this.

[Paul Roger]

"Helge Gundersen [Mr.]" <helge.gundersen@chello.no> wrote in
message news:010220021231427564%helge.gundersen@chello.no...
> I have a kilo of mangnesium sulphate, a.k.a. Epsom salts. Is
> there anything wrong with taking it as a cheap supplement
> for magnesium deficiency? I take 300 mgs of magnesium daily
> in multi-supplements, but it doesn't seem to be enough, and
> I don't want to up the iron intake in those
> multi-supplements. If I'm not mistaken, sulphate is not as
> well absorbed as conventional magnesium supplements, which
> means that I could take a bit more than I otherwise would
> have done, right? Half of the salts is magnesium, right?
> What about the sulfur?

Don't overdo it <g>.

Paul R

[Alf Christ]

On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:32:16 GMT, "Helge Gundersen [Mr.]"
<helge.gundersen@chello.no> wrote:

>I have a kilo of mangnesium sulphate, a.k.a. Epsom salts. Is
>there anything wrong with taking it as a cheap supplement for
>magnesium deficiency? I take 300 mgs of magnesium daily in
>multi-supplements, but

Is the Epsom salt produced for human consume, that is, how
pure Mg is it?? Is there a declaration of impurities like
heavy metals and other elements in the periodic table. These
should mostly be at levels below .01%, for mercury, cadmium,
lead and pentavalent chromium it should be even less. Salts
produced for industrial use has much less accuracy for
impurities than salts (eg. magnesium sulfate, sodium chloride
etc.) for human use and may in fact poison you.

[Alf Christ]

On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 15:57:12 GMT, "mbansch314"
<mbansch314@cox.net> wrote:

>Could a bad batch get produced with mercury at a detectable
>level (higher than what you would like to see?). Probably,
>but if you look for the data for canned tuna you are more
>likely to get a high dose of mercury from this rather than
>from fish oil supplements.

To make it more complex. It was found in the Minamata Bay
accident that the population eating tuna with high amounts of
mercury was much less harmed than the population that ate
other fishes that was in fact lower in mercury but more or
less free of selenium. The very high amounts of selenium in
tuna bind more or less almost all mercury and make it
completely insoluble for absorption, while flame absorption
analysis do not discrepate btw bound and free mercury and do
not detect any bioavailability of the mercury :-) So mercury
poisoned tuna is much less risky to eat than mercury poisoned
cod because in cod there is next to nothing of selenium and
thus more or less of all mercury is bioavailable, while in
tuna and mackerel who are very high in selenium, the mercury
is bound as mercury-selenide complex (Se2- is an important
step in producing the selenocysteine amino acid in enzymes
(the UGA codes primarily for hydroxylserine which after
translation is reacting with selenide to form selenocysteine,
but it is possible that other metals may also react, but this
is unresearched area, my pet guess is As :-) Please remark, it
is my guess, no proves here are available at moment, maybe
this is something to do for you Martin?? You have shorter
distance to those groups who have worked with experimental As
deificency in lab rats. As with Se deficiency, As deficiency
is also lethal, but the symptoms resemble more taurine
deficiency than Se deficiency. With highly purified diet, As
deficiency is most probably able to induce also in humans, but
would most probably be rather seldom, at least if you eat fish
more often than once every 14 day since most fishes are rich
in As, mostly like arsenobetaine which is an osmolyte in fish,
and probably also in humans and maybe even important since
deficiency resemble taurine deficiency which also has
important functions as osmolyte )

Many believes that Se-methionine (main amino acid in
Se-containing plants) can be utilized directly and the same
with free selenocysteine. Unfortunately, these may only be
used in places in competition with methionine and cysteine in
places where these are normally used and may interfere with
the function of these amino acids in the right place. The
selenol group is charged at physiological pH while the normal
SH-group is not charged. It is therefor important for an
enzyme to have the right amino acid in the right place.
Cysteine substituting for Se-cysteine at UGA-codons may be
just as lethal than Se-cysteine substitutin for cysteine at
places where cysteine should have entered.

[Helge Gund]

It's bought at a pharmacy, so I suppose it's intended to be
a laxative.

-- Helge

In article <3c5beda7.3366692@nntp.uio.no>, Alf Christophersen
<alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:32:16 GMT, "Helge Gundersen [Mr.]"
> <helge.gundersen@chello.no> wrote:
>
> >I have a kilo of mangnesium sulphate, a.k.a. Epsom salts.
> >Is there anything wrong with taking it as a cheap
> >supplement for magnesium deficiency? I take 300 mgs of
> >magnesium daily in multi-supplements, but
>
> Is the Epsom salt produced for human consume, that is, how
> pure Mg is it?? Is there a declaration of impurities like
> heavy metals and other elements in the periodic table. These
> should mostly be at levels below .01%, for mercury, cadmium,
> lead and pentavalent chromium it should be even less. Salts
> produced for industrial use has much less accuracy for
> impurities than salts (eg. magnesium sulfate, sodium
> chloride etc.) for human use and may in fact poison you.

[Martin Ban]

alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no (Alf Christophersen) wrote
in message

Alf,

You are absolutely right that selenium toxicity may invovle
the formation of selenium-cysteine complexes. Your broad base
of knowledge is truely impressive, I'm glad that you have
decided to participate in SMN.

Mercury toxicity is supposed to be determined by the ability
to absorb the mercury.

I had no idea that some fish have the ability to detoxify
mercury using selenium. I assumed that most of the mercury was
methyl mercury because that's what I've read. Fish get the
methyl mercury from the bottom of the food chain where the
methyl mercury is apparently formed.

Fish would have to deal with the potential toxicity just like
humans would have to deal with it. Do you know if humans have
the same capability to convert mercury to a non-toxic form
using selenium?

My understanding was that the human liver would try to convert
the mercury to a form that could be excreted in the urine. A
complex with selenium may not be soluble enough to excrete.

[Alf Christ]

On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:00:08 GMT, "Helge Gundersen [Mr.]"
<helge.gundersen@chello.no> wrote:

>It's bought at a pharmacy, so I suppose it's intended to be a
>laxative.

Maybe safe enough then. But don't take too much.

[John 'The]

x-no-archive: yes

OSU Nutrition Snobs be gone!

Once upon a time, our fellow Martin Banschbach rambled on
about "Re: Magnesium sulphate as a supplement." Our champion
being bored in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>I had no idea that some fish have the ability to detoxify
>mercury using selenium.

It is called evolutionary adaptation.

As our oceans get more and more polluted, the genetic ability
to survive the poisons of todays ocean fish will be passed on
to their young. Eventually, the negative people on smn wont
have nothing to complain about, once clean fish become an
evolutionary adaptation reality. :-)
--
John Gohde, Achieving good health is an Art, NOT a Science!

The www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com website is a
cross-browser, cross-platform friendly site.

[Alf Christ]

On 3 Feb 2002 11:33:29 -0800, mbansch314@aol.com (Martin
Banschbach) wrote:

>Fish would have to deal with the potential toxicity just like
>humans would have to deal with it. Do you know if humans have
>the same capability to convert mercury to a non-toxic form
>using selenium?

There is published data showing that mercury-selenium salts
end up in testicles in humans (because there is a real high
turnover of selenium there able to bind the mercury. Whether
or not trimethylmercury react on its own I have to check once
back in office. But it seems there is a balance btr. free
mercury tha may react and bound mercury. (There is always a
steady-state balance btw. stuff o nboth side of a chemical
equation and here it is the left side that may react with
selenide, forming a more or less dead end complex)

[Alf Christ]

On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 23:19:21 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan@JustSayNo.com> wrote:

>As our oceans get more and more polluted, the genetic ability
>to survive the poisons of todays ocean fish will be passed on
>to their young. Eventually, the negative people on smn wont
>have nothing to complain about, once clean fish become an
>evolutionary adaptation reality. :-)

Mercury pollution in sea/water is not a new human invention,
but has existed since about day 0 (big bang), so fishes has
had plenty of time to be able to cope with such pollutions.

[John 'The]

x-no-archive: yes

OSU Nutrition Snobs be gone!

Once upon a time, our fellow Alf Christophersen rambled on
about "Re: Magnesium sulphate as a supplement." Our champion
being bored in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 23:19:21 GMT, John 'the Man'
><DeMan@JustSayNo.com> wrote:

>>As our oceans get more and more polluted, the genetic
>>ability to survive the poisons of todays ocean fish will be
>>passed on to their young. Eventually, the negative people on
>>smn wont have nothing to complain about, once clean fish
>>become an evolutionary adaptation reality. :-)

>Mercury pollution in sea/water is not a new human invention,
>but has existed since about day 0 (big bang), so fishes has
>had plenty of time to be able to cope with such pollutions.

Maybe for the word Mercury, but *not* for the word "toxins"
and other man made pollution.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good health is an Art, NOT a Science!

The www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com website is a
cross-browser, cross-platform friendly site.

[Alf Christ]

On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:50:30 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan@JustSayNo.com> wrote:

>Maybe for the word Mercury, but *not* for the word "toxins"
>and other man made pollution.

Sorry to say, but there are quite a lot of naturally mercury
in sea water, and also in lakes. Mercury is not a manmade
metal (like those made in nuclear reactors etc.) but is found
in different stones and leak out when pH is low enough in
rain, as it is in many countries. We have several lakes where
there has never been any industries at all, but where ground
has high concentrations naturally (mountain that is) of
mercury which is leaked out in a nearby lake giving the fishes
there the highest mercury concentrations most possibly ever
measured. Higher than in the exposed areas in Japan. And
people get ill of eating the fish. It is now banned to fish
any of these fishes for eating.

As I have been told earlier, there are also lakes in US where
there are naturally exposition to mercury where fish are full
of mercury, even if there has never been any industry in the
neighbourhood. One explanation I have seen is rain
distributing the pollution, but rain catched in the area
didn't contain any at all. And there are ground around having
log of mercury which has not been exploited by mines etc.

[N. Thornto]

You can take some Mg as sulphate, but not a lot. I'm going
from memory here, I think the absorption is something like 33%
of the available
Mg. That means if you want a significant dose, you're getting
into the laxative dose range, of 1 teaspoon plus.

The Mg sulph8 is a laxative primarily because it is an
irritant. That is why it is expelled. In other words taking Mg
sulph8 is irritant to your digestive system. That is why you
can only take a limited amount. How much Mg are you looking to
get from the sulph8?

I can't remember off hand what percentage (by weight) of
the sulph8 is
Mh... perhaps someone else can. I am assuming Epsom Salts will
be hydrated Mg So4.

Regards, NT

"Helge Gundersen [Mr.]" <helge.gundersen@chello.no> wrote
in message
> > >I have a kilo of mangnesium sulphate, a.k.a. Epsom salts.
> > >Is there anything wrong with taking it as a cheap
> > >supplement for magnesium deficiency? I take 300 mgs of
> > >magnesium daily in multi-supplements, but

[Helge Gund]

Thanks for your informative reply. I take a mineral complex
and was just thinking of adding a little magnesium to that by
way of the sulphate. Something like 33 % is exact enough for
me :-). It's hydrated (seven molecules).

-- Helge

In article <a7076635.0202080455.7aa11321@posting.google.com>,
N. Thornton <bigcat@meeow.co.uk> wrote:

> You can take some Mg as sulphate, but not a lot. I'm going
> from memory here, I think the absorption is something like
> 33% of the available
> Mg. That means if you want a significant dose, you're
> getting into the laxative dose range, of 1 teaspoon
> plus.
>
> The Mg sulph8 is a laxative primarily because it is an
> irritant. That is why it is expelled. In other words taking
> Mg sulph8 is irritant to your digestive system. That is why
> you can only take a limited amount. How much Mg are you
> looking to get from the sulph8?
>
> I can't remember off hand what percentage (by weight) of the
> sulph8 is
> Mg... perhaps someone else can. I am assuming Epsom Salts
> will be hydrated Mg So4.