Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Photo
* * * * - 9 votes

MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

magnesium threonate l-threonate mg sulfate sulphate

  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

#1 ScienceGuy

  • Location:UK

Posted 13 February 2012 - 02:21 PM


There's been quite a bit of HYPE pimping MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE as a superior form of MAGNESIUM with claims of unique NOOTROPIC effects.

I've looked into what research exists to support these facts and I am sorry to report that the evidence simply does not stack up. :unsure:

In short, there is conclusive substantiated scientific evidence that MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE does not in fact offer any superiority over MAGNESIUM SULFATE ;)

The hype regarding MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE stems from claims that MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE increases BRAIN MAGNESIUM LEVELS to a greater extent than other magnesium forms, which would include MAGNESIUM SULFATE.

THIS IS A FALLACY

As is happens, administration of both MAGNESIUM SULFATE and MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE increase CEREBROSPINAL FLUID (CSF) LEVELS (= BRAIN LEVELS) of MAGNESIUM by exactly the same amount, namely 7-15% :)

The following study demonstrates that administration of MAGNESIUM SULFATE increases CEREBROSPINAL FLUID (CSF) LEVELS (= BRAIN LEVELS) of MAGNESIUM "by 15% and 11% relative to baseline":

Crit Care Med. 2005 Mar;33(3):661-6.

Analysis of the brain bioavailability of peripherally administered magnesium sulfate: A study in humans with acute brain injury undergoing prolonged induced hypermagnesemia.

McKee JA, Brewer RP, Macy GE, Phillips-Bute B, Campbell KA, Borel CO, Reynolds JD, Warner DS.

Source
Neurosciences Intensive Care Unit, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:
Based on preclinical investigations, magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) has gained interest as a neuroprotective agent. However, the ability of peripherally administered MgSO4 to penetrate the blood-brain barrier is limited in normal brain. The current study measured the passage of intravenously administered Mg into cerebrospinal fluid in patients with brain injury requiring ventricular drainage.

DESIGN:
A prospective evaluation of the cerebrospinal fluid total and ionized magnesium concentration, [Mg], during sustained hypermagnesemia was performed.

SETTING:
Neurosciences intensive care unit at a major teaching institution.

PATIENTS:
Thirty patients with acute brain injury secondary to subarachnoid hemorrhage, traumatic brain injury, primary intracerebral hemorrhage, subdural hematoma, brain tumor, central nervous system infection, or ischemic stroke were studied.

INTERVENTIONS:
Patients underwent 24 hrs of induced hypermagnesemia during which total and ionized cerebrospinal fluid [Mg] was measured. Serum [Mg] was adjusted to 2.1-2.5 mmol/L. Cerebrospinal fluid [Mg] was measured at baseline, at 12 and 24 hrs after onset of infusion, and at 12 hrs following infusion termination.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:
At baseline, total (1.25 +/- 0.14 mmol/L) and ionized (0.80 +/- 0.10 mmol/L) cerebrospinal fluid [Mg] was greater than serum total (0.92 +/- 0.18 mmol/L) and ionized (0.63 +/- 0.07 mmol/L) [Mg] (p < .05). Total (1.43 +/- 0.13 mmol/L) and ionized (0.89 +/- 0.12 mmol/L) cerebrospinal fluid [Mg] was maximally increased by 15% and 11% relative to baseline, respectively, during induced hypermagnesemia (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS:
Hypermagnesemia [by Magnesium Sulfate] produced only marginal increases in total and ionized cerebrospinal fluid [Mg]. Regulation of cerebrospinal fluid [Mg] is largely maintained following acute brain injury and limits the brain bioavailability of MgSO4.

PMID: 15753761
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the attached research paper (see below) demonstrates that administration of MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE increases CEREBROSPINAL FLUID (CSF) LEVELS (= BRAIN LEVELS) of MAGNESIUM by 7% - 15% relative to baseline, which is in fact no more than MAGNESIUM SULFATE.


CONCLUSION:

MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE does not in fact offer ANY superiority whatsoever over MAGNESIUM SULFATE :)

UPDATE!: Further research has now emerged regarding MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE.

In addition to the RAT STUDY titled “Enhancement of Learning and Memory by Elevating Brain Magnesium”, please see attached second RAT STUDY titled “Effects of Elevation of Brain Magnesium on Fear Conditioning, Fear Extinction, and Synaptic Plasticity”

Furthermore, I am aware that a new study, this time finally on HUMANS, is currently being carried out, which is due for publication later this year.

So for the time being, we still only have two RAT STUDIES to support the claimed NOOTROPIC EFFECTS of MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE; and since MAGNESIUM SULFATE is proven to elevate brain magnesium levels by exactly the same amount as MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE, the jury is still out with regards to whether or not MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE offers any superiority.

Two RAT STUDIES does not qualify as conclusive substantiated evidence. However, I am very glad to learn of the HUMAN study that is currently being conducted and would love for the HUMAN study to finally provide the necessary evidence to properly support the NOOTROPIC claims currently being made by the vendors of MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE. As such, I am sitting squarely on the fence so to speak in anticipation of the publication of the first study on HUMANS regarding MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE. Let's hope it lives up to expectations! :)



-

Edited by ScienceGuy, 13 March 2012 - 06:30 PM.

  • like x 6
  • dislike x 3

#2 platypus Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:Italy

Posted 13 February 2012 - 06:26 PM

So intravenous MgSO4 performs equally well as oral MgT?
  • Good Point x 1

sponsored ad

#3 ScienceGuy Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:UK

Posted 13 February 2012 - 06:58 PM

So intravenous MgSO4 performs equally well as oral MgT?


MAGNESIUM SULFATE will perform equally well as MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE taken PER ORALLY whether it is adminstered via IV or IM INJECTION, or TRANSDERMALLY (e.g. by soaking for 12+ minutes in a hot bath into which 1-2 cups EPSOM SALTS are dissolved) :)

With regards to how MAGNESIUM SULFATE taken PER ORALLY compares to MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE taken PER ORALLY, that would depend upon the respective BIOAVAILABILITIES; however, even if MAGNESIUM SULFATE were proven to be lower in BIOAVAILABILITY than MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE, it will still be considerably more economically to simply take whatever higher dosage of MAGNESIUM SULFATE yields equivalent absorption to the MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE ;)

Therefore, MAGNESIUM SULFATE will in fact be the preferred choice over MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE whatever the administration method :-D

Edited by ScienceGuy, 13 February 2012 - 07:00 PM.

  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#4 Lufega Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:Miami, Fl.

Posted 13 February 2012 - 08:38 PM

Analysis of the brain bioavailability of peripherally administered magnesium sulfate: A study in humans with acute brain injury undergoing prolonged induced hypermagnesemia.


During brain injury, the blood-brain barrier becomes more permeable and allows pretty much anything to get in. This includes inflammatory cells and lots of magnesium, so urgently needed during this time. This does not happen in non-injured individuals.

I assume since you call yourself "scienceguy", that you went out and compared the effect of both, personally ? Yes?

Magnesium sulfphate (epsom salt) is a strong laxative, even at low doses. I've use small and large doses and the bioavailabiity sucks. I have also had IV infusions of magnesium sulfate. A standard vial has 5 grams of elemental magnesium. I can tell you from experience that this produces no noticeable cognitive or even sedative effect on the brain. However, very small doses <500 mg of magnesium threonate do produce a noticeable effect, consistently. (No placebo effect here). Higher doses work even better.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • Agree x 1

#5 ScienceGuy Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:UK

Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:40 PM

I assume since you call yourself "scienceguy", that you went out and compared the effect of both, personally ? Yes?


YES :)

And I concur that MAGNESIUM SULFATE is just as effective in elevating BRAIN MAGNESIUM LEVELS in healthy individuals as MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE

Care to provide any substantiated evidence whatsoever that it isn't? ;)

Magnesium sulfphate (epsom salt) is a strong laxative, even at low doses. I've use small and large doses and the bioavailabiity sucks.


MAGNESIUM SULFATE produces a LAXATIVE effect only when adminstered PER ORALLY

It does NOT produce a LAXATIVE effect when adminstered TRANSDERMALLY or via IV / IM INJECTION

I have also had IV infusions of magnesium sulfate. A standard vial has 5 grams of elemental magnesium. I can tell you from experience that this produces no noticeable cognitive or even sedative effect on the brain.


Thank you for your feedback. I find your comments extraordinary and highly unlikely. However, since I do not wish to offend by doubting your word, let me simply point out that if this was indeed the case than your experience is by definiition extraordinary, and abnormal. :)

I personally have utilized MAGNESIUM SULFATE adminstered TRANSDERMALLY and via IM/IV INJECTION to great effect myself, as well as with my patients within clinical practice.

I also have a close professional colleague who is a physician, who has similarly utilized MAGNESIUM SULFATE with his patients for many, many years, including specifically using it within medical practice to effectively treat ENCEPHALITIS (BRAIN INFLAMMATION); and has confirmed its efficacy in elevating BRAIN MAGNESIUM LEVELS. ;)

However, very small doses <500 mg of magnesium threonate do produce a noticeable effect, consistently. (No placebo effect here). Higher doses work even better.


I am please to hear that MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE works for you. Please kindly note that I am not stopping you from buying and using MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE. I am simply stating (correctly) that at the present time, there is NOT conclusive substantiated scientific evidence that demonstrates MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE has ANY superiority whatsoever over MAGNESIUM SULFATE. :)

Without meaning any disrespect, your singular anecdotal non-placebo controlled report, whilst interesting, does not change this fact. ;)

I am intrigued by your statement "No placebo effect here" - did you undergo a double blind placebo controlled study? If not, then with the utmost respect the statement "No placebo effect here" is a fallacy. :)

What is clearly transparent is that my posting this thread has somewhat irritated you, since you are clearly a fan of MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE. I therefore suggest that you keep using the MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE if it works for you; but please do not deny others to make their own minds up based upon the actual scientific evidence regarding this matter, in that as it stands the science demonstrates MAGNESIUM SULFATE to be just as effective, but a damn sight cheaper :)
  • dislike x 2
  • like x 1

#6 Lufega Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:Miami, Fl.

Posted 15 February 2012 - 02:37 AM

Any form of magnesium intake (oral, transdermal, IV), is going to increase magnesium in the brain. The reason the MagT study stirred so much interest was because they claimed it could do it with a smaller dose and in fact, it was formulated to be selective for the brain. I'm very partial to magnesium as are most members of this forum but you are the first person to claim to have noticed an equal effect from using good old epsom salt, specially transdermally. I am for whatever works and costs me less money. What's more, the issue of whether topical magnesium even works, has been an issue hotly debated here. I personally think it does, based on some studies I've read, but never bothered to try it. On top of that, you claim that topical mag. works just as well at elevating brain mag as Magt. ? Bravo to you sir.

From you profile, I see that you have Lyme disease and encephalitis ? Let me first say that I am very sorry to learn of your condition. But this supports my previous statement that inflammed brains are more permeable to everything so I'm not surprised MagS works for you. Your profile also says that you are pre-med ? I'm sure you haven't updated it in sometime. Since you refer to your patients in a clinical setting, that means you are done with Medical School and Residency? That's great! What's your specialty ?

When I was doing my OB/GYN rotation in medical school, I also had the change to administer IV Mag. to many patients with Preeclampsia/Eclampsia. Since I was already into magnesium, I always asked to express how it made them feel and to report other subjective observations they had. I always got the same, expected answer: burning and stinging.

During the year between the time the MagT study came out and the first chinese companies were selling it, there were a couple of posts looking into ways of duplicating that effect. We even entertained the idea of letting magnesium ascorbate dissolve in water for a while, in the hopes that some threonic acid would form. It's silly when you think about it, but we never assume that MagT would be available commercially. It's been a while since I looked at that post but I cannot remember a single person reporting spectacular experiences from oral or transdermal use. This is why I found your post a bit surprising.

http://www.longecity...um-l-threonate/

Mg2+ concentration is higher in the cerebrospinal fluid than in plasma. This concentration gradient is maintained by active transport process (this implies that it's saturable), which appears to regulate and limit the amount of Mg2+ that can be loaded into the brain. In fact, increasing plasma [Mg2+] by 3-fold via intravenous infusion of MgSO4 for 5 days fails to elevate brain Mg2+ content in rats (Kim et al., 1996).

In human, dramatic increase (100%–300%) in blood [Mg2+] via intravenous infusion of MgSO4 corresponds to elevation in cerebrospinal fluid [Mg2+] only by 10%–19% (McKee et al., 2005).

Therefore, boosting brain Mg2+ via chronic oral magnesium supplement, the necessary condition for testing the influence of elevating brain Mg2+on memory function, is even more challenging. Therefore, we developed a new, highly bioavailable Mg2+ compound (magnesium-L-threonate, MgT; for chemical structure, see Figure S1 available online), that could significantly increase Mg2+ in the brain via dietary supplementation.


  • like x 3

#7 Ark Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:Kent Washington

Posted 15 February 2012 - 07:28 AM

I'm a fan of Magnesium-L-Threonate, works better then regular stuff IMHO.( I tend to get steady stream of energy, and a sense of wellbeing.)

Edited by Ark, 15 February 2012 - 07:29 AM.


#8 ScienceGuy Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:UK

Posted 15 February 2012 - 12:01 PM

The reason the MagT study stirred so much interest was because they claimed it could do it with a smaller dose...


I wholeheartedly agree. Please kindly note that I have not stated that PER ORAL administration of MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE does not have superiority over PER ORAL adminstration of other MAGNESIUM compounds in relation to bioavailabilty; and if MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE has a low tendency for inducing a LAXATIVE effect then that is another plus point for it, akin to say MAGNESIUM MALATE or MAGNESIUM GLYCINATE which also yields a low LAXATIVE effect relative to other MAGNESIUM compounds when taken PER ORALLY.

However, please kindly note that at the moment there simply lacks substantiated evidence demonstrating whether or not MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is in fact superior to other MAGNESIUM compounds; and all I am saying is to 'take with a pinch of salt' the HYPE put about by the MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE camp. This is not the first instance of a new kid on the block being OVERHYPED by certain parties (I won't name names, but I am sure you can think of a few examples) only to fall short of it's reported claims.

Essentially the jury is still out regards MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE. If further studies are conducted and conclusively demonstrate that MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is indeed superior in any respect, then I will most certainly adjust my perspective on the compound accordingly.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not the sort to knock things just for the sake of it. I was very interested in reading the marketing spiel regarding MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE and in conducting my investigation regarding whether or not said claims are in fact substantiated I would have loved to discover that it is so; however, I was most disappointed to discover that there is in fact a distinct lack of conclusive substantiated evidence to support the claims being made. And I simply cannot advocate singing the praises of something for which there simply does not yet exist substantiated evidence.

I am not telling people not to use MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE; I am simply correctly pointing out that as far as the current scientific evidence goes, other forms, including MAGNESIUM SULFATE, will provide just as effective results, but at a fraction of the cost; and as such that should be borne in mind :)

and in fact, it was formulated to be selective for the brain.


It is my understanding that it was in fact formulated to provide greater absorption into the brain, as opposed to being selectively absorbed into the brain (i.e. not peripherally); but as already stated, the evidence currently available appears to be insufficient to properly demonstrate whether MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE does in fact achieve greater absorption over other forms, such as SULFATE, MALATE or GLYCINATE.

you are the first person to claim to have noticed an equal effect from using good old epsom salt, specially transdermally. I am for whatever works and costs me less money.

What's more, the issue of whether topical magnesium even works, has been an issue hotly debated here. I personally think it does, based on some studies I've read, but never bothered to try it.

On top of that, you claim that topical mag. works just as well at elevating brain mag as Magt. ? Bravo to you sir.


Please kindly see the following: :)

Report on Absorption of magnesium sulfate (Epsom salts) across the skin

Dr RH Waring, School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham. B15 2TT, U.K.

r.h.waring@bham.ac.uk

Protocol
Clinician in charge - Dr Sarah Nuttall, Department of Clinical Pharmacology,
Medical School, University of Birmingham
Scientist in charge - Dr Rosemary Waring, School of Biosciences, University of
Birmingham
Technician in charge - Mrs Liba Klovrza, School of Biosciences, University of
Birmingham

Recruitment
Subjects were recruited from the staff of the School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham. In all, 19 subjects (10M, 9F) were recruited for the various aspects of the study. All were in good health, and not on any current medication. No subject smoked more than 5 cigarettes/day or drank more than 2 units of alcohol/day. The ages ranged from 24-64 years.

Analyses
Magnesium levels in blood and urine were measured by a flame photometric method using magnesium nitrate as a reference standard. Sulfate was measured by anion-specific high pressure liquid chromatography (hplc), calibrated with a turbidimetric method and with sodium sulfate standards.

Results
After initial pilot studies, all volunteers took baths (temperatures 50-55°C) and stayed in the bath for 12 minutes. They added varying amounts of magnesium sulfate (Epsom salts) to the bath before entry and ensured that the salts were completely in solution.

Blood/Urine Samples
Blood samples were taken before the first bath, at 2h after the first bath and at 2h after the 7th consecutive bath. Baths were taken daily at the same time for 7 days for the experiment. Urine samples were collected before the first bath and then 2h after the first bath and at all subsequent baths . Urine samples were also taken 24h after the last bath. All urine samples were corrected for creatinine content.

Results

Magnesium
Magnesium levels in blood are very tightly controlled. Of 19 subjects, all except 3 showed a rise in magnesium concentrations in plasma, though this was small in some cases. The values before the first bath were, mean 104.68 ± 20.76 ppm/ml; after the first bath the mean was 114.08 ± 25.83
ppm/ml. Continuation of bathing for 7 days in all except 2 individuals gave a rise to a mean of 140.98 ± 17.00ppm/ml. Prolonged soaking in Epsom salts therefore increases blood magnesium concentrations. Measurement of magnesium levels in urine showed a rise from the control level, mean 94.81 ± 44.26 ppm/ml to 198.93 ± 97.52 ppm/ml after the first bath. Those individuals where the blood magnesium levels were not increased had correspondingly large increases in urinary magnesium showing that the magnesium ions had crossed the skin barrier and had been excreted via the kidney, presumably because the blood levels were already optimal. Generally, urinary magnesium levels 24h after the first bath fell from the initial values found after day 1 (mean 118. 43 ± 51.95) suggesting some retention of magnesium in tissues after bathing as blood levels were still high.Measurement of magnesium levels in urine 24h after the 7th bath gave values almost back to control levels.

Sulfate
Free inorganic sulfate levels in plasma rose in all subjects after bathing in Epsom salts (mean pre-bath, 3.28 nmol/mg protein ± 1.40, 2h after 1st bath, mean 5.59 nmol/mg protein ± 3.08). In some individuals, the level post-bath reached > 9 nmol/mg protein. The plasma levels after 7 days showed a mean of 3.57 nmol/mg protein ± 1.70, lower than the peak value, suggesting that sulfate stores in the body were being filled. Analysis of the urine samples again showed an increase in sulfate concentrations (pre-bath mean 623.74 ± 352.34 nmols/ml, 2h post bath 1093.30 ± 388.79 nmoles/ml, 24h after 1st bath 899.83 ± 483.16 nmols/ml. Sulfate excretion in urine in some individuals was only slightly higher after 7 days bathing than the pre-bath levels.

Other Factors

Gender Differences
Males had slightly higher levels of blood magnesium than females (109.0 ± 14.4 ppm/ml v. 87.7 ± 6.3 ppm/ml. Females had higher free plasma sulfate than males (3.26 ± 0.86 nmol/mg. v. 2.54 ± 0.53 nmol/ug) although these differences were not significant. The mean levels of both magnesium and sulfate were almost identical for males and females after bathing.

Optimum Epsom Salt Levels
There was a wide individual variation in this parameter. However, all individuals had significant rises in plasma magnesium and sulfate at a level of 1% Epsom salts .This equates to 1g MgS04/100ml water; 600g Epsom salts/60 litres, the standard size UK bath taken in this project (~15 US gallons). However, most volunteers had significantly raised Mg/S04 levels on baths with 400g MgS04 added. Above the 600g/bath level, volunteers complained that the water felt ‘soapy’.
Although this project did not specifically set out to answer the question of how frequently baths should be taken, the results are consistent with saturation of the skin (and possibly the gut ) transporters .These proteins are not well understood or described but, at least for sulfate, they are believed to be high affinity but low capacity.The values obtained suggest that most people would find maximal benefit by bathing 2 or 3 times/ week, using 500-600g Epsom salts each time.

Other factors

No volunteer complained of any adverse effects, evem at MgSO4 levels of 2.5% . Possible effects on the kidneys were tested by measuring urinary protein content. This did not change significantly, whichever Epsom salt levels were used, over the 8-day period. Kidney damage is therefore not an issue.
In other experiments using excised human skin, we found that sulfate does penetrate across the skin barrier. This is quite rapid so probably involves a sulfate transporter protein. We did not see any Mg penetration, but these experiments were conducted for a short time at only 37 degrees as opposed to the 50 degree bath temperature.To check this, 2 volunteers wore ‘patches’ where solid MgSO4 was applied directly to the skin and sealed with a waterproof plaster. Plasma/urine analysis confirmed that both Mg and sulfate levels had increased so this is potentially a valuable way of ensuring Epsom salts dosage if bathing is not available. Interestingly, both volunteers, who were > 60 years old, commented without prompting that ‘rheumatic’ pains had disappeared.

CONCLUSION

Bathing in Epsom salts [Magnesium Sulfate] is a safe and easy way to increase sulfate and magnesium levels in the body.

inflammed brains are more permeable to everything so I'm not surprised MagS works for you.


Firstly, you are incorrect in stating that all "inflammed brains are more permeable to everything", in that whilst it certainly is possible for the integrity of the BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER to become compromised is some instances of BRAIN INJURY, TRAUMA or ENCEPHALITIS, there are in fact many instances wherein the integrity of the BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER remains unaffected.

Secondly, my opinion is by no means due to my own personal experiences with using MAGNESIUM SULFATE. Please kindly note what I posted above:

I personally have utilized MAGNESIUM SULFATE adminstered TRANSDERMALLY and via IM/IV INJECTION to great effect myself, as well as with my patients within clinical practice.

I also have a close professional colleague who is a physician, who has similarly utilized MAGNESIUM SULFATE with his patients for many, many years,
including [but not limited to] specifically using it within medical practice to effectively treat ENCEPHALITIS (BRAIN INFLAMMATION); and has confirmed its efficacy in elevating BRAIN MAGNESIUM LEVELS. ;)


Your profile also says that you are pre-med ? I'm sure you haven't updated it in sometime. Since you refer to your patients in a clinical setting, that means you are done with Medical School and Residency? That's great! What's your specialty?


OK, firstly please can you drop the antagonistic sarcastic / condescending tone, since we are both adults and hopefully friends who are having an intelligent academic debate? :)

Secondly, I don't like to blow my own trumpet so to speak, so I would ask do you REALLY want me to bore you (and others reading this) with my life history? I am very happy to do so if you wish :)

When I was doing my OB/GYN rotation in medical school, I also had the change to administer IV Mag. to many patients with Preeclampsia/Eclampsia. Since I was already into magnesium, I always asked to express how it made them feel and to report other subjective observations they had. I always got the same, expected answer: burning and stinging.


Please don't take this the wrong way, with the utmost respect, if your patient's suffered burning "burning and stinging" after you administered MAGNESIUM SULFATE via IV INJECTION / INFUSION then either you did not dilute it properly or you did not administer it using the correct protocol. Administration of MAGNESIUM SULFATE via IV INJECTION / INFUSION done correctly does not cause "burning and stinging" :)

Furthermore, there are ways to administer MAGNESIUM SULFATE via IM INJECTION that does not cause "burning and stinging" :)

And soaking in a hot bath within which ESPOM SALTS (MAGNESIUM SULFATE) have been dissolved for 12+ minutes won't cause "burning and stinging" either ;)

During the year between the time the MagT study came out and the first chinese companies were selling it, there were a couple of posts looking into ways of duplicating that effect. We even entertained the idea of letting magnesium ascorbate dissolve in water for a while, in the hopes that some threonic acid would form. It's silly when you think about it, but we never assume that MagT would be available commercially. It's been a while since I looked at that post but I cannot remember a single person reporting spectacular experiences from oral or transdermal use. This is why I found your post a bit surprising.


Please kindly note that I do not advocate PER ORAL adminstration of MAGNESIUM SULFATE as the preferred choice.

I recommend adminstration of MAGNESIUM SULFATE via TRANSDERMAL or INJECTION as the preferred choices. :)

Please also note that just because people within this forum community are not aware of something or currently using it does not make it ineffective ;)

http://www.longecity...um-l-threonate/

Mg2+ concentration is higher in the cerebrospinal fluid than in plasma. This concentration gradient is maintained by active transport process (this implies that it's saturable), which appears to regulate and limit the amount of Mg2+ that can be loaded into the brain. In fact, increasing plasma [Mg2+] by 3-fold via intravenous infusion of MgSO4 for 5 days fails to elevate brain Mg2+ content in rats (Kim et al., 1996).

In human, dramatic increase (100%–300%) in blood [Mg2+] via intravenous infusion of MgSO4 corresponds to elevation in cerebrospinal fluid [Mg2+] only by 10%–19% (McKee et al., 2005).

Therefore, boosting brain Mg2+ via chronic oral magnesium supplement, the necessary condition for testing the influence of elevating brain Mg2+on memory function, is even more challenging. Therefore, we developed a new, highly bioavailable Mg2+ compound (magnesium-L-threonate, MgT; for chemical structure, see Figure S1 available online), that could significantly increase Mg2+ in the brain via dietary supplementation.


Please kindly note that this quote simply confirms the point I have made within this thread, in that the sole argument from the MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE camp in support of their claims regarding its superiority is that MAGNESIUM SULFATE 'only' elevates CFS MAGNESIUM LEVELS by 10 - 19%; however, this argument is a fallacy since the evidence demonstrates that MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE 'only' elevates CFS MAGNESIUM LEVELS by 10 - 19% as well; i.e. exactly the same amount ;)
  • like x 4

#9 ScienceGuy Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:UK

Posted 15 February 2012 - 12:05 PM

I'm a fan of Magnesium-L-Threonate, works better then regular stuff IMHO.( I tend to get steady stream of energy, and a sense of wellbeing.)


Hey Ark,

Do bear in mind that could at least in part be due to the THREONATE component ;)

#10 ScienceGuy Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:UK

Posted 15 February 2012 - 01:38 PM


Hi matter_of_time

I would certainly like more details.

Is it a level teaspoon or a heaped teaspoon and is there any possibility of getting the weight in grams. How much do you weigh and for how long have you been taking MgT?
Are you mixing it with water or what. Do you notice a laxative effect.

Most importantly, has there been any change in your ability to memorize or recall things? If this is happening can you pleas give examples,

There are a lot of people who are very interested in your answers.

Thanks


Actually i've noticed a laxative effect. Is there a reason that it would produce this?


So much for MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE "not causing a LAXATIVE effect" when taken PER ORALLY! ;)

#11 Lufega Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:Miami, Fl.

Posted 15 February 2012 - 08:38 PM

How do you use MAGNESIUM SULFATE transdermal short of soaking in epsom salt ? What do you think of magnesium oil ? (chloride). Is it just as effective transdermal ?

#12 ScienceGuy Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:UK

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:55 PM

How do you use MAGNESIUM SULFATE transdermal short of soaking in epsom salt ? What do you think of magnesium oil ? (chloride). Is it just as effective transdermal ?


Don't you have a bath? You only need to add 1-2 cups EPSOM SALTS to a hot bath and soak for 12+ minutes; it's actually a very pleasant experience :)

#13 hippocampus Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 16 February 2012 - 11:53 PM

Some ppl just take a shower so we do not bath. :)

#14 Baten Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:Belgium

Posted 17 February 2012 - 07:47 AM

I hate baths.

#15 ScienceGuy Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:UK

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:35 PM

I hate baths.


Some ppl just take a shower so we do not bath. :)


Haha, OK! :laugh:

Let me clarify what I recommend with regards to MAGNESIUM administration:

1) MAGNESIUM SULFATE adminstered via INJECTION; and/or

2) MAGNESIUM SULFATE administered TRANSERMALLY via soaking for 12+ minutes in a hot bath within which 1-2 cups ESPOM SALTS have been dissolved

If you are not willing or able to opt for either of the above; then I recommend the following alternative:

3) MAGNESIUM administered PER ORALLY; using any of the following three forms, all of which have good PER ORAL absorption: MALATE, GLYCINATE, or THREONATE ;) (N.B. AVOID the OXIDE, CHLORIDE and CITRATE forms)

Edited by ScienceGuy, 17 February 2012 - 08:16 PM.

  • like x 2

#16 Baten Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:Belgium

Posted 17 February 2012 - 06:25 PM

I was mostly just kidding though :p
I have 100g of magnesium threonate laying around here somewhere. Noticed absolutely nothing from taking doses up to 7g.
I think we get enough magnesium from food alone, other from people with deficiencies, I doubt it has much of a purpose to supplement Mg.

#17 ScienceGuy Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:UK

Posted 17 February 2012 - 08:00 PM

I was mostly just kidding though :p


NOW he tells me! :laugh:

I have 100g of magnesium threonate laying around here somewhere. Noticed absolutely nothing from taking doses up to 7g.


You are by no means the first person to say that. There is an ever increasing amount of anecdotal user feedback indicating that MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE may be somewhat overhyped, in that it may be 'all promise and no substance' ;)

However, despite this I am not ready to dismiss it just yet, in that I am very open to receiving any substantiated evidence to alter my perspective on the matter. I would love for someone to suddenly produce a study that proves it really is great stuff. The problem is that so far such evidence is distinctly lacking :)

I think we get enough magnesium from food alone


With the utmost respect, if that's what you think then you'd be WRONG! ;)

However, since this is a very common misconception you are forgiven already :)

**STEPS UP ON SOAPBOX**

It is a statistical FACT that the MAJORITY of the population is MAGNESIUM DEFICIENT :)

**STEPS DOWN FROM SOAPBOX**

See the following:

How to Know if You are Magnesium Deficient: 75% of Americans Are

Lipski E., Jaffe R.

Extract from Full Text

Research shows that up to 75% Americans are deficient in magnesium… NIH says even more… at least 75%.

So, why are so many people mineral depleted, especially with magnesium? Because we don’t get minerals in our diets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J Am Coll Nutr. 2005 Jun;24(3):166-71.

Dietary magnesium and C-reactive protein levels.

King DE, Mainous AG 3rd, Geesey ME, Woolson RF.

Source
Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 295 Calhoun Street, PO Box 250192, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. kingde@musc.edu

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:
Current dietary guidelines recommend adequate intake of magnesium (310-420 mg daily) in order to maintain health and lower the risk of cardiovascular disease. Recent evidence from animal and clinical studies suggests that magnesium may be associated with inflammatory processes. The objective of this study was to determine whether dietary magnesium consumption is associated with C-reactive protein (CRP), a marker of inflammation, in a nationally representative sample.

METHODS:
Analysis of adult (> or =17 years) participants in a cross-sectional nationally representative survey (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2000 [NHANES]) who were not taking magnesium or magnesium-containing supplements. The primary outcome measure was high sensitivity CRP (elevated > or =3.0 mg/L).

RESULTS:
Among US adults, 68% consumed less than the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of magnesium, and 19% consumed less than 50% of the RDA. After controlling for demographic and cardiovascular risk factors, adults who consumed <RDA of magnesium were 1.48-1.75 times more likely to have elevated CRP than adults who consumed > or =RDA (Odds Ratio [OR] for intake <50% RDA = 1.75, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.08-2.87). Adults who were over age 40 with a BMI >25 and who consumed <50% RDA for magnesium were 2.24 times more likely to have elevated CRP (95% CI 1.13-4.46) than adults > or =RDA.

CONCLUSIONS:
Most Americans consume magnesium at levels below the RDA. Individuals with intakes below the RDA are more likely to have elevated CRP, which may contribute to cardiovascular disease risk.

PMID: 15930481
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J Nutr. 2003 Sep;133(9):2879-82.

Dietary magnesium intake in a national sample of US adults.

Ford ES, Mokdad AH.
Source

Division of Adult and Community Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. eford@cdc.gov
Abstract

Despite the role of magnesium in maintaining health, much of the U.S. population has historically not consumed adequate amounts of magnesium. Furthermore, significant racial or ethnic disparities in magnesium intake exist. Our objective was to provide more recent data about magnesium intake in the U.S. population. We analyzed the 24-h dietary recall data from 4257 participants aged >or=20 y from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2000. The median intake of magnesium was 326 mg/d among Caucasian men, 237 mg/d among African American men, 297 mg/d among Mexican American men, 237 mg/d among Caucasian women, 177 mg/d among African American women, and 221 mg/d among Mexican American women. Among men and women, Caucasians had higher mean intakes of dietary magnesium than African Americans but not Mexican Americans. Magnesium intake decreased with increasing age (P for linear trend = 0.035 for Caucasians; P for linear trend <0.001 for African Americans and Mexican Americans). Men had higher intakes of magnesium than women for each of the three race or ethnic groups (P < 0.001 in each group). Caucasian men, African American men and Caucasian women who used vitamin, mineral or dietary supplements consumed significantly more magnesium in their diets than did those who did not. Substantial numbers of U.S. adults fail to consume adequate magnesium in their diets. Furthermore, racial or ethnic differences in magnesium persist and may contribute to some health disparities.

PMID: 12949381

other from people with deficiencies, I doubt it has much of a purpose to supplement Mg.



Actually, MAGNESIUM does in fact have MANY highly effective MEDICINAL USES, aside from treating MAGNESIUM DEFICIENCY; including as an ANTI-INFLAMMATORY, ANTICONVULSANT, BRONCHODILATOR and ANXIOLYTIC; and is used as such within MEDICINE :)

See the following for just a couple of MANY examples:

J Reprod Immunol. 2007 Apr;73(2):101-7. Epub 2006 Sep 6.

Magnesium sulfate suppresses inflammatory responses by human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HuVECs) through the NFkappaB pathway.

Rochelson B, Dowling O, Schwartz N, Metz CN.

Source
Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY 11030, USA.

Abstract
Dysfunctional endothelial cell activation and cytokines are implicated in preterm labor, a condition commonly treated with the tocolytic agent, magnesium sulfate (MgSO(4)). Based on recent findings showing the inflammatory effects of magnesium deficiency, we examined the effect of MgSO(4) on human umbilical vein endothelial cell (HuVEC) inflammatory responses in vitro. HuVECs isolated from term umbilical cords were incubated with MgSO(4) prior to stimulation with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and then assessed for endothelial cell activation. Endothelial cell supernatants were assayed for inflammatory mediator production (interleukin-8; IL-8), and endothelial cell-associated intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM-1) expression was determined. In the absence of LPS stimulation, MgSO(4) had no effect on HuVEC responses. Treatment of HuVECs with MgSO(4) prior to LPS stimulation inhibited inflammatory mediator production (p<0.05) and cell adhesion molecule expression (p<0.05) in a dose-dependent manner. Mechanistic studies showed that MgSO(4) reduced NFkappaB nuclear translocation and protected cytoplasmic IkappaBalpha from degradation in LPS-treated HuVECs. In conclusion, MgSO(4) inhibits endothelial cell activation, as measured by levels of IL-8 and ICAM-1 expression, via NFkappaB. Our results support the hypothesis that MgSO(4) treatment may function as an anti-inflammatory agent during preterm labor.

PMID: 16952401
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD001490.

Magnesium sulfate for treating exacerbations of acute asthma in the emergency department.

Rowe BH, Bretzlaff JA, Bourdon C, Bota GW, Camargo CA Jr.

Source

Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, 1G1 Walter Mackenzie Centre, 8440-112 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2B7. Brian.Rowe@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Treatment of acute asthma is based on rapid reversal of bronchospasm and arresting airway inflammation. There is some evidence that intravenous magnesium can provide additional bronchodilation when given in conjunction with standard bronchodilating agents and corticosteroids. No systematic review of this literature has been completed on this topic.

OBJECTIVES:

To examine the effect of additional intravenous magnesium sulfate in patients with acute asthma managed in the emergency department.

SEARCH STRATEGY:

Randomised controlled trials were identified from the Cochrane Airways Review Group register. Bibliographies from included studies, known reviews and texts were searched. Primary authors and content experts were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Studies were included if patients presented with acute asthma and were treated with IV magnesium sulfate vs placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Data were extracted and methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers. Missing data were obtained from authors.

MAIN RESULTS:

Seven trials were included (5 adult, 2 pediatric). A total of 665 patients were involved. Patients receiving magnesium sulfate demonstrated non-significant improvements in peak expiratory flow rates when all studies were pooled (weighted mean difference: 29.4 L/min; 95% confidence interval: -3.4 to 62). In studies of people with severe acute asthma, peak expiratory flow rate improved by 52.3 L/min (95% confidence interval: 27 to 77.5). The forced expiratory volume in one second also improved by 9.8 % predicted (95% confidence interval: 3.8 to 15.8). Overall, admission to hospital was not reduced, odds ratio: 0.31 (95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 1.02). In the severe subgroup, admissions were reduced in those receiving magnesium sulfate (odds ratio: 0.10, 95% confidence interval: 0.04 to 0.27). No clinically important changes in vital signs or adverse side effects were reported.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS:

Current evidence does not support routine use of intravenous magnesium sulfate in all patients with acute asthma presenting to the emergency department [due to cost implications]. Magnesium sulfate appears to be safe and beneficial in patients who present with severe acute asthma.

PMID:10796650
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990 May;162(5):1141-5.

Magnesium sulfate is the ideal anticonvulsant in preeclampsia-eclampsia.

Sibai BM.

Source

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tennessee, Memphis 38103.

Abstract

The pathogenesis of eclamptic convulsions is unknown. A review of the world literature indicates considerable controversy regarding the ideal anticonvulsant to prevent or control these convulsions. Parenteral magnesium sulfate is the drug of choice to control eclamptic convulsions in North America, but it is rarely used for this purpose overseas. The efficacy and safety of magnesium sulfate in the treatment of preeclampsia-eclampsia have been well documented during the past 60 years. During the same time period, numerous anticonvulsant drugs have been used overseas; however, the ideal drug is yet to be found. Recently phenytoin has been recommended as an alternative for magnesium sulfate; however, comprehensive data regarding its safety and efficacy are lacking. The evidence in the literature indicates that magnesium sulfate is the ideal anticonvulsant in preeclampsia-eclampsia.

PMID: 2288560
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Med Interna. 1991 Nov;8(11):576.

Anxiolytic effect of magnesium

[Article in Spanish]

Recarte García Andrade C, del Castillo Rueda A, Torres Segovia F.

PMID: 1790294


Edited by ScienceGuy, 17 February 2012 - 08:03 PM.

  • like x 2

#18 hippocampus Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 17 February 2012 - 08:03 PM

I used to supplement large quantities of MgO and now I have some kind of tolerance to it - it doesn't make me calmer or sleep better or anything (maybe just lowers blood pressure somewhat) - but it used to help me very much.

#19 ScienceGuy Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:UK

Posted 17 February 2012 - 08:14 PM

I used to supplement large quantities of MgO and now I have some kind of tolerance to it - it doesn't make me calmer or sleep better or anything (maybe just lowers blood pressure somewhat) - but it used to help me very much.


Well there's your problem... you used the WRONG FORM of MAGNESIUM! :)

It's not that you had a TOLERANCE to its effects, because MAGNESIUM OXIDE has NO effects :laugh:

MAGNESIUM OXIDE is only useful as a PAPERWEIGHT or DOORSTOP ;)

#20 hippocampus Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 17 February 2012 - 08:41 PM

Don't be stupid. I've noticed the effects, I had very low blood pressure, I was very calmed in a strange way and in the morning I felt very refreshed (if I took it before sleep). Same with mg carbonate (but with less diarrhea). I used about 600-800 mg of MgO a day (don't remember exactly how much). It does have effects, albeit small (or tolerance is quickly built).

#21 ScienceGuy Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:UK

Posted 17 February 2012 - 08:54 PM

Don't be stupid. I've noticed the effects, I had very low blood pressure, I was very calmed in a strange way and in the morning I felt very refreshed (if I took it before sleep). Same with mg carbonate (but with less diarrhea). I used about 600-800 mg of MgO a day (don't remember exactly how much). It does have effects, albeit small (or tolerance is quickly built).


I'm NOT being stupid; I was trying (but clearly failing) to be FUNNY :)

MAGNESIUM OXIDE has very low PER ORAL ABSORPTION, hence is next to USELESS. Take very high doses and you will absorb a little. Would you like me to quote you some studies? :)

Whereas, MALATE, GLYCINATE and THREONATE forms have very high PER ORAL ABSORPTION. Hence, you might like to try these forms.

Furthermore, please kindly note that there is NO TOLERANCE to MAGNESIUM's effects. This is a MEDICAL FACT ;)

There is NO TOLERANCE because its primary mechanism of action is that of NMDA RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST :)

TOLERANCE typically occurs with regards to RECEPTOR AGONISTS due to DOWN-REGULATION of the RECEPTOR; whereas RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS UPREGULATE the RECEPTOR function thereby enhancing its function.

Hope this helps clarify matters! :)

#22 Googoltarian Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:EU

Posted 17 February 2012 - 09:15 PM

MAGNESIUM OXIDE has very low PER ORAL ABSORPTION, hence is next to USELESS.


I`m just wondering, what will stop MgO from reacting with stomach acid to produce soluble (and better absorbed) Mg2+ cations?

Would you like me to quote you some studies? :)

I would like ;)

#23 ScienceGuy Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:UK

Posted 18 February 2012 - 12:52 AM

Don't be stupid. I've noticed the effects... I used about 600-800 mg of MgO a day (don't remember exactly how much). It does have effects, albeit small...



Would you like me to quote you some studies? :)

I would like ;)


Here you go :) :

Magnes Res. 2003 Sep;16(3):183-91.

Mg citrate found more bioavailable than other Mg preparations in a randomised, double-blind study.

Walker AF, Marakis G, Christie S, Byng M.

Source
Hugh Sinclair Unit of Human Nutrition, School of Food Biosciences, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, UK. a.f.walker@reading.ac.uk

Abstract
Published data on the bioavailability of various Mg preparations is too fragmented and scanty to inform proper choice of Mg preparation for clinical studies. In this study, the relative bioavailability of three preparations of Mg (amino-acid chelate, citrate and oxide) were compared at a daily dose of 300 mg of elemental Mg in 46 healthy individuals. The study was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel intervention, of 60 days duration. Urine, blood and saliva samples were taken at baseline, 24 h after the first Mg supplement was taken ('acute' supplementation) and after 60 days of daily Mg consumption ('chronic' supplementation). Results showed that supplementation of the organic forms of Mg (citrate and amino-acid chelate) showed greater absorption (P = 0.033) at 60 days than MgO, as assessed by the 24-h urinary Mg excretion. Mg citrate led to the greatest mean serum Mg concentration compared with other treatments following both acute (P = 0.026) and chronic (P = 0.006) supplementation. Furthermore, although mean erythrocyte Mg concentration showed no differences among groups, chronic Mg citrate supplementation resulted in the greatest (P = 0.027) mean salivary Mg concentration compared with all other treatments. Mg oxide supplementation resulted in no differences compared to placebo. We conclude that a daily supplementation with Mg citrate shows superior bioavailability after 60 days of treatment when compared with other treatments studied.

PMID: 14596323

This study demonstrates that PER ORAL supplementation with MAGNESIUM OXIDE results in NO DIFFERENCES COMPARED TO PLACEBO; and as such it is wholly USELESS ;)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magnes Res. 2001 Dec;14(4):257-62.

Bioavailability of US commercial magnesium preparations.

Firoz M, Graber M.

Source
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Northport, NY 11768, USA.

Abstract
Magnesium deficiency is seen with some frequency in the outpatient setting and requires oral repletion or maintenance therapy. The purpose of this study was to measure the bioavailability of four commercially-available preparations of magnesium, and to test the claim that organic salts are more easily absorbed. Bioavailability was measured as the increment of urinary maginesium excretion in normal volunteers given approximately 21 mEq/day of the test preparations. Results indicated relatively poor bioavailability of magnesium oxide (fractional absorption 4 per cent) but significantly higher and equivalent bioavailability of magnesium chloride, magnesium lactate and magnesium aspartate. We conclude that there is relatively poor bioavailability of magnesium oxide, but greater and equivalent bioavailability of magnesium chloride, lactate, and aspartate. Inorganic magnesium salts, depending on the preparation, may have bioavailability equivalent to organic magnesium salts.

PMID: 11794633

This study confirms that MAGNESIUM OXIDE has VERY LOW ABSORPTION when taken PER ORALLY ;)

Edited by ScienceGuy, 18 February 2012 - 12:58 AM.

  • like x 5

#24 Googoltarian Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:EU

Posted 18 February 2012 - 09:30 AM

This study demonstrates that PER ORAL supplementation with MAGNESIUM OXIDE results in NO DIFFERENCES COMPARED TO PLACEBO; and as such it is wholly USELESS ;)


Apart from placebo effects, which if present, will probably be positive for person taking it. After all you cant tell somebody who felt better after taking it, that he felt the same... :-D

Thanks for clarifying this issue!

#25 ScienceGuy Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:UK

Posted 18 February 2012 - 09:42 AM


This study demonstrates that PER ORAL supplementation with MAGNESIUM OXIDE results in NO DIFFERENCES COMPARED TO PLACEBO; and as such it is wholly USELESS ;)


Apart from placebo effects, which if present, will probably be positive for person taking it. After all you cant tell somebody who felt better after taking it, that he felt the same... :-D

Thanks for clarifying this issue!


Like I said to hippocampus: MAGNESIUM OXIDE is only useful as a PAPERWEIGHT or DOORSTOP ;)

Edited by ScienceGuy, 18 February 2012 - 10:07 AM.

  • like x 2

#26 Baten Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:Belgium

Posted 18 February 2012 - 12:18 PM

Thanks for all the research & citations, ScienceGuy :) you sure keep yourself busy

#27 ScienceGuy Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:UK

Posted 18 February 2012 - 12:47 PM

Thanks for all the research & citations, ScienceGuy :) you sure keep yourself busy


Thank YOU for the positive feedback :)

#28 hippocampus Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 19 February 2012 - 07:22 PM



This study demonstrates that PER ORAL supplementation with MAGNESIUM OXIDE results in NO DIFFERENCES COMPARED TO PLACEBO; and as such it is wholly USELESS ;)


Apart from placebo effects, which if present, will probably be positive for person taking it. After all you cant tell somebody who felt better after taking it, that he felt the same... :-D

Thanks for clarifying this issue!


Like I said to hippocampus: MAGNESIUM OXIDE is only useful as a PAPERWEIGHT or DOORSTOP ;)

Look, scienceguy, I have experience with various supplements and drugs and I know when I really feel the effects. You can give me hundreds of studies that say that MgO is ineffective on average but this doesn't say anything about ME. Ok? You can only say what studies has shown and that's all. You cannot extrapolate to individual cases. You can't go in my head and measure how I feel. You can only guess and this is not scientific. Science is humble, science can only say that it doesn't know whether hippocampus has felt better on MgO or not. It can only say what people feel on average in comparison to placebo.
However, I do believe that MgO is the least effective form, so next time I'll buy magnesium it's going to be something better.

And one more question: If tolerance doesn't happen with magnesium, why don't I feel the same effects as I did before? (and please don't answer again that it's because MgO is no better than placebo, because what I felt surely wasn't placebo).

Edited by hippocampus, 19 February 2012 - 07:30 PM.


#29 ScienceGuy Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:UK

Posted 19 February 2012 - 08:12 PM




This study demonstrates that PER ORAL supplementation with MAGNESIUM OXIDE results in NO DIFFERENCES COMPARED TO PLACEBO; and as such it is wholly USELESS ;)


Apart from placebo effects, which if present, will probably be positive for person taking it. After all you cant tell somebody who felt better after taking it, that he felt the same... :-D

Thanks for clarifying this issue!


Like I said to hippocampus: MAGNESIUM OXIDE is only useful as a PAPERWEIGHT or DOORSTOP ;)

Look, scienceguy, I have experience with various supplements and drugs and I know when I really feel the effects. You can give me hundreds of studies that say that MgO is ineffective on average but this doesn't say anything about ME. Ok? You can only say what studies has shown and that's all. You cannot extrapolate to individual cases. You can't go in my head and measure how I feel. You can only guess and this is not scientific. Science is humble, science can only say that it doesn't know whether hippocampus has felt better on MgO or not. It can only say what people feel on average in comparison to placebo...

...And one more question: If tolerance doesn't happen with magnesium, why don't I feel the same effects as I did before? (and please don't answer again that it's because MgO is no better than placebo, because what I felt surely wasn't placebo).


You should bear in mind that when you took the MAGNESIUM OXIDE you would in fact have been party to the PLACEBO EFFECT :)

If you won't accept the results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, long-term clinical study that clearly demonstrates supplementing with MAGNESIUM OXIDE to provide no benefit whatsoever versus PLACEBO, then I think it is best if in this particular instance that we simply agree to disagree ;)

I have clearly already irritated you, which was not my intention. So if I have caused you any offense on any level I wholeheartly apologise. I am honestly only trying to HELP :)

I should add that the VERY POOR PER ORAL ABSORPTION of MAGNESIUM OXIDE has been scientifically measured. Therefore, unless you possess superpowers which allow you to absorb more MAGNESIUM OXIDE when taken PER ORALLY than everyone else, then I am afraid you will have been absorbing just as little as everyone else. As such, with the utmost respect I do not need to 'go in your head and measure how you feel' to know that you won't have been absorbing the MAGNESIUM OXIDE ;)

However, I do believe that MgO is the least effective form, so next time I'll buy magnesium it's going to be something better.


Very sensible :)

Edited by ScienceGuy, 19 February 2012 - 08:19 PM.


sponsored ad

#30 pamojja Re: MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

  • Location:Austria

Posted 19 February 2012 - 08:56 PM

And one more question: If tolerance doesn't happen with magnesium, why don't I feel the same effects as I did before? (and please don't answer again that it's because MgO is no better than placebo, because what I felt surely wasn't placebo).

Guess you don't feel the same effects as before because correcting a deficiency may have strong effects, once the deficiency has normalized these effect are naturally declining.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: magnesium, threonate, l-threonate, mg, sulfate, sulphate

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users