10 replies to this topic

[jdog]

I thought it'd be a good idea to know how much one should supplement given their unique chemical makeup, instead of just "shooting in the dark" so-to-speak, when deciding on a dosage. Have any of you had a deficiency analysis of your vitamins and minerals? It seems like an excellent idea, I'm just suprised I don't see anyone talking about it.

I found a site that provides "Hair Tissue Mineral Analysis" for $114.00. here I've also seen tests that cost upwards of $300.00. I believe those were urine analysis' rather than hair tissue though. What do you guys think about dishing out the cash for one of these?

[opales]

I think they are generally too unreliable to give useful information and generally used by dubious health practitioners. They might have value in poising cases though, but that's not what you are looking for.

Even if you discount this source of information, at least check out the references.
http://www.quackwatc...opics/hair.html

[jdog]

Thanks for the info, opales. The author from the quackwatch link mentioned that vitamin and mineral levels can fluctuate based on age, time of season, and some other factors. Regardless of these changes, there should be some sort of reliable test to determine any significant deviations from a established baseline?

[opales]

I think they are generally too unreliable to give useful information and generally used by dubious health practitioners. They might have value in poising cases though, but that's not what you are looking for.

Even if you discount this source of information, at least check out the references.
http://www.quackwatc...opics/hair.html

Some companies use hair samples to test for drugs. If they can find drugs in a hair sample then why would minerals be unreliable???

I don't know, they just are. Did you read the references? Maybe most of the "laboratories" are trying to make a quick buck

Assessment of commercial laboratories performing hair mineral analysis.

Seidel S, Kreutzer R, Smith D, McNeel S, Gilliss D.

California Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Investigations Branch, 1515 Clay St, Suite 1700, Oakland, CA 94612, USA. sseidel@dhs.ca.gov

CONTEXT: Hair mineral analysis is being used by health care practitioners and promoted by laboratories as a clinical assessment tool and to identify toxic exposures, despite a 1985 study that found poor reliability for this test. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the reliability of data from commercial laboratories advertising multimineral hair analyses for nutritional or toxicity assessment has improved since the 1985 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A split hair sample taken from near the scalp of a single healthy volunteer was submitted for analysis to 6 commercial US laboratories, which analyze 90% of samples submitted for mineral analysis in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement of test results for each analyte, laboratory reference ranges, laboratory characteristics, and interpretation of health implications. RESULTS: Laboratory differences in highest and lowest reported mineral concentrations for the split sample exceeded 10-fold for 12 minerals, and statistically significant (P<.05) extreme values were reported for 14 of the 31 minerals that were analyzed by 3 or more laboratories. Variations also were found in laboratory sample preparation methods and calibration standards. Laboratory designations of normal reference ranges varied greatly, resulting in conflicting classifications (high, normal, or low) of nearly all analyzed minerals. Laboratories also provided conflicting dietary and nutritional supplement recommendations based on their results. CONCLUSIONS: Hair mineral analysis from these laboratories was unreliable, and we recommend that health care practitioners refrain from using such analyses to assess individual nutritional status or suspected environmental exposures. Problems with the regulation and certification of these laboratories also should be addressed.

[wayside]

That study assumes those people were healthy but how do they know for sure that those participants did not have faulty mineral transport issues?

That study says that hair from the *same person* was sent to all of the labs. You would expect the labs to all report more or less the same concentrations of minerals, regardless of the health of the person.

Yet the results came back wildly different from the labs:

RESULTS: Laboratory differences in highest and lowest reported mineral concentrations for the split sample exceeded 10-fold for 12 minerals, and statistically significant (P<.05) extreme values were reported for 14 of the 31 minerals that were analyzed by 3 or more laboratories.

A 10X range for identical samples???

I would say that is pretty unreliable.

[stephen_b]

CONCLUSIONS: The zinc problem with austic children would be explained by some as faulty mineral transport issues. ALL minerals need a protein to get into the bloodstream and if that protein is not sufficient than the levels in the hair will reflect the mineral transport issue more than it will reflect accurate body levels.

Interestingly, low lead in the hair of autistic children could mean that they are less able to excrete it. I have heard that non-autistic kids with lead exposure have higher lead levels in their hair than autistic kids with lead exposure (sorry no sources for that). So it could follow that it takes some expertise to come to the right conclusions with hair analysis.

I wonder what are some of the tests performed at longevity clinics like Terry Grossman's?

Stephen

[lhobbs1]

I do not trust Quackwatch and would not believe anything they say there. For example quackwatch says chelation therapy is useless when I personally know of many people helped by this. It seems to be a tool of those who want to be rid of alternative medicine.

[OutOfThyme]

I do not trust Quackwatch and would not believe anything they say there. For example quackwatch says chelation therapy is useless when I personally know of many people helped by this. It seems to be a tool of those who want to be rid of alternative medicine.

Anything...?

Sounds a bit extreme. Quackwatch isn't perfect, but it's a great place to get ones bearings. Sure, their ultra-conservative and tend to be on the rigid, skeptical side of things, but I can appreciate their orthodox stance, yet continue to play the odds outside the bounds of conventional medicine by using health supplements whose claims have not been fully substantiated; at minimal risk.

A website such as theirs is in the minority. You're more likely to encounter grossly misleading sites with exaggerated or incompetent claims. Weigh the risks accordingly.