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

Photo
- - - - -

Bioavailability & elemental % of Magnesium Types


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#61 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,132 posts
  • 315

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:49 PM

here's a study comparing a glycinate with the oxide form: http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7815675


According to that study, diglycinate is about 2x better absorbed than oxide, but according to this reference citrate is 4.5x better absorbed than oxide.

So far to me it looks like citrate is better absorbed by far.

Edited by smithx, 04 November 2012 - 08:49 PM.


#62 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 1,846 posts
  • 411
  • Location:Austria

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:13 PM

how do you monitor your nutrient intake ?


Measuring the food and entering it in a spreadsheet for calculating total of macro- and micronutrients.

how do you know what you are deficient in and what is best absorbed or not ?

probably in the future some smart phone measuring our nutrient balance and intake. i doubt anyone can know what nutrients he needs, the balance of, if any deficiency currently.


Most obvious signs of deficiency in association with lab tests where ever available. For example muscle cramps which ceased with 1 g/d elemental magnesium associated with blood/hair tissue results.

Of course, it's only an approximation but better then mere guessing.

sponsored ad

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

#63 mikey

  • Member
  • 983 posts
  • 161
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:27 PM

the most well-absorbed magnesium on the market is Doctor's Best High Absorption 100% Chelated Magnesium.


Upon what do you base this statement? Has the product been tested in a published study?


I have the data in a huge pile of papers that are destined to go through my new NEAT organizer.

I'm sorry I don't have it ready at hand, but there are compelling data supporting the Albion chelated magnesium glycinate/lysinate as being first, a true dipeptide chelate and then exhibiting superior absorption characteristics.

I'll post the data once I get the NEAT scanner working on that pile of papers. The data was so compelling that I bought the product to take.

⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#64 hav

  • Guest
  • 1,089 posts
  • 216
  • Location:Cape Cod, MA
  • NO

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:03 PM

here's a study comparing a glycinate with the oxide form: http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7815675


According to that study, diglycinate is about 2x better absorbed than oxide, but according to this reference citrate is 4.5x better absorbed than oxide.

So far to me it looks like citrate is better absorbed by far.


I think the study you referenced measured bioavailability through urinary analysis. I don't have the full text of the book you referenced, however, so I can't look up footnote 66 and be certain. I did look on Pubmed, however, and all the studies I located there that examined oxide versus citrate used urinary analysis so I'm guessing the referenced study is one of them. I've seen that measurement technique criticized as inaccurate. The glycinate study used stable isotope tracers which I consider a more accurate measure for magnesium absorption. In any event, the measurement techniques were different and neither study compared all three: oxide, citrate, and chelated glycinate, and thus cannot be directly and numerically compared.

Howard
  • like x 1

#65 mikey

  • Member
  • 983 posts
  • 161
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:46 AM

The problem with Mg Tthreonate is its cost. VERY expensive per mg.

And Howard is right.

A calcium study compared isotope with urinary. It found that isotope was three times more precise.

#66 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,132 posts
  • 315

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:06 AM

The fact that the tracer method is more sensitive does not affect the result that diglycinate is about 2x better absorbed than oxide and citrate is 4.5x better absorbed than oxide, making citrate far preferable, at least in terms of absorption.

Sensitivity merely means that we could tell it was 2.12x vs 4.493x rather than merely 2x vs 4.5x, but would not change the magnitude of the results. And in this case the magnitude is so great, that more sensitivity will have no effect at all.

⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#67 dear mrclock

  • Guest
  • 557 posts
  • -120
  • Location:US

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:16 AM

More folic acid can be produced with probiotics, but the little critters are aggressively hungry and use up multiple nutrients as they eat to survive and so there are less of the nutrients they consume.

This shows that the companies that promote their "whole-food-nutrients-re-natured-with-probiotics" are just doing rather deceptive marketing with no science to support what they say.

Probiotics do help digestion/conversion of carbs and protein in milk. And they do compete with harmful organisms in the GI tract. And they help in the generation of serotonin in the intestines...

But their value is not in helping us absorb vitamins and minerals. That's just silly marketing nonsense.

As to the site not mentioning magnesium, I wrote that article in 2008.

My memory is that I didn't find quality comparative data for magnesium.

Perhaps someone else can chime in on this.

But, as a general statement, most nutrients in foods do not absorb as well as isolated USP-type nutrients because what is bonding the nutrient in food has to be broken for the nutrient to be gleaned from the food and digestion is never perfect.






mikey, a bit off topic but you were discussing how probiotics influence nutrition in mostly negative way because the bacteria wants as much nutrients as it can get to exist. maybe we need new topic on this since it seems quite interesting to discuss. i have seen few articles discussing how bacteria in the gut actually helps synthesize more vitamins for us and its beneficial in that regard. your post about good bacteria consuming most of the nutrients seems new to me, and interesting. because knowing that bacteria does need to create energy out of something, it was mostly cooperation relationship and not parasitic one with the host in this case. hence "good bacteria". im sure "bad bacteria" consumes all recources available. anyway, i guess we need seperate thread about this complexity relationship we have with the "good bacteria" within us. just so curious to ask this kind of weird question, what if you dont feed them any nutrtients, do they just die or just start eating parts of you ? drain you of nutrients, even though its probiotic, beneficial bacteria for you, i still assume it will be so greedy as to want piece of you when you dont deliver nutrients... :s

Edited by dear mrclock, 05 November 2012 - 06:19 AM.


#68 mikey

  • Member
  • 983 posts
  • 161
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:28 AM

I was more making a comment on the vitamin companies that say that they have "whole-food-probiotic" vitamins are just making things up for marketing purposes.

Probiotics consume nutrients but not so much that our bodies suffer in any way.

Probiotics are great for our health. But there's only one that I use or recommend.

VSL#3 - each packet contains 450 billion organisms and it cost about half what you'd have to pay to get what it gives you by adding up a bunch of other lower potency products.

I had amazing results when I started taking it.

And this is off topic - but here goes - I used to sing in rock bands. But for like twenty years I croak when I try to hit high notes.
Four days of VSL#3 - which is a powder you put in your mouth so it goes all the way through your GI tract - and I can sing high notes again.

Obviously some nasty organisms were messing with my larynx and VSL#3 kicked them out.

Then about two weeks later my brilliant ex, who probably knows me better than I know myself says to me on a phone call, "You seem so calm these days. Are you doing something to make yourself calmer?"

Well, a good deal of our serotonin is made in our intestines. If VSL#3 is working then I should be generating more serotonin in my intestines and sure enough, my ex seemed to pick it out of the air - I am calmer.

#69 mikey

  • Member
  • 983 posts
  • 161
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:35 AM

The fact that the tracer method is more sensitive does not affect the result that diglycinate is about 2x better absorbed than oxide and citrate is 4.5x better absorbed than oxide, making citrate far preferable, at least in terms of absorption.

Sensitivity merely means that we could tell it was 2.12x vs 4.493x rather than merely 2x vs 4.5x, but would not change the magnitude of the results. And in this case the magnitude is so great, that more sensitivity will have no effect at all.


Those numbers are controversial and they don't tell what happens in the body.

So, let's look at a study that actually looked at metabolic effects and guess which form of magnesium fared best?
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22433473

⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#70 dear mrclock

  • Guest
  • 557 posts
  • -120
  • Location:US

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:37 AM

heh interesting. too bad the probiotic you showed is SO EXPENSIVE. its crazy. i can find much cheaper ones i think. and yeh, the serotonin link... still not sure how much of a real affect has on the brain but there are just speculations so far. as serotonin cannot really cross the blood brain barrier by itself. also, the little fuckers can be quite needy for food. having extra baggager on you isnt always that awesome me thinks

#71 mikey

  • Member
  • 983 posts
  • 161
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:53 AM

Magnesium Sulfate ---> Elemental Mag = 10%, Bioavailability = ?
Magnesium Chloride ---> Elemental Mag = 12%, Bioavailability = ?

I'm not sure the elemental percentages are really relevant, unless you are compounding your own pills. Supplements are usually labeled in terms of the weight of elemental magnesium present, not the weight of the hydrated salt. The magnesium sulfate supplement that I use is 250mg of Mg, and the tablet weighs 600 mg. That works out about right considering that it also has some binders and other agents in it.

Offhand, I would expect that the bioavailabilities for the simple salts would be a function of their solubility. The chloride and sulfate, for example are very soluble in water, so once they are in your stomach, the magnesium exists as a free Mg++ ion in solution, and will end up getting complexed with whatever endogenous ligands are floating around. In these cases, the counterion that it rode in with should just float off and do its own thing. So if the salt is very soluble, the bioavailability should be that of "naked magnesium", whatever that might be. (My guess is that sulfate, chloride, and hydroxide are not much different than carbonate.) Some of the ligands in the list (citrate - taurate) may well complex the magnesium in ways that enhance its bioavailability.

Rather than paying a fortune for an obscure magnesium salt, you could just take more of one of the cheap ones, like sulfate. Don't forget to consider dietary sources and multivitamins as well.


I don't think you can equate solubility with absorption. At least for calcium, while that was common thinking, studies found that solubility has little to do with absorption.

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/1790394 - Author quote, "Differences in chemical solubility between supplement preparations are of little importance, with calcium carbonate, for example, being absorbed as well or better than some much more highly soluble salts. Gastric acid is not necessary for absorption of even poorly soluble preparations, so long as they are taken with meals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/2110852 - This study looked at seven types of calcium and found ”no effect of solubility on absorption."

Edited by mikey, 05 November 2012 - 06:53 AM.


#72 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,132 posts
  • 315

Posted 05 November 2012 - 07:01 AM

Those numbers are controversial and they don't tell what happens in the body.

So, let's look at a study that actually looked at metabolic effects and guess which form of magnesium fared best?
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22433473


In what sense are the numbers controversial?

The study you quoted seems somewhat problematic in that
  • It doesn't actually quote the tested serum magnesium levels (at least not in the provided abstract).
  • It uses an EXA test, a proprietary patented test offered by one company, which I do not believe is thoroughly accepted as a reliable method of determining magnesium in tissue.
  • It's published in a very marginal journal with an impact factor of 1.38. Compare that with a major journal such as Nature, which has an impact factor of 480. This implies that the data was not reliable enough to publish in a more serious journal.
  • Your point is that diglycinate is the best absorbed, and this study didn't include that compound.
I am not a big proponent of magnesium citrate for any particular reason, except that it seems to be the best absorbed and most cost effective according to the preponderance of research I've seen. I'm very willing to have my mind changed by convincing research, but this isn't it.

#73 dear mrclock

  • Guest
  • 557 posts
  • -120
  • Location:US

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:48 PM

what about mineral water magnesium, what form is it ?? i see it in all mineral water but it just states magnesium and im not sure the form found in there. i assume its easy to absorb compared to food magnesium.

#74 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 1,846 posts
  • 411
  • Location:Austria

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:24 AM

what about mineral water magnesium, what form is it ??


Don't know in general, but the high magnesium mineral water I drink contains at least some as magnesium sulfate.

#75 dear mrclock

  • Guest
  • 557 posts
  • -120
  • Location:US

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:39 AM

never tried Donat, seems to have lithium too ?
im wondering which mineral water has highest amount of magnesium....

Edited by dear mrclock, 06 November 2012 - 04:39 AM.


#76 mikey

  • Member
  • 983 posts
  • 161
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:16 AM

Those numbers are controversial and they don't tell what happens in the body.

So, let's look at a study that actually looked at metabolic effects and guess which form of magnesium fared best?
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22433473


In what sense are the numbers controversial?

The study you quoted seems somewhat problematic in that
  • It doesn't actually quote the tested serum magnesium levels (at least not in the provided abstract).
  • It uses an EXA test, a proprietary patented test offered by one company, which I do not believe is thoroughly accepted as a reliable method of determining magnesium in tissue.
  • It's published in a very marginal journal with an impact factor of 1.38. Compare that with a major journal such as Nature, which has an impact factor of 480. This implies that the data was not reliable enough to publish in a more serious journal.
  • Your point is that diglycinate is the best absorbed, and this study didn't include that compound.
I am not a big proponent of magnesium citrate for any particular reason, except that it seems to be the best absorbed and most cost effective according to the preponderance of research I've seen. I'm very willing to have my mind changed by convincing research, but this isn't it.


They're controversial because they don't agree with other quality publications.

As well, Mg citrate is far from the most cost effective for what you absorb.

See a "cost versus amount delivered" analysis at http://www.michaelmo...entCarriers.pdf

Magnesium oxide is better than seven times more cost effective.

#77 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 1,846 posts
  • 411
  • Location:Austria

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:30 AM

never tried Donat, seems to have lithium too ?
im wondering which mineral water has highest amount of magnesium....


Even 3.3 mg per liter, beside the 1030 mg magnesium.

Mineral waters sorted by magnesium content:
http://www.mineralwa...als&parval=Mgpp

⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#78 Logic

  • Guest
  • 2,650 posts
  • 570
  • Location:Kimberley, South Africa
  • NO

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:35 AM

As L-Threonate may help with Male-Pattern-Baldness:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21034532
and Glysation:
http://www.longecity...nate-glycation/
along with memory;
perhaps the bioavailability of other types is a moot point and the cost is justified?

#79 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,132 posts
  • 315

Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:47 PM

Glysation: http://www.longecity...nate-glycation/


The quoted abstract indicates that Threonate, or one of its forms, is a very strong glysation inducer. The exact opposite of what you want to happen.

#80 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 06 November 2012 - 08:02 PM

A little off topic, but in regard to VSL #3... if you have insurance, belly issues, and a doctor who is willing, he/she can write a script for the DS version. It has 900 billion bacteria per satchet, so you don't have to take the entire thing each day. And depending on the dose the doctor puts down (up to 4/satchets daily), you can get boxes of the stuff for a single co-pay. Only problem is fitting it all in your refrigerator.

As for mag absorption, I'd just go with whichever form your belly likes best/is most affordable. If you can tolerate mag oxide, I'd just go with that, seeing as it's dirt cheap. Oxide/citrate does cause digestive issues for some people though.
  • like x 1

#81 mikey

  • Member
  • 983 posts
  • 161
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 07 November 2012 - 04:42 AM

A little off topic, but in regard to VSL #3... if you have insurance, belly issues, and a doctor who is willing, he/she can write a script for the DS version. It has 900 billion bacteria per satchet, so you don't have to take the entire thing each day. And depending on the dose the doctor puts down (up to 4/satchets daily), you can get boxes of the stuff for a single co-pay. Only problem is fitting it all in your refrigerator.

As for mag absorption, I'd just go with whichever form your belly likes best/is most affordable. If you can tolerate mag oxide, I'd just go with that, seeing as it's dirt cheap. Oxide/citrate does cause digestive issues for some people though.


Thanks for that. I just blood tested as having h. pilori and will be doing the breath test to see if it's active. At that time I may have reason to use the information you gave. Super?

#82 Logic

  • Guest
  • 2,650 posts
  • 570
  • Location:Kimberley, South Africa
  • NO

Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:35 PM

Glysation: http://www.longecity...nate-glycation/


The quoted abstract indicates that Threonate, or one of its forms, is a very strong glysation inducer. The exact opposite of what you want to happen.


Thx Smithx. :blush:

⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#83 Logic

  • Guest
  • 2,650 posts
  • 570
  • Location:Kimberley, South Africa
  • NO

Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:52 PM

double post

Edited by Logic, 07 November 2012 - 01:53 PM.


#84 MachineGhostX

  • Guest
  • 106 posts
  • 31
  • Location:Earth
  • NO

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:18 PM

Glycine has a psychoactive effect. It promotes insulin release, but I mean that besides being considered inhibitory, it can have some excitatory effects as well dosage-dependently... some people on another board experimented with using it at around 2g for focus.

Mag. glycinate actually worsened my sleep.


I found similar issues with Malate, but not Glycinate which I take at bedtime.

When it comes to magnesium, what really dictates what is practical is not having dirarreah or sleep disturbances. That rules out oxides and citrates. It used to be other alternatives to those two were uncommon, very expensive and required an enormous number of pills, but fortunately Albion came to the rescue with Glycinate. 400mg elemental in 2 caplets is a deal.

#85 MachineGhostX

  • Guest
  • 106 posts
  • 31
  • Location:Earth
  • NO

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:29 PM

Because when I started to monitor my nutrient intake from diet and and factored in the average absorption rates for individual nutrients (unlike cronometer,) - as about 60% for folates from diet - I ended up severely deficient in quite some of them, especially folate. I remedied that by adding nutritional yeast, the only kind of food with it's exceptionally high B vitamins content which does make a huge difference with a few grams added... after all, maybe only half that much.


Nutritional yeast is a scam. It is fortified with sprayed on synthetic B-vitamins and it also contains de jure MSG.

To get back on topic, I've tried the transdermal magnesium and find it sorely lacking in absorption capability and efficacy compared to Glycinate. It takes several hours to absorb all of the magnesium assuming you don't inadvertantly rub it off during sleep. It's also painful and annoying to give yourself a "sunburn" from the salt every day.

Edited by MachineGhostX, 09 November 2012 - 01:39 PM.


#86 MachineGhostX

  • Guest
  • 106 posts
  • 31
  • Location:Earth
  • NO

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:33 PM

VSL#3 - each packet contains 450 billion organisms and it cost about half what you'd have to pay to get what it gives you by adding up a bunch of other lower potency products.


I've taken it with no results whatsoever. If 99% of the 450 billion is destroyed by stomach acid, that's only a net 4.5 billion, easily surpassed by other more affordable and hardy probiotic supplements.

Edited by MachineGhostX, 09 November 2012 - 01:35 PM.


#87 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 09 November 2012 - 02:01 PM

The "uselessness" of MgO is one of the most deeply entrenched myths in the Internet Supplement Community. Most of the literature is misleading, since it looks only at a short timescale. However, MgO takes a long time to be fully absorbed. This short paper lays it out- it was in German, and since it was so short I'm pasting the entire Google translation here. I highlighted the key points in red. If you read German, here's the source.

Bioavailability of organic and inorganic compounds
Posted Image
Von Sighart Golf

Of magnesium preparations, there is a whole series. They contain the mineral in an organic or inorganic compounds. For the absorption of the compound Magnesium plays no role.

A magnesium deficiency can be compensated by changes in diet on whole foods, the consumption of magnesium-rich mineral waters (more than 100 mg of magnesium / l) or the use of high-quality magnesium products. No or only a minor role played by the question of whether the used inorganic magnesium preparation (for example, chloride or oxide) or organic anions (such as citrate or aspartate) contains. The assumption of organic magnesium salts is the "better" because bioavailability magnesium is widespread, but not really. In fact, numerous studies show with valid measurement methods that all the examined magnesium compounds both pharmacologically and biologically and clinically equivalent. Although inorganic magnesium salts are chemically less soluble, but chemists measure the solubility of a salt in laboratory conditions (such as pH 7, 20 ° C, 1 bar, 1-molar, closed system), in the body but there are other conditions.

In the 1970s to 1990s, the Federal Health Office (BGA) has called on the market for magnesium supplements bioavailability studies, the study design of Lücker (1) was accepted by the BGA. In these studies were the magnesium storage study persons initially saturated with magnesium-rich food and after subsequent administration of the test formulations, the magnesium magnesium excretion measured in the urine. The studies showed that the tested availability of various inorganic and organic magnesium supplements under equivalence aspects must be considered within the range of 70 to 143 percent as bioequivalent. The intestinal absorption of magnesium is to Lücker independent of the administered type of connection.

Studies about absorbability

In recent years more publications have appeared with some different statements that magnesium would be better absorbed from organic and inorganic compounds. The listed studies point except the study of Coudray (2) However, any material weaknesses. Do you have a statement to better bioavailability of magnesium preparation, the following deficiencies to not. In the studies by Lindberg (3), fine (4), Firoz (5) and Walker (6), the urine collection period was less than one day and was thus not sufficient, since in this time, a substantial portion of the inorganic magnesium compounds not yet is absorbed. In the studies by Walker (6), Mühlbauer (7), Lindberg (3) the pre-analysis for the determination of magnesium in the urine was incorrect: The urine was not previously acidified with concentrated hydrochloric acid, 1 percent. Of the data necessary for calculating a magnesium balance specimen (three-day urine, three-day stool, serum / plasma) was missing in the studies by Lindberg (3), Walker (6) and Mühlbauer (7) at least one specimen .

Only the study by Coudray (2), which was carried out in rats, meets the above requirements for the determination of a complete balance of the magnesium uptake, retention and excretion. The test groups did not differ in body weight, intestinal solubility of magnesium (necessary for the absorption), magnesium in serum, erythrocytes and femur. In the absorption, excretion and retention of magnesium (which remained in the body), there was, however, in this study between MgO, MgCl 2, MgSO 4, MgCO 3, Mg acetate, Mg-pidolate, Mg-citrate, magnesium lactate and magnesium aspartate no significant differences.

A dynamic system

Magnesium can be absorbed from an almost insoluble compound such as magnesium in the human body. Basis of the absorption of magnesium from magnesium oxide is the law of mass action and processes in a dynamic system, such as at the contact point between the chyme and the epithelial cells of the intestine. Magnesium oxide is insoluble in water, but only sparingly soluble in water. It solves the following equation: 2 MgO + H 2 O -> Mg (OH) 2. Because of the equilibrium dissociation constant of this reaction is far on the side of magnesium oxide and water. Once after the above mentioned law primarily gone into solution magnesium is absorbed by the intestinal epithelium, the law of mass action has been disturbed as ever magnesium is removed from the balance. Thus, in the gut immediately released from the magnesium salt, which is absorbed in all areas of the intestine with the water flow. This process is continuous throughout the transit time of Nahrungsbreies who can stomach, intestine and colon take about two to three days. After resorption, which lasts approximately magnesia also two to three days, wherein magnesium citrate but only five hours, it is possible to the human body, magnesium from magnesium oxide actually comparable extent as receive from other compounds.

No matter what product is used, it must be taken over a long period, because magnesium remains only in the human body, even if there are molecules that bind to the mineral. These include ATP or DNA. The first biochemical adaptations improved magnesium supply, that is the provision of sufficient amounts of binding molecules can be observed after about four weeks. Also in this regard, inorganic and organic magnesium compounds act the same.

Literature

  • Lücker, PW, et al., Mg Bulletin 15 (1993) 132
  • Coudray, C., et al. Mg Research 18 (2005) 215-223.
  • Lindberg, JS, et al., J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 9 (1990) 38-55.
  • Fine, KD, et al., Clin. Invest. 88 (1991) 396-402.
  • Firoz, M., et al., Mg Research 14 (2001) 257-262.
  • Walker, AF, et al. Mg Research 16 (2003) 183-191.
  • Mühlbauer, B., et al., J. Clin. Pharmacol. 40 (1991) 437-438.


  • like x 2
  • Informative x 1

#88 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 1,846 posts
  • 411
  • Location:Austria

Posted 09 November 2012 - 03:05 PM

Nutritional yeast is a scam. It is fortified with sprayed on synthetic B-vitamins and it also contains de jure MSG.


I wasn't aware that brewers yeast for some reason doesn't seem to be considered as nutritional yeast in the English language, as I found out now. Does anyone know the difference?

Brewer's yeast, which I actually had in mind, is naturally high in B vitamins. If in doubt one could always check the label and compare it's B vitamins content with unfortified brewers yeast.

⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#89 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 1,846 posts
  • 411
  • Location:Austria

Posted 09 November 2012 - 03:25 PM

The "uselessness" of MgO is one of the most deeply entrenched myths ...

Bioavailability of organic and inorganic compounds
Posted Image
...however, in this study between MgO, MgCl 2, MgSO 4, MgCO 3, Mg acetate, Mg-pidolate, Mg-citrate, magnesium lactate and magnesium aspartate no significant differences.


Don't let this myth die to prematurely. ;) It didn't test all available magnesium complexes like malate, glycinate, lysinate, taurinate, threonate..

And then there are practitioners who routinely measure RBC magnesium levels, like Dr. Davis (TrackYourPlaque), who out of their clinical experience recommend malate or glycinate, but not citrate to raise RBC-levels. Exactly such complexes not considered in this study.

sponsored ad

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

#90 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,132 posts
  • 315

Posted 09 November 2012 - 08:45 PM

And then there are practitioners who routinely measure RBC magnesium levels, like Dr. Davis (TrackYourPlaque), who out of their clinical experience recommend malate or glycinate, but not citrate to raise RBC-levels. Exactly such complexes not considered in this study.


Why not citrate?

Are there any negative side effects of using glycinate or malate?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users