• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * - - 11 votes

MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is NO more effective than SULFATE form

magnesium threonate l-threonate mg sulfate sulphate

  • Please log in to reply
223 replies to this topic

#31 hippocampus

  • Guest
  • 736 posts
  • 112
  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 19 February 2012 - 09:11 PM

@scienceguy: I'm not going to argue with you anymore, but I know what I have felt and I have had experience with hard drugs like benzodiazepines, antidepressants, psychedelics and others so I know when I feel effects and when not. These effects I have felt were so strong that I'm 100% sure that is wasn't placebo. I even had very low BP and higher heart beat rate. Maybe it has something to do with diarrhea I was experiencing because of these high dosages.
And once again, I do believe in these studies, but these studies only show what is true on average. If there is one person in experiment who absorbs MgO very well, study won't show this. I've read somewhere that there is a subset of people who absorb MgO better than the majority (can't find the source right now), but ordinary studies just won't show that. Am I clear (asking because English is not my native language)?

#32 ScienceGuy

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member
  • 851 posts
  • 1,131
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 February 2012 - 09:24 PM

@scienceguy: I'm not going to argue with you anymore, but I know what I have felt and I have had experience with hard drugs like benzodiazepines, antidepressants, psychedelics and others so I know when I feel effects and when not. These effects I have felt were so strong that I'm 100% sure that is wasn't placebo. I even had very low BP and higher heart beat rate. Maybe it has something to do with diarrhea I was experiencing because of these high dosages.
And once again, I do believe in these studies, but these studies only show what is true on average. If there is one person in experiment who absorbs MgO very well, study won't show this. I've read somewhere that there is a subset of people who absorb MgO better than the majority (can't find the source right now), but ordinary studies just won't show that. Am I clear (asking because English is not my native language)?


Like I said let's agree to disagree OK? :)
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#33 Introspecta

  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Massachusetts U.S

Posted 19 February 2012 - 09:31 PM

Neither of you are right or wrong. It is true that perhaps the studies are missing something and that for YOU it is in fact better but not for your typical person. Just my thought. I'm more likely to believe the person stating that They do feel a huge difference between the two but other people are more likely to believe the science although sometimes studies miss things and arn't 100%. To me though you need to experience something for yourself to establish something as a fact. I'm not trying to get in the middle of you guys I'm just stating my opinion on the matter so take it or leave it I don't wish to debate with anyone.
  • like x 1

#34 ScienceGuy

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member
  • 851 posts
  • 1,131
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 February 2012 - 09:35 PM

Neither of you are right or wrong. It is true that perhaps the studies are missing something and that for YOU it is in fact better but not for your typical person. Just my thought. I'm more likely to believe the person stating that They do feel a huge difference between the two but other people are more likely to believe the science although sometimes studies miss things and arn't 100%. To me though you need to experience something for yourself to establish something as a fact. I'm not trying to get in the middle of you guys I'm just stating my opinion on the matter so take it or leave it I don't wish to debate with anyone.


I believe that hippocampus and I are both on the same page regards MAGNESIUM OXIDE not being the most bioavailable form, so it is in fact somewhat a mute point anyway ;)

And don't worry, I think hippocampus and I are still friends (hopefully!) :)

Edited by ScienceGuy, 20 February 2012 - 09:47 AM.


#35 Introspecta

  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Massachusetts U.S

Posted 19 February 2012 - 09:36 PM

My statement could be misinterpreted by ScienceGuy because he did himself not notice any difference in the 2 so I don't want what I said to be taken personally to you I was just saying it as people in general.
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#36 Sartac

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Southeastern US
  • NO

Posted 20 February 2012 - 02:29 AM

Would plugging (anal administration) be an effective means to bypass laxative effects on the digestive system?
  • like x 1

#37 ScienceGuy

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member
  • 851 posts
  • 1,131
  • Location:UK

Posted 20 February 2012 - 09:50 AM

Would plugging (anal administration) be an effective means to bypass laxative effects on the digestive system?


PER RECTAL administration would have the tendency to induce evacuation of the bowels, so in short NO :)

#38 addle

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 1
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 March 2012 - 06:10 AM

I find your posting and the subsequent discussion very strange indeed. The "hype" surrounding the magnesium threonate study is certainly warranted and your recommendation that people use magnesium sulfate has no scientific basis.

The two studies you cite are not comparable. The magnesium sulfate study involved sustained hypermagnesemia. The measurements in CSF were made after magnesium sulfate had been administered intravenously for at least 12 hours sustained. The magnesium threonate study involved oral doses and achieved sustained elevated Mg++ levels over a course of weeks (not to mention dramatic memory enhancement). The magnesium threonate study in fact cited the magensium sulfate study as a negative result in its introduction, and the magnesium sulfate study described itself as a negative result. There are other obvious differences as well that make the studies incomparable. For instance, one study is on people with acute brain injury, the other is on healthy rats. One study did measurements of memory enhancement, synaptic effects, etc. The other solely involved concentrations of Mg++.

Did you actually read the papers?

I should also point out that the magnesium threonate study specifically addressed a number of the issues discussed in this thread. For instance, magnesium chloride and citrate had only small (statistically insignificant) memory enhancement. The paper also notes that although magnesium gluconate has comparable bioavailability to magnesium threonate, it failed to enhance memory. Also, other threonate compounds such as sodium threonate had no effect on memory. Even the combination of sodium threonate with bioavailable forms of magnesium had no effect when combined.

If the results of this study hold up, it's exciting stuff -- a lot more exciting in my opinion than grandma's epsom salt bath.
  • like x 9
  • dislike x 5

#39 wowser

  • Guest
  • 95 posts
  • 69
  • Location:Dublin, Ireland

Posted 12 March 2012 - 11:05 AM

I find your posting and the subsequent discussion very strange indeed. The "hype" surrounding the magnesium threonate study is certainly warranted and your recommendation that people use magnesium sulfate has no scientific basis.

The two studies you cite are not comparable. The magnesium sulfate study involved sustained hypermagnesemia. The measurements in CSF were made after magnesium sulfate had been administered intravenously for at least 12 hours sustained. The magnesium threonate study involved oral doses and achieved sustained elevated Mg++ levels over a course of weeks (not to mention dramatic memory enhancement). The magnesium threonate study in fact cited the magensium sulfate study as a negative result in its introduction, and the magnesium sulfate study described itself as a negative result. There are other obvious differences as well that make the studies incomparable. For instance, one study is on people with acute brain injury, the other is on healthy rats. One study did measurements of memory enhancement, synaptic effects, etc. The other solely involved concentrations of Mg++.

Did you actually read the papers?

I should also point out that the magnesium threonate study specifically addressed a number of the issues discussed in this thread. For instance, magnesium chloride and citrate had only small (statistically insignificant) memory enhancement. The paper also notes that although magnesium gluconate has comparable bioavailability to magnesium threonate, it failed to enhance memory. Also, other threonate compounds such as sodium threonate had no effect on memory. Even the combination of sodium threonate with bioavailable forms of magnesium had no effect when combined.

If the results of this study hold up, it's exciting stuff -- a lot more exciting in my opinion than grandma's epsom salt bath.


its very suspicious that u have just joined and ur very first post is to so strongly defend magnesium threonate and its study, which is only on rats by the way! lol! its completely obvious u are affiliated with either the manufacturer of magtein (magnesium threonate) or one of the companies selling magtein (magnesium threonate) like life extension or swansons... ur sooooo obviously selling magnesium threonate.... ur busted mate!

i totally agree with scienceboy that currently there is not enough evidence to back up all the marketing hype being put out by ur lot who are selling the stuff... this one study which is on rats, not humans, is no way enough proof to support ur very bold claims... u think we are all mugs? pls take ur sales pitch elsewhere mr salesman!

u say "the hype surrounding the magnesium threonate study is certainly warranted"... i say show me ur proof! one rat study aint proof mr salesman! got anything else to back up ur very bold marketing claims aside from this one rat study? last time i checked i am not a rat so this study proves nothing! u can stick ur rat study in ur pipe and smoke it mr salesman! lol!

scienceboy says that there currently is not enough proof to back up the marketing claims and hes right... there currently isnt... and without proper proof im not going to part with my hard earned cash on buying magnesium threonate which is very expensive!

u say "did you actually read the papers?" well i just read ur rat study and i have to say i agree with scienceboy... and its funny cos i think u need glasses mate! the study is called "Enhancement of Learning and Memory by Elevating Brain Magnesium", not "Enhancement of Learning and Memory by Elevating Brain Magnesium Threonate"...

i dont rightly know about magnesium sulfate but it is obvious scienceboy isnt trying to make bold claims that magnesium sulfate improves memory like u are about magnesium threonate, he is obviously saying that the current evidence shows that mag sulfate is just as good as mag threonate at increasing magnesium levels in the brain... and scienceboy has backed up everything he says with studies on humans not rats...

this is the crux of what scienceboy is saying:

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 :)


i agree with scienceboy that itd be lovely if magnesium threonate was magically like NZT off limitless and did everything u salesman claim, but how many times has there been a claimed 'new miraculous nootropic' that turns out to be all hype without proper proof to back up those bold marketing claims... no, no, this wont do at all mr salesman... wheres ur proof? one rat study isnt proof!

and what have u got to say about this lot mr saleman?:

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


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! ;)


I have now been taking 7g of MgT daily for 55 days and I regret to say that there has been no measurable improvement in memory or any cognitive function over that time.

Testing:
I was testing at approximately 3 days intervals for the first two weeks thereafter about every 12 days. There has been no improvement at all in any of the computerized tests, which I find very disappointing.

Side effects;
I am pretty sure there is a mild laxative effect.


I am currently supplementing MgT,
haven't noticed increased cognitive abilities.


I decided to quit taking MgT since it seemed to worsen my chronic tinnitus :(


Any new updates on MgT.
I've been taking 1 teaspoon a day with food for the last 7 days. I have not felt anything yet.
No improvement on memory at all and I am still as dumb as I was before!!!!!!!!!


SOS here, nothing interesting to report. Just some loose stool..


Recently i start having left side headache after start taking LEF MgT several day at 1CAP/Day ,


Edited by wowser, 12 March 2012 - 11:11 AM.

  • like x 4
  • dislike x 4

#40 addle

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 1
  • Location:USA

Posted 13 March 2012 - 02:24 AM

its very suspicious that u have just joined and ur very first post is to so strongly defend magnesium threonate and its study, which is only on rats by the way! lol! its completely obvious u are affiliated with either the manufacturer of magtein (magnesium threonate) or one of the companies selling magtein (magnesium threonate) like life extension or swansons... ur sooooo obviously selling magnesium threonate.... ur busted mate!

i totally agree with scienceboy that currently there is not enough evidence to back up all the marketing hype being put out by ur lot who are selling the stuff... this one study which is on rats, not humans, is no way enough proof to support ur very bold claims... u think we are all mugs? pls take ur sales pitch elsewhere mr salesman!

u say "the hype surrounding the magnesium threonate study is certainly warranted"... i say show me ur proof! one rat study aint proof mr salesman! got anything else to back up ur very bold marketing claims aside from this one rat study? last time i checked i am not a rat so this study proves nothing! u can stick ur rat study in ur pipe and smoke it mr salesman! lol!

scienceboy says that there currently is not enough proof to back up the marketing claims and hes right... there currently isnt... and without proper proof im not going to part with my hard earned cash on buying magnesium threonate which is very expensive!

u say "did you actually read the papers?" well i just read ur rat study and i have to say i agree with scienceboy... and its funny cos i think u need glasses mate! the study is called "Enhancement of Learning and Memory by Elevating Brain Magnesium", not "Enhancement of Learning and Memory by Elevating Brain Magnesium Threonate"...

i dont rightly know about magnesium sulfate but it is obvious scienceboy isnt trying to make bold claims that magnesium sulfate improves memory like u are about magnesium threonate, he is obviously saying that the current evidence shows that mag sulfate is just as good as mag threonate at increasing magnesium levels in the brain... and scienceboy has backed up everything he says with studies on humans not rats...

this is the crux of what scienceboy is saying:

...

i agree with scienceboy that itd be lovely if magnesium threonate was magically like NZT off limitless and did everything u salesman claim, but how many times has there been a claimed 'new miraculous nootropic' that turns out to be all hype without proper proof to back up those bold marketing claims... no, no, this wont do at all mr salesman... wheres ur proof? one rat study isnt proof!

and what have u got to say about this lot mr saleman?:


Let me put things in perspective.

I am responding to scienceguy's posting that makes specific claims about what the magnesium studies say. Scienceguy's post didn't say the magnesium threonate study was poorly done, or that it wouldn't hold up in follow up research. (I in fact indirectly referred to the need for follow up research.) Scienceguy's specific point was that magnesium sulfate or other forms of magnesium would be cheaper and just as beneficial as MgT. For instance, he writes "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." In follow up posts, he went as far as expressing skepticism that people were not receiving benefits from Epsom salts. I pointed out that the studies he cites contradict his claims.

You have not addressed the actual arguments presented. You immediately reverted to ad hominem attacks without basis. And you went on to express a general skepticism about the studies. Scienceguy's post was not about general skepticism. Yes, we all agree that it would be good to have follow up studies. That's always necessary. But there's nothing that raises specific doubts about the MgT study. It was done at MIT, a leading institution, and it seems to be well constructed and to have explored more issues more thoroughly than is typical in a single study of its kind. If all you have to offer is skepticism, then I don't know what your passion is about this thread. Skepticism is always part of science.

When you point out the title of the paper is "Enhancement of Learning and Memory by Elevating Brain Magnesium", not "Enhancement of Learning and Memory by Elevating Brain Magnesium Threonate" I have to admit that you've read the title of the paper. However, if you read the body of the paper, you'll find that it states what I said in my post. Please take a few minutes to skim the paper before responding with further obfuscations.

As for the ad hominem, it's very odd you call me a salesman. I happen to be an academic scientist, selling nothing except education, and have no affiliation with any sector of the medical industry. By contrast, Scienceguy is apparently either a pre-med or a medical doctor, so he's not actually a scientist but by his own admission a salesman working in the medical industry, selling medical services.

So, we're actually from different worlds. I'm from the academic world of basic research, where supplement research is generally done. Supplements are substances found in nature that have fundamental biological significance, hence their study is associated with basic science, not usually big business. The MgT study was done at MIT, a leading academic institution. Supplements are generally non-patented, low margin commodity items. It's very strange indeed to suggest that a representative of a Chinese commodity supplement company would be in this forum trying to drum up business.


By contrast, scienceguy is from the business world. He's a worker in the medical industry, which is profit driven, geared toward high margin, patented, proprietary commercial products. The pharmaceutical products that medical businesses like hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies sell, generally come out of corporate product development laboratories and are not associated with nature or basic science. Very few leading scientists are associated with pharmaceutical product development or other aspects of industrial production. Nothing that's associated with basic science like MgT would be patentable or make sense in the medical industry business model. And the training of medical salespeople like scienceguy usually includes some peripheral study of basic biology and biochemistry, but does not generally include training in scientific research or even the ability to evaluate research.

The medical industry is notorious for its hostility toward supplements and basic science research. It spends billions of dollars a year on marketing, government lobbying, schmoozing medical salespeople like scienceguy, and trying to raise Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about basic science and supplements. Part of that is exactly the sort of thing scienceguy is doing here: misquoting the scientific literature, claiming that supplements are expensive and ineffective, dismissing the anecdotal reports of "mere non-medical industry people," etc. It's been going on for decades. By contrast, they tout the supposed benefits of "powerful" pharmaceutical products that cost many times what supplements cost, but which are based on shoddy and sometimes outright fraudent "research." Take the recent example of Scott Reuben, who fabricated dozens of "studies" on Vioxx, Celebrex, and other drugs (that are better treated with supplements).

Much of what is called "research" in the medical industry is product comparisons between pharmaceutical products from competing companies, which amounts to a sort of Consumer Reports for pharmaceuticals. When you look into the credentials of the authors of these "studies" published in medical industry trade journals like the NEJM and Lancet, you find with alarming regularity that study authors receive compensation from some of the companies whose products they review.

So, get your orientation straight. If you want to direct skepticism toward a salesman around here, by all means do so, but direct it toward someone who actually is a saleman.
  • like x 6
  • dislike x 5

#41 abelard lindsay

  • Guest
  • 873 posts
  • 227
  • Location:Mare Serenitatis Circumlunar Corporate Republic

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:07 AM

Just my two cents: Threonate is pretty interesting stuff. I definitely get an effect during the next day or two if I take it before bedtime. It does make me a bit stupid and relaxed just after I take it but the next day I'm really sharp. I am taking Cerebral Health brand and not more than about 1/4 teaspoon at a time.

Edited by abelard lindsay, 13 March 2012 - 04:08 AM.


#42 ScienceGuy

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member
  • 851 posts
  • 1,131
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 March 2012 - 11:42 AM

Let me put things in perspective.

I am responding to scienceguy's posting that makes specific claims about what the magnesium studies say....

...So, get your orientation straight. If you want to direct skepticism toward a salesman around here, by all means do so, but direct it toward someone who actually is a saleman.


Please can everyone stop with all the ad hominem attacks and stick to the science :)

Addle is perfectly entitled to his or her opinion on this matter so please can everyone kindly respect this ;)

There appears to be right and wrong on BOTH sides; and as the OP I feel a responsibilty to step in and impartially arbitrate this academic debate :)

Firstly, I feel the need to repeat the following:

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


It is abundantly clear from my posts within this thread that at no point have I suggested or claimed that MAGNESIUM SULFATE produces NOOTROPIC effects.

My singular point is regards the comparative ability of MAGNESIUM SULFATE versus MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE to elevate BRAIN MAGNESIUM LEVELS; in which regard, the RODENT STUDY titled Enhancement of Learning and Memory by Elevating Brain Magnesium” demonstrates that MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE demonstrates that brain magnesium levels are elevated by 7-15%; whereas, numerous other studies conclusively demonstrate that MAGNESIUM SULFATE also elevates BRAIN MAGNESIUM LEVELS by the same amount.

Here’s another one for example:

The following study demonstrates that administration of MAGNESIUM SULFATE increases CEREBROSPINAL FLUID (CSF) LEVELS (= BRAIN LEVELS) of MAGNESIUM by 11 - 18% in HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS, which is exactly the same as achieved with MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE:

Magnes Res. 1992 Dec;5(4):303-13.

Brain and CSF magnesium concentrations during magnesium deficit in animals and humans: neurological symptoms.

Morris ME.

Source
Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, State University of New York, Buffalo, Amherst.

Abstract
Magnesium is an essential cofactor for many enzymatic reactions, especially those involved in energy metabolism. Deficits of magnesium are prevalent due to inadequate intake or malabsorption and due to the renal loss of magnesium that occurs in certain disease states (alcoholism, diabetes) and with drug therapy (diuretics, aminoglycosides, cisplatin, digoxin, cyclosporin, amphotericin B). Protracted deficits of magnesium in humans and animals result in neurological disturbances, including hyperexcitability, convulsions and various psychiatric symptoms ranging from apathy to psychosis, some of which can be reversed with magnesium supplementation, others requiring correction of the dysregulation mechanism. Although the role of magnesium in neuronal function is not completely understood, a lowering of CSF or brain magnesium can induce epileptiform activity and there is an association between decreased CSF magnesium and the development of seizures. CSF concentrations of magnesium are normally higher than magnesium plasma ultrafiltrate (diffusible) concentrations due to the active transport of magnesium across the blood-brain barrier. Under conditions of magnesium deficiency, CSF concentrations decline, although this decline lags behind and is less pronounced than the changes observed in plasma magnesium concentrations. Decreases in CSF magnesium concentrations correlate with the alterations observed in extracellular brain magnesium concentrations in animals following the dietary deprivation of magnesium. CSF magnesium concentrations can readily be repleted following magnesium supplementation, although high dose magnesium [sulfate] therapy, such as that used in the treatment of convulsions in eclampsia, will only increase CSF magnesium concentrations to a very limited degree (approximately 11-18 per cent) above physiological concentrations. Greater increases in CSF magnesium may occur in neonates since neonatal swine, following treatment with magnesium, have CSF magnesium concentrations that are similar to their plasma concentrations. There has been a recent resurgence of interest in magnesium deficiency and its neurological consequences due to the finding that magnesium, at physiological concentrations, blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors in neurones. NMDA receptors are normally activated by glutamate and/or aspartate which represent the principal neurotransmitters for excitatory synaptic transmission in vertebrate CNS. Magnesium deficiency produces epileptiform activity in the CNS which can be blocked by NMDA receptor antagonists. Other mechanisms, including alterations in Na+/K(+)-ATPase activity, cAMP/cGMP concentrations and calcium currents in pre- and postsynaptic membranes, may also be at least partially responsible for the neuronal effects associated with low brain magnesium. Further studies are necessary to increase our understanding of the neurological implications of magnesium deficit in the central nervous system.

PMID: 1296767

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

However, I feel the need to make clear that I am NOT taking sides with regards to whether or not MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is a good product or not; at the time of posting this thread I was squarely sitting on the fence in this regard, awaiting other scientific substantiation to support the claims being made about MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE aside from the singular RODENT STUDY.

I happen to be an academic scientist, selling nothing except education, and have no affiliation with any sector of the medical industry. By contrast, Scienceguy is apparently either a pre-med or a medical doctor, so he's not actually a scientist but by his own admission a salesman working in the medical industry, selling medical services.

So, we're actually from different worlds. I'm from the academic world of basic research, where supplement research is generally done. Supplements are substances found in nature that have fundamental biological significance, hence their study is associated with basic science, not usually big business. The MgT study was done at MIT, a leading academic institution. Supplements are generally non-patented, low margin commodity items. It's very strange indeed to suggest that a representative of a Chinese commodity supplement company would be in this forum trying to drum up business.

By contrast, scienceguy is from the business world. He's a worker in the medical industry, which is profit driven, geared toward high margin, patented, proprietary commercial products. The pharmaceutical products that medical businesses like hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies sell, generally come out of corporate product development laboratories and are not associated with nature or basic science. Very few leading scientists are associated with pharmaceutical product development or other aspects of industrial production. Nothing that's associated with basic science like MgT would be patentable or make sense in the medical industry business model. And the training of medical salespeople like scienceguy usually includes some peripheral study of basic biology and biochemistry, but does not generally include training in scientific research or even the ability to evaluate research.

The medical industry is notorious for its hostility toward supplements and basic science research. It spends billions of dollars a year on marketing, government lobbying, schmoozing medical salespeople like scienceguy, and trying to raise Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about basic science and supplements. Part of that is exactly the sort of thing scienceguy is doing here: misquoting the scientific literature, claiming that supplements are expensive and ineffective, dismissing the anecdotal reports of "mere non-medical industry people," etc. It's been going on for decades. By contrast, they tout the supposed benefits of "powerful" pharmaceutical products that cost many times what supplements cost, but which are based on shoddy and sometimes outright fraudent "research." Take the recent example of Scott Reuben, who fabricated dozens of "studies" on Vioxx, Celebrex, and other drugs (that are better treated with supplements).

Much of what is called "research" in the medical industry is product comparisons between pharmaceutical products from competing companies, which amounts to a sort of Consumer Reports for pharmaceuticals. When you look into the credentials of the authors of these "studies" published in medical industry trade journals like the NEJM and Lancet, you find with alarming regularity that study authors receive compensation from some of the companies whose products they review.

So, get your orientation straight.


Addle,

With the utmost respect you need to practice what you preach; you say get your orientation straight” when yours is as crooked as a right angle, in that everything you say about me is wholly factually incorrect.

Please kindly note that I am in fact a NUTRITIONAL SCIENTIST turned MEDICAL STUDENT, which is made perfectly clear from my profile.

I have two decades professional experience working with NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS.

As such, I am somewhat uniquely able to provide entirely unbiased opinions on both NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS and PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS, because my professional experience lies within BOTH :)

So, please kindly get YOUR orientation straight ;)

You claim that you are a SCIENTIST yourself; it is therefore wholly irresponsible of you to argue that a singular RODENT STUDY is sufficient substantiation of the claims being made about MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE. Being a SCIENTIST you should know better.

A singular RODENT STUDY is by no means conclusive substantiated scientific evidence to support the pre-existing claims being made by vendors of MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE

However, I am now going to turn this thread on its head, and demonstrate my truly unbiased opinion on this matter ;)

Firstly, please kindly note that I have come across some very recently published additional research, which further supports the claims being made regarding MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE providing NOOTROPIC effects.

Please see attached FULL TEXT of new second RAT STUDY titled “Effects of Elevation of Brain Magnesium on Fear Conditioning, Fear Extinction, and Synaptic Plasticity”

Furthermore, I am aware that finally a new study, this time 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, whilst very interesting, 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, for the time being I am sitting squarely on the fence so to speak, waiting 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 - 06:28 PM.

  • like x 4
  • dislike x 1

#43 burtshulman

  • Guest
  • 6 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New York

Posted 03 May 2012 - 03:04 AM

Please consider the following.

The article quoted by Scienceguy and his conclusion that MgSO4 is just as good as Mg-Threonate at raising cerebrospinal fluid concentration of Mg has an obvious flaw. The title tells it all. "Analysis of the brain bioavailability of peripherally administered magnesium sulfate: A study in humans with acute brain injury undergoing prolonged induced hypermagnesemia."
In order for MgSO4 to have the same effect as Mg-Threonate, it required IV administration to induce a state of Hypermagnesemia.
This is a dangerous condition that can slow/stop heart rate, crash blood pressure and slow/stop breathing...a completely nonsustainable physiologic state. On the other hand, relatively small doses of orally administered Mg-Threonate achieved the same increase in in CSF Mg without inducing hypermagnesemia......a completely sustainable physiologic state. With this in mind, one might challenge Scienceguy to maintain the increased CSF level (and Hypermagnesemia) for a year by IV MgSO4 versus orally administered Mg-Threonate.

Also, in deference to the study he cites, here is another study with the opposite result.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11801809
Intravenous magnesium sulfate does not increase ventricular CSF ionized magnesium concentration of patients with intracranial hypertension.
Brewer RP, Parra A, Borel CO, Hopkins MB, Reynolds JD.
Source
Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
Abstract
Magnesium sulfate has attracted interest as a potential neuroprotectant but passage of magnesium ion into the central nervous system has not been well documented. For this study, we quantified plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) ionized magnesium concentration after systemic magnesium sulfate infusion in patients with intracranial hypertension. Patients ( N = 9) received an intravenous infusion of 5 g/20 mmol magnesium sulfate (125 mL of a 4% wt/vol solution) over 30 minutes. Before and after dosing, CSF (from an indwelling ventricular catheter) and blood samples were collected at hourly intervals. Ionized magnesium concentration in all samples was determined using an electrolyte analyzer. Baseline plasma and CSF ionized magnesium concentrations were 0.58 +/- 0.05 and 0.82 +/- 0.06 mmol/L, respectively. Intravenous magnesium sulfate infusion significantly increased plasma ionized magnesium concentration (peak, 0.89 +/- 0.11 mmol/L), but CSF magnesium levels did not change during the 4-hour study.
Systemic administration of magnesium sulfate failed to increase CSF ionized magnesium concentration in patients with intracranial hypertension despite increasing plasma magnesium levels by >50%
  • like x 1

#44 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 May 2012 - 11:06 AM

I've tried magnesium L-threonate and magnesium ascorbate, and as I can't tell the difference and the ascorbate is much cheaper, I take the latter. As for the original MgT paper, it seems to me that somebody made a new compound and said, great, let's do a study and sell it.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 03 May 2012 - 11:09 AM.


#45 noos

  • Guest
  • 559 posts
  • 49
  • Location:noosphere

Posted 03 May 2012 - 02:42 PM

How does Mg threonate compares to pidolate?

#46 Junk Master

  • Guest
  • 1,032 posts
  • 88
  • Location:United States

Posted 03 May 2012 - 04:27 PM

How about a recommendation for adding Magnesium to my stack, including brand(s)? Currently, I'm finishing a bottle of cheap Magnesium Oxide, and feeling no positive effects.

I also take a weekly Epsom Salt bath, which does seem to have positive effects. I feel much more relaxed, clear headed, and it helps with muscle soreness. I'd take one every other day, if I had the time.

#47 ScienceGuy

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member
  • 851 posts
  • 1,131
  • Location:UK

Posted 11 July 2012 - 05:33 PM

Please consider the following.

The article quoted by Scienceguy and his conclusion that MgSO4 is just as good as Mg-Threonate at raising cerebrospinal fluid concentration of Mg has an obvious flaw. The title tells it all. "Analysis of the brain bioavailability of peripherally administered magnesium sulfate: A study in humans with acute brain injury undergoing prolonged induced hypermagnesemia."
In order for MgSO4 to have the same effect as Mg-Threonate, it required IV administration to induce a state of Hypermagnesemia.
This is a dangerous condition that can slow/stop heart rate, crash blood pressure and slow/stop breathing...a completely nonsustainable physiologic state. On the other hand, relatively small doses of orally administered Mg-Threonate achieved the same increase in in CSF Mg without inducing hypermagnesemia......a completely sustainable physiologic state. With this in mind, one might challenge Scienceguy to maintain the increased CSF level (and Hypermagnesemia) for a year by IV MgSO4 versus orally administered Mg-Threonate.

Also, in deference to the study he cites, here is another study with the opposite result.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11801809
Intravenous magnesium sulfate does not increase ventricular CSF ionized magnesium concentration of patients with intracranial hypertension.
Brewer RP, Parra A, Borel CO, Hopkins MB, Reynolds JD.
Source
Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
Abstract
Magnesium sulfate has attracted interest as a potential neuroprotectant but passage of magnesium ion into the central nervous system has not been well documented. For this study, we quantified plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) ionized magnesium concentration after systemic magnesium sulfate infusion in patients with intracranial hypertension. Patients ( N = 9) received an intravenous infusion of 5 g/20 mmol magnesium sulfate (125 mL of a 4% wt/vol solution) over 30 minutes. Before and after dosing, CSF (from an indwelling ventricular catheter) and blood samples were collected at hourly intervals. Ionized magnesium concentration in all samples was determined using an electrolyte analyzer. Baseline plasma and CSF ionized magnesium concentrations were 0.58 +/- 0.05 and 0.82 +/- 0.06 mmol/L, respectively. Intravenous magnesium sulfate infusion significantly increased plasma ionized magnesium concentration (peak, 0.89 +/- 0.11 mmol/L), but CSF magnesium levels did not change during the 4-hour study.
Systemic administration of magnesium sulfate failed to increase CSF ionized magnesium concentration in patients with intracranial hypertension despite increasing plasma magnesium levels by >50%


Firstly, MR MAGNESIUM THREONATE SALESMAN, I consider it to be highly suspicious that yet again we are presented with yourself, a brand new member whose very first post is to vehemently defend the marketing spiel for MAGNESIUM THREONATE by attacking my prior information and posts.

In my experience one does not have to be a genius to deduce that you are clearly affilated in some way to the manufacturer and/or supplier of MAGNESIUM THREONATE and as such, you are wholly biased and everyone reading this thread should note this fact, and in my opinion disregard anything that you have to say with regards to MAGNESIUM THREONATE.

The fact of the matter is that there currently does not exist scientific substantiation to support the bery bold marketing claims made about MAGNESIUM THREONATE by the people that you so obviously work for.

Secondly, the study that you refer to is only one study that conclusively demonstrate sthat MAGNESIUM SULFATE also elevates BRAIN MAGNESIUM LEVELS by the same amount. There are others which have in fact been carried out on HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS, that conclusively demonstrate sthat MAGNESIUM SULFATE also elevates BRAIN MAGNESIUM LEVELS by the same amount.

Here’s another one for example:

The following study demonstrates that administration of MAGNESIUM SULFATE increases CEREBROSPINAL FLUID (CSF) LEVELS (= BRAIN LEVELS) of MAGNESIUM by 11 - 18% in HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS, which is exactly the same as achieved with MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE:

Magnes Res. 1992 Dec;5(4):303-13.

Brain and CSF magnesium concentrations during magnesium deficit in animals and humans: neurological symptoms.

Morris ME.

Source
Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, State University of New York, Buffalo, Amherst.

Abstract
Magnesium is an essential cofactor for many enzymatic reactions, especially those involved in energy metabolism. Deficits of magnesium are prevalent due to inadequate intake or malabsorption and due to the renal loss of magnesium that occurs in certain disease states (alcoholism, diabetes) and with drug therapy (diuretics, aminoglycosides, cisplatin, digoxin, cyclosporin, amphotericin B). Protracted deficits of magnesium in humans and animals result in neurological disturbances, including hyperexcitability, convulsions and various psychiatric symptoms ranging from apathy to psychosis, some of which can be reversed with magnesium supplementation, others requiring correction of the dysregulation mechanism. Although the role of magnesium in neuronal function is not completely understood, a lowering of CSF or brain magnesium can induce epileptiform activity and there is an association between decreased CSF magnesium and the development of seizures. CSF concentrations of magnesium are normally higher than magnesium plasma ultrafiltrate (diffusible) concentrations due to the active transport of magnesium across the blood-brain barrier. Under conditions of magnesium deficiency, CSF concentrations decline, although this decline lags behind and is less pronounced than the changes observed in plasma magnesium concentrations. Decreases in CSF magnesium concentrations correlate with the alterations observed in extracellular brain magnesium concentrations in animals following the dietary deprivation of magnesium. CSF magnesium concentrations can readily be repleted following magnesium supplementation, although high dose magnesium [sulfate] therapy, such as that used in the treatment of convulsions in eclampsia, will only increase CSF magnesium concentrations to a very limited degree (approximately 11-18 per cent) above physiological concentrations. Greater increases in CSF magnesium may occur in neonates since neonatal swine, following treatment with magnesium, have CSF magnesium concentrations that are similar to their plasma concentrations. There has been a recent resurgence of interest in magnesium deficiency and its neurological consequences due to the finding that magnesium, at physiological concentrations, blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors in neurones. NMDA receptors are normally activated by glutamate and/or aspartate which represent the principal neurotransmitters for excitatory synaptic transmission in vertebrate CNS. Magnesium deficiency produces epileptiform activity in the CNS which can be blocked by NMDA receptor antagonists. Other mechanisms, including alterations in Na+/K(+)-ATPase activity, cAMP/cGMP concentrations and calcium currents in pre- and postsynaptic membranes, may also be at least partially responsible for the neuronal effects associated with low brain magnesium. Further studies are necessary to increase our understanding of the neurological implications of magnesium deficit in the central nervous system.

PMID: 1296767

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

Hence, I reiterate that at the present time there simply does not existsubtantiated scientific evidence to support the marketing claims made about MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE and as such I am sitting squarely on the fence so to speak until there is; and anyone who sings the praises of MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE in light of said aforementioned absence of subtantiated scientific evidence to support the marketing claims made about MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE clearly is either selling it or affilated with the people who are. ;)

#48 ScienceGuy

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member
  • 851 posts
  • 1,131
  • Location:UK

Posted 11 July 2012 - 05:38 PM

I've tried magnesium L-threonate and magnesium ascorbate, and as I can't tell the difference and the ascorbate is much cheaper, I take the latter. As for the original MgT paper, it seems to me that somebody made a new compound and said, great, let's do a study and sell it.


Hi Turnbuckle,

RE "I've tried magnesium L-threonate and magnesium ascorbate, and as I can't tell the difference and the ascorbate is much cheaper" - Thank you for sharing this information; in my experience so far this is not uncommon :)

RE: "As for the original MgT paper, it seems to me that somebody made a new compound and said, great, let's do a study and sell it." - I wholeheartedly agree; and it is obvious that anyone who so vehemently defends it in the absence of any proper substantiated scientific evidence is either selling the stuff or affiliated with the people who are ;)

#49 burtshulman

  • Guest
  • 6 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New York

Posted 11 July 2012 - 07:03 PM

In my earlier post I pointed out that studies show that in order to achieve noticeable brain magnesium increase with magnesium sulphate, one needs to induce hypermagnesimia by IV administration, an unsustainable situation. As far as Scienceguy saying that I'm a salesman for Mag Threonate and the studies I posted should thus be ignored, is absurd. The evidence for Mag Threonate raising brain magnesium (without need to induce hypermagnesiamea) is slim, but the evidence for magnesium sulphate's above stated effect, is well established.

Burt Shulman
Mechanical Engineer
845 298 4229

#50 noos

  • Guest
  • 559 posts
  • 49
  • Location:noosphere

Posted 11 July 2012 - 07:54 PM

In my earlier post I pointed out that studies show that in order to achieve noticeable brain magnesium increase with magnesium sulphate, one needs to induce hypermagnesimia by IV administration, an unsustainable situation. As far as Scienceguy saying that I'm a salesman for Mag Threonate and the studies I posted should thus be ignored, is absurd. The evidence for Mag Threonate raising brain magnesium (without need to induce hypermagnesiamea) is slim, but the evidence for magnesium sulphate's above stated effect, is well established.

Burt Shulman
Mechanical Engineer
845 298 4229


What about Mg pidolate Burt?

#51 gizmobrain

  • Guest
  • 548 posts
  • 105
  • Location:USA

Posted 11 July 2012 - 09:23 PM

Is there any data to suggest that it might be the other half of the equation here that is packing the punch for some folks, i.e. L-threonic acid?

This supplement causes a sudden onset of a weird calmness and shift in perception about a half hour after I take it. I have not noticed this from any other magnesium supplementation. Maybe it is the rapidity of onset that makes it feel subjectively different. Any data that suggests it might have a quick peaking effect versus a more gradual action by the other magnesium forms?

Just trying to suggest possible reasons why there is a large group of people that can actively perceive a difference between this form of magnesium over the others. I've done a few informal placebo trials on myself (n=1), and I have never failed to discern which one is the magnesium l-threonate, however, I have noticed that some days the effect is stronger than others. Maybe the effect happens when I'm deficient in magnesium, or on days when I've had too many stimulants.

Edited by zrbarnes, 11 July 2012 - 09:27 PM.


#52 1thoughtMaze1

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • -127
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 11 July 2012 - 11:18 PM

Scienceguy, you seem to have ALOT of time on your hand with all these posts. Care to explain how a medical student scientist has all this free time?  
  • dislike x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#53 nito

  • Guest
  • 996 posts
  • 27

Posted 12 July 2012 - 12:16 AM

This thread title is sad to read.
  • like x 1

#54 ScienceGuy

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member
  • 851 posts
  • 1,131
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 July 2012 - 05:32 AM

Scienceguy, you seem to have ALOT of time on your hand with all these posts. Care to explain how a medical student scientist has all this free time?


Ah, now the unwarranted personal attacks begin... and why? Because I correctly point out that when one looks into whether or not there is the scientific evidence to properly substantiate the very strong marketing claims being made by vendors of MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE the fact is that there currently isn't.

If you read my posts within this thread properly you will note that I am not in fact spearheading a campaign against MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE itself, but those making highly inappropriate marketing claims about it when at the current time there simply does not exist substantiated scientific evidence to support those claims. This is my singular, and hence only point... anyone care to disagree with that? If so, please kindly provide the necessary scientific evidence which at the current time is sadly absent...

And in response to your wholly unwarranted attack on me personally... if you bother to read the dates of my posts you will note that my activity on this forum is intermittent at best with posts made sporadically at all times including the early hours, nighttime, evening etc... furthermore, you will also note that there has in fact been periods of months when I have been entirely absent, as well as durations of weeks and/or days at a time. Hence, before you start with such attacks upon my personage I suggest you ensure that you properly take into account all the facts first, because you only embarrass yourself and make yourself appear to be a highly unsavourly individual to everyone else by making such baseless attacks on me, OK? ;)

I only wish I had more time to devote to this forum in my continued effort to improve the lives of others... how many peoples' lives did YOU improve today? :dry:

Edited by ScienceGuy, 12 July 2012 - 06:34 AM.

  • like x 1

#55 ScienceGuy

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member
  • 851 posts
  • 1,131
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 July 2012 - 05:35 AM

This thread title is sad to read.


Sad indeed. It would be wonderful if the necessary studies were conducted and published to properly substantiate the marketing claims being made about Mg Threonate, but sadly at the present time they simply do not exist. A couple of RAT STUDIES, which is all that exists at the current moment in time is wholly insufficient. ;)

#56 gizmobrain

  • Guest
  • 548 posts
  • 105
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 July 2012 - 05:39 AM

Scienceguy, you seem to have ALOT of time on your hand with all these posts. Care to explain how a medical student scientist has all this free time?


Ah, now the unwarranted personal attacks begin... and why?


His user rating and previous posts show the real story here. Also, glad to see you back. While you sometimes lean on the side of making definitive statements in things that could be subjective (heh, most science minded folks tend to do this, me included), I have always appreciated the quality of your posts. Hope you can find some time to hang around a bit more.

Now, back to science. Any thoughts on my post?

Edited by zrbarnes, 12 July 2012 - 06:25 AM.


#57 ScienceGuy

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member
  • 851 posts
  • 1,131
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 July 2012 - 06:06 AM

In my earlier post I pointed out that studies show that in order to achieve noticeable brain magnesium increase with magnesium sulphate, one needs to induce hypermagnesimia by IV administration, an unsustainable situation. As far as Scienceguy saying that I'm a salesman for Mag Threonate and the studies I posted should thus be ignored, is absurd. The evidence for Mag Threonate raising brain magnesium (without need to induce hypermagnesiamea) is slim, but the evidence for magnesium sulphate's above stated effect, is well established.

Burt Shulman
Mechanical Engineer
845 298 4229


Burt,

My point is that it is highly suspicious indeed that anyone should so vehemently defend the marketing claims being made about MAGNESIUM THREONATE when as you yourself state "The evidence for Mag Threonate raising brain magnesium (without need to induce hypermagnesiamea) is slim,"; which, in my opinion, is in fact a gross understatement, since TWO RAT STUDIES does not qualify as "slim"; TWO RAT STUDIES is not in any regard substantiated evidence. Are you a rat? ;) :)

Hence, if you are wholly impartial as you claim, and not affiliated with any manfufacturer or supplier of MG THREONATE you should be sitting squarely on the fence with regards to its claimed superiority, until there is published the necessary and currently absent scientific evidence to support those claims.

Furthermore, what is "well established" is that adminstration of MAGNESIUM SULPHATE also elevates brain magnesium levels, which is properly substantiated; and analysis of CFS via LUMBAR PUNCTURE confirms it.

If you are truly not in any regards affiliated with any manufacturer or supplier of MG THREONATE, then I sincerely apologise for falsely accusing you as such :)

However, if this is indeed the case, you must take a step back and look at the science, wherein, if you are wholly impartial as you say you are, you must concur with my perspective on the situation. I take on board your point regarding the induction of HYPERMAGNESEMIA, however please kindly note that this in fact occurs in any instance of BOLUS ADMINSTRATION of MAGNESIUM, whether PER ORAL, TRANSDERMAL, INJECTED or otherwise; and hence my recommended administration method of TRANSDERMAL application of an appropriate, safe dosage of MAGNESIUM SULPHATE via adding 1-2 cups EPSOM SALTS (MAGNESIUM SULPHATE) to a hot bath wherein one soaks for at least 12 minutes, is scientifically substantiated to be readily absorbed into the blood stream and hence through BOLUS ADMINSTRATION will indeed elevate CFS levels of MAGNESIUM, which can be confirmed by analysis of CFS via LUMBAR PUNCTURE. :)

Therefore, if you are wholly impartial as you say you are, you should sit squarely on the fence regarding this matter as I am, and await the well overdue publication of the necessary scientific evidence to substantiate the very bold marketing claims being made about MG THREONATE. There are far too many instances of SNAKE OIL being sold without proper scientific backing; I am very much hoping that MG THREONATE does not fall within that category, however until there is released the much needed scientific evidence to support those claims we cannot say for sure that it doesn't fall within that category either ;)

Edited by ScienceGuy, 12 July 2012 - 06:08 AM.


#58 ScienceGuy

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member
  • 851 posts
  • 1,131
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 July 2012 - 06:20 AM

Is there any data to suggest that it might be the other half of the equation here that is packing the punch for some folks, i.e. L-threonic acid?

This supplement causes a sudden onset of a weird calmness and shift in perception about a half hour after I take it. I have not noticed this from any other magnesium supplementation. Maybe it is the rapidity of onset that makes it feel subjectively different. Any data that suggests it might have a quick peaking effect versus a more gradual action by the other magnesium forms?

Just trying to suggest possible reasons why there is a large group of people that can actively perceive a difference between this form of magnesium over the others. I've done a few informal placebo trials on myself (n=1), and I have never failed to discern which one is the magnesium l-threonate, however, I have noticed that some days the effect is stronger than others. Maybe the effect happens when I'm deficient in magnesium, or on days when I've had too many stimulants.


Hi zrbarnes,

Excellent question! :)

One of the two RAT STUDIES used SODIUM THREONATE as a control, both as MONOTHERAPY as well as in combination with MAGNESIUM CHLORIDE. In my opinion, the results show that IN RATS the SODIUM THREONATE did indeed yield an effect higher that that of the PLACEBO and hence does appear to have an effect.

I should also mention the fact that the study also showed that MAGNESIUM THREONATE had a greater effect than SODIUM THREONATE PLUS MAGNESIUM CHLORIDE, however in my opinion this did not take into consideration the lesser PER ORAL ABSORPTION of the CHLORIDE salt of MAGNESIUM, and hence the difference can easily be explained as occurring for that reason.

So, in answer to your question, it appears that IN RATS the L-THREONIC ACID is not entirely INERT. Hence, you make a very good point indeed :cool:

P.S. Thank you for the kind words above. I should point out that I do not have sufficient time for studies and to contribute to this forum and have a social life, so as such since I give precedence to helping and improving the lives of others, I in fact currently have no social life :laugh:

Edited by ScienceGuy, 12 July 2012 - 06:30 AM.


#59 1thoughtMaze1

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • -127
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 12 July 2012 - 12:07 PM

Yes help me Dr, help me. And zrbarnes, he needs all the help he can get.

MgT is better, just admit it. You just want to keep it all for yourself because you're greedy. Yeah you're greedy aren't you.

You mean you wish you had more time to stroke your ego

Edited by 1thoughtMaze1, 12 July 2012 - 12:11 PM.

  • dislike x 7
  • like x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#60 ScienceGuy

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member
  • 851 posts
  • 1,131
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 July 2012 - 12:36 PM

How does Mg threonate compares to pidolate?


With regards to what exactly? Ability to elevate brain magnesium levels? Claimed nootropic effects? :)





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