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.
SourceDepartment of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, State University of New York, Buffalo, Amherst.
AbstractMagnesium 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.
LongeCity
