223 replies to this topic

[ScienceGuy]

I vote to have this thread closed down. This thread was not written to prove anything. This is a witch hunt. It's the opinion of OP or you're burned at the stake. If you say anything that contradicts science guy, he calls it propaganda and goes on to insult you. Albeit in the nicest way possible. These type of posts really does a lot of harm to the credibility of this forum and its users. I'm surprised it went on this long.

I agree that this entire thread, as officiated by scienceguy, has a strange vibe. Perhaps it's the record setting over-use of emoticons. None of us here are children and we don't need to be electronically smiled at after every-single-sentence. It's weird. I didn't think that social awkwardness could be effectively communicated via an electronic discussion, and yet here we are.

Also, I think he doth-protest-too-much. It's one thing to state an opinion and the facts that support it. It's another to aspire to control the conversation. Point stated, we hear you loud and clear, and now I recommend that you let the conversation go where it may.

With the utmost respect both of you clearly have missed the point of this thread, or more precisely, my singular point, which is that currently there quite simply does not exist substantiated scientific evidence to back the very strong claims being made by the marketers of MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE; and hence based upon the existing substantiated scientific evidence it appears that it is no more effecting than administration of MAGNESIUM SULFATE, which is used medically extensively with conclusive scientific substantiation and documented clinally proven results.

Please kindly note that I have not and am not in any regard stating that I am of the opinion that MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is 'rubbish' or wholly ineffective; i.e. I am not dissing it. Quite simply, I started this thread to alert people to the fact that currently the very bold marketing claims made regards MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE are not scientifically supported; and as such urge caution in buying into the marketing spiel until there exists the necessary scientific support to back those claims.

Please kindly note that this is not an opinion; it is a fact; and in my opinion I have been responsibly drawing peoples' attention to this fact.

Personally, I am of the view that anyone who makes claims about something wherein there does not exist substantiated scientific backing to support those claims is acting irresponsibly. Furthermore, anyone who blindly supports such individuals is acting equally irresponsibly.

I have already made clear that I am sitting squarely on the fence (i.e. I am remaining NEUTRAL) regards my opnion on whether or not MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is a useful supplement or lives up to its claims. If you take the time to read through this thread this should be abundantly clear.

I actually very much hope that a HUMAN STUDY will be published that validates the marketing claims being made, and will endeavour to be the first person to post details regarding it within this thread; and I will then immediately commence singing its praises. However, until this occurs we simply do not know whether or not MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is truly benefical or in fact any better than other forms of MAGNESIUM.

[Ames]

I vote to have this thread closed down. This thread was not written to prove anything. This is a witch hunt. It's the opinion of OP or you're burned at the stake. If you say anything that contradicts science guy, he calls it propaganda and goes on to insult you. Albeit in the nicest way possible. These type of posts really does a lot of harm to the credibility of this forum and its users. I'm surprised it went on this long.

I agree that this entire thread, as officiated by scienceguy, has a strange vibe. Perhaps it's the record setting over-use of emoticons. None of us here are children and we don't need to be electronically smiled at after every-single-sentence. It's weird. I didn't think that social awkwardness could be effectively communicated via an electronic discussion, and yet here we are.

Also, I think he doth-protest-too-much. It's one thing to state an opinion and the facts that support it. It's another to aspire to control the conversation. Point stated, we hear you loud and clear, and now I recommend that you let the conversation go where it may.

With the utmost respect both of you clearly have missed the point of this thread, or more precisely, my singular point, which is that currently there quite simply does not exist substantiated scientific evidence to back the very strong claims being made by the marketers of MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE; and hence based upon the existing substantiated scientific evidence it appears that it is no more effecting than administration of MAGNESIUM SULFATE, which is used medically extensively with conclusive scientific substantiation and documented clinally proven results.

Please kindly note that I have not and am not in any regard stating that I am of the opinion that MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is 'rubbish' or wholly ineffective; i.e. I am not dissing it. Quite simply, I started this thread to alert people to the fact that currently the very bold marketing claims made regards MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE are not scientifically supported; and as such urge caution in buying into the marketing spiel until there exists the necessary scientific support to back those claims.

Please kindly note that this is not an opinion; it is a fact; and in my opinion I have been responsibly drawing peoples' attention to this fact.

Personally, I am of the view that anyone who makes claims about something wherein there does not exist substantiated scientific backing to support those claims is acting irresponsibly. Furthermore, anyone who blindly supports such individuals is acting equally irresponsibly.

I have already made clear that I am sitting squarely on the fence (i.e. I am remaining NEUTRAL) regards my opnion on whether or not MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is a useful supplement or lives up to its claims. If you take the time to read through this thread this should be abundantly clear.

I actually very much hope that a HUMAN STUDY will be published that validates the marketing claims being made, and will endeavour to be the first person to post details regarding it within this thread; and I will then immediately commence singing its praises. However, until this occurs we simply do not know whether or not MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE is truly benefical or in fact any better than other forms of MAGNESIUM.

No, actually, I get it. I get your message. We all do. That, actually, was the point of my previous post that you above quoted. The only person that is missing anything is you: that thing being a certain amount of self/social-awareness. This assertion is reaffirmed with your continued hammering home of your same-point in your above reply to me, even though my quoted message didn't address the validity of your thesis/fact. Your feel the need to continuously assert your perspective in a rather aggressive manner, despite the fact that your perspective has been well-established, and noted, over and over again at the expense of clear and progressive discussion that people obviously wish to have. That's the problem. You know, perhaps you should treat a forum like you would a room of friends having a casual discussion. Think about how long people would want to be in your company if your only social function was to aggressively state a single perspective, over and over again, whenever the conversation progressed to not be centered on that perspective. Additionally, every time that you reasserted that perspective, you did it with a liberal use of a high tone voice (caps) and a condescending-cheesy smile (emoticons)? How long do you think that those people would desire to stay in that discussion with you? How quick do you think that the discussion would die in favor of it being continued at another time without the guy who doesn't know how to contribute in a way that isn't obnoxious? No offense personally, but your inability to see where you are going wrong, from the perspective of social decorum, is a bit confounding. That's all I have to say about this.

[ScienceGuy]

No, actually, I get it. I get your message. We all do. That, actually, was the point of my previous post that you above quoted. The only person that is missing anything is you: that thing being a certain amount of self/social-awareness. This assertion is reaffirmed with your continued hammering home of your same-point in your above reply to me, even though my quoted message didn't address the validity of your thesis/fact. Your feel the need to continuously assert your perspective in a rather aggressive manner, despite the fact that your perspective has been well-established, and noted, over and over again at the expense of clear and progressive discussion that people obviously wish to have. That's the problem. You know, perhaps you should treat a forum like you would a room of friends having a casual discussion. Think about how long people would want to be in your company if your only social function was to aggressively state a single perspective, over and over again, whenever the conversation progressed to not be centered on that perspective. Additionally, every time that you reasserted that perspective, you did it with a liberal use of a high tone voice (caps) and a condescending-cheesy smile (emoticons)? How long do you think that those people would desire to stay in that discussion with you? How quick do you think that the discussion would die in favor of it being continued at another time without the guy who doesn't know how to contribute in a way that isn't obnoxious? No offense personally, but your inability to see where you are going wrong, from the perspective of social decorum, is a bit confounding. That's all I have to say about this.

Firstly, please can you kindly cease with the AD HOMINEM. So far you have contributed nothing to this thread but wholly unwarranted and misguided attacks against me. You have falsely accused me of being aggressive, condescending and obnoxious, when in fact my previous post is absolutely nothing of the sort; whereas both of your posts are precisely that. We are all adults here, so please let us all kindly keep matters on topic and academic debate, OK?

With the utmost respect and not meaning any insult, but you have just irrefutably demonstrated that you most certainly do not 'get it'; and so in the spirit of keeping things POSITIVE let's agree to disagree OK? In particular, by your repeated erroneous critism of the manner in which I choose to use EMOTIONS and CAPITALS (wherein your inferences are entirely incorrect) you have most certainly demonstrated that you do not get ME. I suggest that you might like to have a read of some of my other threads and then you might hopefully realise just how wrong you have got me.

Anyway, back on topic, my point is in fact very simple... the current scientific support relating to MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE comprises only two RODENT STUDIES, and hence there currently does not exist sufficient evidence to validate the marketing claims being made. That's all I am saying. I am not being aggressive, nor condescending. I am simply clarifying matters by pointing out the most important fact that relates to the topic of this thread, with no other intention than to be HELPFUL to others, which is why I started this thread.

As I have already stated earlier, it is my understanding that a HUMAN STUDY has been conducted; wherein, once the results are published, we will hopefully have the first proper scientific substantiation as to whether or not the marketing claims being made about MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE are valid. Personally, I hope they are.

[golden1]

That's all I have to say about this.

[Raptor87]

I haven't seen any comparison studies between Sulphate and Threonate. So we'll have to wait and see. The claim is that Threonate was produced to specifically heighten brain magnesium levels. If it has a better bioavailability than sulphate is for researchers to find out.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11035343

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20152124

Magnesium is a good brainfood and should be taken in any regime. The discussion should revolve around why magnesium improves cognitive abilities and if it's effect could be somehow improved with other supps.

[ScienceGuy]

I haven't seen any comparison studies between Sulphate and Threonate. So we'll have to wait and see. The claim is that Threonate was produced to specifically heighten brain magnesium levels. If it has a better bioavailability than sulphate is for researchers to find out.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11035343

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20152124

I absolutely agree and this is precisely my point. The study you have posted on MAGNESIUM THREONATE is a RODENT STUDY and does not in any regard provide the necessary scientific support to back the marketing claims being made about MAGNESIUM THREONATE. The other study you have posted is a HUMAN STUDY on MAGNESIUM SULFATE and is just one of many, many existing HUMAN studies on MAGNESIUM SULFATE.

What is most certainly required here is more research and specifically HUMAN STUDIES on MAGNESIUM THREONATE.

You have quite rightly stated that you "haven't seen any comparison studies between Sulphate and Threonate"; well, the reason for that is quite simple, namely that no such studies exist yet. More research on MAGNESIUM THREONATE and studies on HUMANS not RODENTS is what is currently missing and very much needed.

Magnesium is a good brainfood and should be taken in any regime. The discussion should revolve around why magnesium improves cognitive abilities and if it's effect could be somehow improved with other supps.

You are absolutely right that MAGNESIUM is a good 'brainfood' and should be included in any regimen; it is in mine and I have supplemented with it religiously for over 20 years.

RE: "why magnesium improves cognitive abilities and if it's effect could be somehow improved with other supps" - The primary mechansism of action via which MAGNESIUM exerts its NOOTROPIC effects is NMDA RECEPTOR ANTAGONISM. MAGNESIUM is an NMDA RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST and research has shown us that appropriate administration of supplemental NMDA RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST(S) yields NOOTROPIC effects. See here for example:

1. Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jan;5(1):48-52.

NMDA receptor antagonists sustain LTP and spatial memory: active processes
mediate LTP decay.

Villarreal DM, Do V, Haddad E, Derrick BE.

The Department of Biology and The Cajal Neuroscience Research Center, Division of Life Sciences, The University of Texas at San Antonio, 6900 N. Loop 1604 W., San Antonio, Texas 78249-0662, USA.

Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jan;5(1):6-8.

Although long-term potentiation (LTP) is long-lasting, it is not permanent and decays within weeks after its induction. Little is known about the processes underlying this decay. Here we assessed the contribution of synaptic activity to LTP decay by determining the effect of the competitive NMDA receptor antagonist CPP on the decay of perforant path-dentate LTP. CPP blocked decay over a one-week period when administered daily following the induction of LTP, and blocked decay of the late, protein-synthesis-dependent phase of LTP when administered two days after LTP induction. CPP administered for a five-day period following spatial memory training enhanced subsequent memory retention. These data suggest that LTP is normally a persistent process that is actively reversed by NMDA receptor activation, and that both the early and late phases of LTP are dynamic processes
regulated by NMDA receptors. These data also support the view that LTP is involved in maintaining spatial memory.

PMID: 11740500

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

Studies on MEMANTINE, another NMDA RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST, have further illustrated the precise mechanism of action via which NMDA RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS produce their NOOTROPIC effects. See here for example:

1. Neuropharmacology. 2007 Nov;53(6):699-723. Epub 2007 Aug 10.

Memantine: a NMDA receptor antagonist that improves memory by restoration of homeostasis in the glutamatergic system --too little activation is bad, too much is even worse.

Parsons CG, Stöffler A, Danysz W.

Merz Pharmaceuticals, Eckenheimer Landstrasse 100, 60318 Frankfurt am Main,
Germany.

The neurotransmitter glutamate activates several classes of metabotropic receptor and three major types of ionotropic receptor--alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA), kainate and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA). The involvement of glutamate mediated neurotoxicity in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is finding increasing scientific acceptance. Central to this hypothesis is the assumption that glutamate receptors, in particular of the NMDA type, are overactivated in a tonic rather than a phasic manner. Such continuous, mild, chronic activation ultimately leads to neuronal damage/death. Additionally, impairment of synaptic plasticity (learning) may result not only from neuronal damage per se but may also be a direct consequence of this continuous, non-contingent NMDA receptor activation. Complete NMDA receptor blockade has also been shown to impair neuronal plasticity, thus, both hypo- and hyperactivity of the glutamatergic system leads to dysfunction. Memantine received marketing authorization from the EMEA (European Medicines Agency) for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in Europe and was subsequently also approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) for use in the same indication in the USA. Memantine is a moderate affinity, uncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist with strong voltage-dependency and fast kinetics. This review summarizes existing hypotheses on the mechanism of action (MOA) of memantine in an attempt to understand how the accepted interaction with NMDA receptors could allow memantine to provide both
neuroprotection and reverse deficits in learning/memory by the same MOA.

PMID: 17904591

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

MEMANTINE also yields other highly useful beneficial effects, such as REVERSING STIMULANT TOLERANCE, however it is not without potential SIDE EFFECTS, which should be reviewed by anyone considering trying it.

Consequently, coming back to you question regards whether MAGNESIUM's NOOTROPIC effect "could be somehow improved with other supps" one possibilty might be to combine supplemental MAGNESIUM with an appropriately low dose of MEMANTINE (N.B. when taking MEMANTINE it is recommended to commence with a very low dose and then very gradually ramp up the dosage so as to avoid manifestation of SIDE EFFECTS).

Alternatively, further to maximising the NOOTROPIC effect exerted via NDMA RECEPTOR ANTAGONISM specifically, one could stack MAGNESIUM with other NOOTROPICS whose mechanisms of action are entirely different, thereby yielding a stack that produces a greater potency of NOOTROPIC effect via multiple mechanisms of action

Edited by ScienceGuy, 15 December 2012 - 10:44 AM.

[Endymion]

I vote to have this thread closed down. This thread was not written to prove anything. This is a witch hunt. It's the opinion of OP or you're burned at the stake. If you say anything that contradicts science guy, he calls it propaganda and goes on to insult you. Albeit in the nicest way possible. These type of posts really does a lot of harm to the credibility of this forum and its users. I'm surprised it went on this long.

No, actually, I get it. I get your message. We all do. That, actually, was the point of my previous post that you above quoted. The only person that is missing anything is you: that thing being a certain amount of self/social-awareness. This assertion is reaffirmed with your continued hammering home of your same-point in your above reply to me, even though my quoted message didn't address the validity of your thesis/fact. Your feel the need to continuously assert your perspective in a rather aggressive manner, despite the fact that your perspective has been well-established, and noted, over and over again at the expense of clear and progressive discussion that people obviously wish to have. That's the problem. You know, perhaps you should treat a forum like you would a room of friends having a casual discussion. Think about how long people would want to be in your company if your only social function was to aggressively state a single perspective, over and over again, whenever the conversation progressed to not be centered on that perspective. Additionally, every time that you reasserted that perspective, you did it with a liberal use of a high tone voice (caps) and a condescending-cheesy smile (emoticons)? How long do you think that those people would desire to stay in that discussion with you? How quick do you think that the discussion would die in favor of it being continued at another time without the guy who doesn't know how to contribute in a way that isn't obnoxious? No offense personally, but your inability to see where you are going wrong, from the perspective of social decorum, is a bit confounding. That's all I have to say about this.

It's a shame, but I couldn't agree more with golgi1 and lufega. What a useless thread this turned out to be.

Such an overbearing attitude helps no one, ScienceGuy. You may well accuse me of an ad hominem attack too, but you really need to be called out on your unhelpful approach to discussing these topics.

[FDA Approved]

I personally just ordered magnesium sulphate after reading this thread and as far as I can tell Scienceguy has defended his claims with reasonable arguments and studies and he has addressed every counter-argument in a reasonable manner. He might seem to be over the top at first glance but his post were actually on point which could not be said for all the posts on the threonate side.

[**DEACTIVATED**]

Scienceguy is very scientific... I can't hate on him though because his efforts seem to be in good nature. Although I think his writing style is a little hard on the eyes is all.

I cannot argue if one magnesium is superior to another but I will add that from my own experience Magnesium Threonate has an obvious calming effect that I rather enjoy and am on the fence about whether or not to drop it from the regimen as I already take Citrate. I've just received MagMind by Jarrows brand today and will be trying it tonight. Last brand I used was NeuroMag by LifeExtension with which I've had good results.

Tad pricey for the recommended dosages though :\!

[protoject]

Im wondering if there is an easier way to administer magnesium sulfate than taking an injection or a bath. DMSO maybe??? :p .. some people don't want to deal with the gastrointestinal side effects of oral mag citrate etc

[**DEACTIVATED**]

Protoject,

For cost reduction? If mg-threonate is not superior but actually equal to mg-sulfate why not try threonate? A bath does sound nice..

[Mr. Pink]

Can anyone suggest the best bang for the buck source of magnesium?

I bought a ton of magnesium malate a few years ago from puritan pride for dirt cheap during one of their 3 for 1 and free shipping sales. But i have not been able to find it on their website. mag malate was good because it was bioavailable, didn't cause gastro problems, and malic acid helps chelate aluminum out of the brain, and of cours it was very cheap. the only downside was that it doesn't yield a lot of mg, only 125mg per huge pill, and so i had to take 2 at a time.

Anyway, someone suggest a specific source for cheap and effective mag. I use it mostly for memory and dopamine receptor sensitivity.

[ScienceGuy]

Can anyone suggest the best bang for the buck source of magnesium?

I bought a ton of magnesium malate a few years ago from puritan pride for dirt cheap during one of their 3 for 1 and free shipping sales. But i have not been able to find it on their website. mag malate was good because it was bioavailable, didn't cause gastro problems, and malic acid helps chelate aluminum out of the brain, and of cours it was very cheap. the only downside was that it doesn't yield a lot of mg, only 125mg per huge pill, and so i had to take 2 at a time.

Anyway, someone suggest a specific source for cheap and effective mag. I use it mostly for memory and dopamine receptor sensitivity.

The pertinent issue regarding PER ORAL administrated MAGNESIUM is obviously one of ABSORPTION; and hence when comparing value for money of the various MAGNESIUM FORMS one needs to take this into account... also there is the issue of GASTROINTESTINAL SIDE EFFECTS such as the potential for LAXATIVE effect.

Studies have shown MAGNESIUM OXIDE to be indubitably one of the worst forms of MAGNESIUM to take PER ORALLY; whereas, forms such as CITRATE, MALATE, and GLYCINATE are all very well absorbed and hence good choices, however CITRATE is more likely to induce a LAXATIVE effect than MALATE or GLYCINATE

If you can tolerate it OK then CITRATE probably is the best value for money; next to that MALATE and then GLYCINATE

Please kindly note that I do not advise the SULFATE form as the first choice for PER ORAL administration of MAGNESIUM (it has a strong LAXATIVE effect as compared to the other forms when taken PER ORALLY); but it is the recommended form for adminstration via TRANSDERMAL (i.e. BATH) or INJECTION

N.B. MAGNESIUM has no LAXATIVE effect whatsoever when administered TRANSDERMALLY or via INJECTION... it is only when adminstered PER ORALLY

Edited by Lister, 28 April 2013 - 04:53 AM.

[Mr. Pink]

If you can tolerate it OK then CITRATE probably is the best value for money; next to that MALATE and then GLYCINATE

Thanks for answering. Regarding your answer: just to be clear, you're saying (1) malate is a better value than glycinate? (i.e., malate costs less per mg of mag?) I understand the other benefits of malate over glycinate, but i'm curious about the economic aspect.

Also, is there any (2) SPECIFIC SOURCE (i.e., link to a specific product) that would be cheap and effective? I understand the different types, absorption, laxative effect, and other theory, because i've read this very informative thread. Just need help with some application that won't break the bank.

[ScienceGuy]

If you can tolerate it OK then CITRATE probably is the best value for money; next to that MALATE and then GLYCINATE

Thanks for answering. Regarding your answer: just to be clear, you're saying (1) malate is a better value than glycinate? (i.e., malate costs less per mg of mag?) I understand the other benefits of malate over glycinate, but i'm curious about the economic aspect.

Also, is there any (2) SPECIFIC SOURCE (i.e., link to a specific product) that would be cheap and effective? I understand the different types, absorption, laxative effect, and other theory, because i've read this very informative thread. Just need help with some application that won't break the bank.

To clarify, in ASCENDING ORDER of PRICE, the list is as follows: CITRATE, then MALATE, and then GLYCINATE

So, my advice is that you try MAGNESIUM CITRATE and unless you experience GASTROINTESTINAL SIDE EFFECTS stick with that. A months' supply at 300mg per day ELEMENTAL MAGNESIUM costs about 4 BUCKS

[ScienceGuy]

OK everyone, BACK ON TOPIC!

Here's an exciting update regarding my objective here, namely to answer the pertinent question "MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE: Does the SCIENCE support the CLAIMS?"

Please see following press release information from MAGCEUTICS INC, the company behind MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE:

A human study for memory and cognitive function has just started at University of Southern California, Department of Psychology, with a leading expert in cognitive health. It is a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 40 individuals

And more about this first study on HUMANS:

...a double-blind, placebo-controlled human study with a top researcher at the University in California has been started to verify the functions of Magtein on memory and cognitive functions observed in animals as well as reported by individuals who took this product.

Edited by ScienceGuy, 17 April 2013 - 07:01 AM.

[gamesguru]

I've been using trace minerals as my magnesium source lately, and I like it. I put 1 tsp trace minerals per gallon of reverse-osmosis water, and then 1 liter of water gives me 120% DRI of magnesium, although much of it comes in the magnesium chloride form, which we're told isn't as bioavailable.

[Introspecta]

Does anyone know anything about Magnesium Aspartate and Potassium aspartate..? I have a mix supplement just wondering if there is good bioavailibility of these.

Edited by joelski28, 23 April 2013 - 01:22 AM.

[ScienceGuy]

Does anyone know anything about Magnesium Aspartate and Potassium aspartate..? I have a mix supplement just wondering if there is good bioavailibility of these.

In short, good PER ORAL absorption

Edited by Lister, 28 April 2013 - 04:54 AM.

[Lister]

Please stay on topic guys! If you feel there's some name calling going on you're not happy with then use the "Report" function which you can find on the bottom right hand side of every response.

Further fighting or bickering can and will lead to action against your account. Regardless of who started it or whether they're right or you are. Takes 2 (or more).

Thanks!

[Raptor87]

Yeah guy's, what's with the ad hominem and bickering. I mean don't waste your life online on pointless crap, coprophagia for the brain comes in mind.

Why haven't we discussed transdermal magnesium, or have we? From what I know it's better than oral intake.

[ScienceGuy]

Please stay on topic guys! If you feel there's some name calling going on you're not happy with then use the "Report" function which you can find on the bottom right hand side of every response.

Further fighting or bickering can and will lead to action against your account. Regardless of who started it or whether they're right or you are. Takes 2 (or more).

Thanks!

Yeah guy's, what's with the ad hominem and bickering. I mean don't waste your life online on pointless crap, coprophagia for the brain comes in mind.

Thank you!

Why haven't we discussed transdermal magnesium, or have we? From what I know it's better than oral intake.

You are indeed correct sir! TRANSDERMAL administration of MAGNESIUM is preferable for a number of reasons, including the fact that it entirely eliminates the potential for GASTROINTESTINAL SIDE EFFECTS (including LAXATION) which occurs (only) when MAGNESIUM is administered PER ORALLY

If check back through this thread you will note that I have indeed discussed this, although with all the unwarranted thread-derailing AD HOMINEM it is fully understandable why you haven't done so... essentially next to administration via IM INJECTION (which obviously is not readily available to most people) TRANSDERMAL ADMINISTRATION is indubitably the next best method

Here's a summary of my previous posts in this thread regarding this (to save you trawling through the whole thread) :

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

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

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

Please kindly see the following:

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

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

r.h.waring@bham.ac.uk

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

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

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

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

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

Results

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

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

Other Factors

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

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

Other factors

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

CONCLUSION

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

Essentially, my whole objective behind this thread was to expose the fact that the marketing claims being made by the vendors of MAGNESIUM L-THREONATE currently are not supported by any substantiated scientific evidence whatsoever; whereas, there is substantiated scientific evidence that demonstrates other much less expensive forms of MAGNESIUM are significantly effective in elevating not only SYSTEMIC but also BRAIN MAGNESIUM LEVELS in both UNHEALTHY and HEALTHY individuals

And TRANSDERMAL APPLICATION of MAGNESIUM SALTS (including MG SULFATE) is one such highly effective administration method

Edited by ScienceGuy, 28 April 2013 - 12:46 PM.

[Raptor87]

Yes I remember you mentioning taking a bath:D

Although when I was thinking (Mg) I though of liquid magnesium or magnesium chloride. I know that Mg- L- threonate is basically preferred because of the high absorption rate through bbb (in theory). Question is if liquid Mg does what Mg-L- threonate supposedly should do, I mean if it crosses the (bbb)? If it is so, then this whole discussion is pointless because one Mg does exactly what the second one is supposed to do and liquid Mg would be more costefficient if one can set the L-threonate molecule aside.

[gamesguru]

No one answered my question...is it any good to get one's magnesium from a trace mineral supplement?

[ScienceGuy]

Yes I remember you mentioning taking a bath:D

Although when I was thinking (Mg) I though of liquid magnesium or magnesium chloride. I know that Mg- L- threonate is basically preferred because of the high absorption rate through bbb (in theory). Question is if liquid Mg does what Mg-L- threonate supposedly should do, I mean if it crosses the (bbb)? If it is so, then this whole discussion is pointless because one Mg does exactly what the second one is supposed to do and liquid Mg would be more costefficient if one can set the L-threonate molecule aside.

To clarify, differing MAGNESIUM COMPOUNDS will possess differing capacities to traverse across the BBB; however, firstly please kindly note that there currently does not exist any substantiated evidence to confirm whether or not MAGNESIUM THREONATE (MGT) is in any regard superior with respect to this in HUMANS (and so you are quite correct in stating that this is still a "THEORY") and secondly other forms of MAGNESIUM have indeed be demonstrated in HUMANS to traverse across the BBB to some extent... for example, MAGNESIUM SULFATE has been shown to elevate BRAIN MAGNESIUM LEVELS by up to 18% following systemic elevation of magnesium levels.

Personally, in weighing up whether MGT is a useful magnesium supplement at the present time one needs to consider both what (if any) scientific substantiation exists to support the marketing claims being made, which in the case of MGT is currently a resounding "NO"; and secondly does it represent good value for money compared against other MAGNESIUM forms, wherein since other forms to some degree also cross the BBB but are considerably less expensive MGT appears to be a FALSE ECONOMY, given you can get at least as much MAGNESIUM into your brain for much less money by using other considerably less expensive but still significantly efficacious forms, such as SULFATE, GLYCINATE, CITRATE, MALATE etc. etc.

No one answered my question...is it any good to get one's magnesium from a trace mineral supplement?

The answer to that question depends upon what is your DIETARY MAGNESIUM INTAKE

If, like up to 80% of the GENERAL POPULACE your diet does not contain sufficient MAGNESIUM then supplementing with a TRACE MINERAL SUPPLEMENT may not be sufficient and you would be advised to also supplement with a conventional MAGNESIUM SUPPLEMENT that yields at least 300MG of ELEMENTAL MAGNESIUM

Please kindly note that this does not mean that you should stop taking your TRACE MINERAL SUPPLEMENT since this has many of its own potential health benefits relating to systemic provision of the full complement of minerals in trace amounts

Edited by ScienceGuy, 06 May 2013 - 05:02 AM.

[BioFreak]

I'd love to see a thread about what forms are good via what intake route, which are the best value for your money per intake route, which do penetrate the bbb, which don't, dosages etc by you ScienceGuy.

From what I can tell this thread is pretty focused on sulfate vs threonate, and since you are pretty fit in the magnesium topic, it would be great to start a more general thread about magnesium supplementation.

[xsiv1]

Hmm, I judge the effects of my magnesium supplementation by how it makes me feel and whether or not it causes any gastrointestinal issues. ZMA products often utilize Magnesium Aspartate but it doesn't work as well as they'd initially thought.. I ended up switching to glycinate and tried taurinate and L-threonate. Out of the three, and I can't say for sure, the L-threonate caused no sedative effect.

[Luminosity]

Magnesium citrate didn't agree with me. It caused a muscle cramp among other things.

Magnesium oil, aka magnesium chloride, caused stinging and burning when applied topically.

You can order the products discussed on this thread from Swansons. If you don't like them, you can return them postage-free for a year.

I'm unfamiliar with people using magnesium sulfate, aka Epsom salts, at home orally. I've only seen it used as bath salts at home. Epsom salts in a bath are soothing and anti-inflammatory. They may help you sleep.

[Logic]

It seems we can all stop losing hair about whether Magnesium-L-Threonate is better for the brain than other forms as L-threonate represses the glycoprotein dickkopf-1 (Dkk-1) via alkaline phosphatase activity, releasing ascorbic acid into the cell; leading to neurogenesis.
http://www.longecity...osteoarthritus/

[xsiv1]

It seems we can all stop losing hair about whether Magnesium-L-Threonate is better for the brain than other forms as L-threonate represses the glycoprotein dickkopf-1 (Dkk-1) via alkaline phosphatase activity, releasing ascorbic acid into the cell; leading to neurogenesis.
http://www.longecity...osteoarthritus/

Recently turned 41 and still have a good head of hair barring a few grey ones on each side by my ears and the corner recede up front. Not bad, but makes me want to continue to take my magnesium l-threonate lol. And here I thought going back to Glycinate was an option, silly me. I kid of course, but it is a plus. I seriously don't feel any sedation from the l-threonate variation and could take it in the mornings or with a stimulant if needed. Other times I simply use L-theanine to ward off any jitters I may get from a pre-workout formulation.