Minerals - by Tim O'Shea, D.C. JoAnn Guest

[Guest guest]

Minerals - by Tim O'Shea, D.C. JoAnn Guest Jan 12, 2005 22:59 PST

http://www.chiro.org/nutrition/ABSTRACTS/minerals.shtml

 

Minerals is one confusing topic. Inorganic, chelated, elemental, ionic,

colloidal, essential, trace - all these claims! What do we really need?

Credentials in nutrition apparently mean very little when it comes to

minerals. Much of what is written about minerals is speculative,

market-oriented, or dead wrong.

 

 

A net search on minerals is an overwhelming assault on one's patience,

time and credulity. How could all this stuff be right?

 

 

Minerals come from mines. Except when you're talking about nutrition.

Then they come from food. At least they used to. When we still had some

viable topsoil. Four elements compose 96% of the body's makeup: carbon,

hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. The remaining 4% of the body's

composition is mineral. There are several opinions about how many

minerals are essential. The following table shows the ones that are not

in dispute, in the first column. Macro means more than 100mg per day.

Trace usually means we don't know how much we need.

 

 

 

Essential Minerals

A) MACROMINERALS

 

Calcium

 

Chlorine

 

Sodium

 

Potassium

 

Phosphorus

 

Magnesium

 

Sulfur

 

 

 

B) TRACE MINERALS

 

Selenium

 

Cobalt

 

Chromium

 

Tin

 

Zinc

 

Vanadium

 

Copper

 

Silicon

 

Manganese

 

Nickel

 

Iron

 

Molybdenum

 

Fluorine

 

Iodine

 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

National Research Council

 

The controversy primarily involves the second column - trace minerals.

 

 

Of the 14 trace minerals listed above, three or four may not have

universal agreement as essential, but a majority of creditable sources

admit that most of them are essential. Deficiency amounts have never

been determined for most trace minerals, although several diseases have

been linked with deficiencies of certain ones. Conclusive evidence has

not been found regarding the exact daily intake amounts necessary, since

some of the actual requirements may be too small to measure; hence the

name " trace. " Other trace minerals which are still being studied as

possibly essential or possibly contaminant include arsenic (true!),

boron, cadmium, lithium, strontium, aluminum, barium, and beryllium.

 

 

After this, the marketplace takes over and science bows out. People are

out there talking about glacial milk, 88-mineral toddies, minerals from

ancient lakes, iceberg moss, longevity of 150 years, calcium from

pasteurized milk, " normal " doses of lead, eye of newt, etc., making

unproven claims about this or that combination, trumpeting anecdotal

cures for everything from cancer to hangnails. The purpose of this

chapter will be to try to sift through the debris and leave behind only

the fundamental information which can be verified.

 

 

In the past few years, even mainstream medicine is beginning to

acknowledge the incontrovertible importance of mineral supplementation.

In an article appearing in JAMA, the top American medical journal, 24

Dec 1996, a controlled study of selenium use for cancer patients was

written up. Selenium as you remember, effects powerful antioxidant

activity, neutralizing free radicals, which are rampant in the presence

of cancer. In this study, 1312 subjects were divided into groups. Some

were given selenium; others the placebo. Soon it was noticed that there

was a decrease of 63% with prostate cancer, and 46% with lung cancer in

the selenium group. The results were so blatant that the designers

actually terminated the study early so that everyone could begin to

benefit from selenium. This is just one example of the research that is

currently being done on mineral supplementation. The problem is, if the

results of studies economically threaten a current drug protocol, like

chemotherapy, it is unlikely that an inexpensive natural supplement like

selenium would be promoted by oncologists as a replacement any time

soon.

 

There are six nutrient groups:

 

Water

 

Vitamins

 

Minerals

 

Fats

 

Protein

 

Carbohydrate

 

All groups are necessary for complete body function.

 

 

The necessity for minerals is a recent historical discovery, only about

150 years old. In the 1850s, Pasteur's contemporary, Claude Bernard,

learned about iron. Copper came about 10 years later, and zinc about the

turn of the century. With the discovery of Vitamin A in 1912, minerals

were downplayed for about 50 years in favor of vitamin research. By

1950, after about 14 vitamins had been discovered, attention returned

once more to minerals when it was shown that they were necessary

co-factors in order for vitamins to operate. Minerals are catalysts for

most biological reactions. Soon the individualfunctions of minerals in

the body were demonstrated:

 

Structural: bones, teeth, ligaments

 

Solutes and electrolytes in the blood

 

Enzyme actions

 

Energy production from food breakdown

 

Nerve transmission

 

Muscle action

 

 

 

Table of minerals with the specific functions most commonly agreed upon

today

 

Calcium

 

Muscle contraction

 

Bone building

 

Sodium

 

Cell life

 

Waste removal

 

Potassium

 

Nerve transmission

 

Cell life

 

Normal blood pressure

 

Muscle contraction

 

Phosphorus

 

Bone formation

 

Cell energy

 

Magnesium

 

Muscle contraction

 

Nerve transmission

 

Calcium metabolism

 

Chlorine

 

Digestion

 

Normal blood pressure

 

Sulfur

 

Protein synthesis

 

Copper

 

Immune system

 

Artery strength

 

Forms hemoglobin from iron

 

Chromium

 

Insulin action

 

Immune function

 

Iron

 

Blood formation

 

Immune function

 

Selenium

 

Immune stimulant

 

Fight free radicals

 

Activates Vit E

 

Nickel

 

Immune regulation

 

Brain development

 

DNA synthesis

 

Iodine

 

Thyroid function

 

Vanadium

 

Circulation

 

Sugar metabolism

 

Molybdenum

 

Enzyme action

 

Silicon

 

Enzyme action

 

Tin

 

Enzyme action

 

Manganese

 

Enzyme action

 

Fluorine

 

Teeth enamel

 

Larry Berger, PhD

 

 

 

 

Mineral deficiency means that some of these jobs will not get done. The

body is capable of prodigious amounts of adapting, and can operate for

long periods of time with deficiencies of many of the above. But someday

those checks will have to be cashed. The result: premature aging. Cell

breakdown. Without minerals, vitamins may have little or no effect.

Minerals are catalysts - triggers for thousands of essential enzyme

reactions in the body. No trigger - no reaction. Without enzyme

reactions, caloric intake is meaningless, and the same for protein, fat,

and carbohydrate intake. Minerals trigger the vitamins and enzymes to

act; that means digestion. In general, most discussions about calories

are without content.

 

 

A virtually undisputed fact is mineral deficiency. Observe the titanic

output of websites, articles, and supplements visible today. The

majority of mineral websites quote a 1936 source - Senate Document #264,

as scientific proof that dietary minerals were generally inadequate for

optimum health.

 

 

" ...most of us are suffering from certain diet deficiencies which cannot

be remedied until deplete soils from which our food comes are brought

into proper mineral balance. "

 

 

" The alarming fact is that food...now being raised on millions of acres

of land that no longer contain enough...minerals are starving us, no

matter how much of them we eat. "

 

 

" Lacking vitamins, the system can make use of minerals, but lacking

minerals, vitamins are useless. "

 

Senate Document 264

74th Congress, 1936

The same document went on to quantify the extent of mineral deficiency:

 

 

" 99% of the American people are deficient in minerals, and a marked

deficiency in any one of the more important minerals actually results in

disease. "

 

 

 

 

Congressional documents are not generally highly regarded as scientific

sources, and other reference texts cite other percentages. The figures

quoted by Albion Laboratories, the world leader in patents on

supplemental minerals, are somewhat lower, but the idea begins to come

across:

 

 

 

DEFICIENCY - U.S. Population

 

Magnesium 75%

 

Iron 58%

 

Copper 81%

 

Manganese 50%

 

Chromium 50%

 

Zinc 67%

 

 

 

 

Different studies will show different figures, of course, but there is

certainly no lack of explanation for mass deficiencies of mineral

intake. The most obvious of these is soil depletion and

demineralization. In 1900, forests covered 40% of the earth. Today, the

figure is about 27%. (Relating Land Use and Global Land Cover, Turner,

1992).

 

 

Aside from hacking down rainforests in order to raise beef cattle or to

build condos, one of the main reasons for the dying forests is mineral

depletion. According to a paper read at the 1994 meeting of the

International Society for Systems Sciences, this century is the first

time ever that " mineral content available to forest and agricultural

root systems is down 25%-40%. " Less forests means less topsoil. In the

past 200 years, the U.S. has lost as much as 75% of its topsoil,

according to John Robbins in his Pulitzer-nominated work Diet for a New

America. To replace one inch of topsoil may take anywhere from 200-1000

years, depending on climate. (Utah Teachers Resource Books)

 

 

Demineralization of topsoil translates to loss of productive capacity.

Contributing further to this trend is the growing of produce that is

harvested and shipped far away.

 

 

 

 

The standard NPK (nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium) fertilizer farmers

commonly use is able to restore the soil enough to grow fruits and

vegetables which are healthy looking, but may be entirely lacking in

trace minerals. The inventor of the entire NPK philosophy, Baron von

Leibig, recanted his theories before he died when he saw the

deficiencies his methods were fostering as they became the agricultural

standard in both Europe and America.

 

 

Mineral depletion in topsoil is hardly a controversial issue. The

question is not if, but how much. Plants are the primary agents of

mineral incorporation into the biosphere. The implication for our

position on the food chain is simply: lowered mineral content in produce

grown in U.S. topsoil. Not much argument here.

 

 

I have not found any source that insists that the mineral content of

American topsoil is as good today as it was 50 years ago. Generally,

studies talk in terms of how much, if any, minerals are still present.

 

 

The second contributor to mineral deficiency within the population is

obviously, diet. Even if our produce did contain abundant minerals, less

than 4% of the population eats sufficient fruits and vegetables to

account for minimal RDAs. To compound matters further, mass amounts of

processed food, excess protein, and refined sugars require most of our

mineral stores in order to digest it and remove it. The removal process

involves enzymes, which break things down. Enzyme activity, remember, is

completely dependent on minerals like zinc and copper and chromium. No

minerals - no enzyme action. In addition, milk and dairy products,

alcohol, and drugs inhibit the absorption of these minerals, further

depleting reserves. So it is cyclical: refined foods inhibit mineral

absorption, which then are not themselves efficiently digested because

of diminished enzyme activity. And then we go looking for bugs as the

cause of disease?

 

 

The third reason for inadequate minerals in the body is a phenomenon

known as secondary deficiency. It has been proven that an excess of one

mineral may directly cause a deficiency of another, because minerals

compete for absorption, compete for the same binding sites, like a

molecular Musical Chairs. Secondary deficiency means an excess of one

mineral may cause a deficiency of another.

 

 

For example, iron, copper, and zinc are competitive in this way. Copper

is necessary for the conversion of iron to hemoglobin, but if there is

excess zinc, less iron will be available for conversion. This may cause

a secondary deficiency of iron, which can manifest itself as iron

deficiency anemia. All due simply to excess zinc. Researchers have found

that these secondary deficiencies caused by excess of one mineral are

almost always due to mineral supplements, since the quantities contained

in food are so small. Thus the hazards of mega-mineral toddies.

 

 

A fourth reason for mineral deficiency in humans is overuse of

prescription drugs. It has been known since the 1950s that antibiotics

interfere with uptake of minerals, specifically zinc, chromium, and

calcium. (The Plague Makers) Also Tylenol, Advil, Motrin, and aspirin

have the same inhibitive effect on mineral absorption. When the body has

to try and metabolize these drugs to clear the system, its own mineral

stores are heavily drawn upon. Such a waste of energy is used to

metabolize laxatives, diuretics, chemotherapy drugs, and NSAIDs, such as

Tylenol, Advil, and aspirin out of the body. This is one of the most

basic mechanisms in drug-induced immunosuppression: minerals are

essential for normal immune function.

 

 

Ultimately, the only issue that really counts with minerals is

bioavailability. Really doesn't matter what we eat; it only matters what

makes it to the body's cells. Let's say someone is iron deficient, for

example. Can't he just take a bar of iron and file off some iron filings

into a teaspoon, and swallow them? Just took in more iron, didn't he?

Will this remedy the iron deficiency? Of course not. Here is a major

distinction: the difference between elemental minerals and nutrient

minerals. Iron filings are in the elemental form; absorption will be 8%

or less. Same with most iron pills and most calcium supplements.

 

 

Food-bound iron, on the other hand, like that contained in raisins or

molasses, will have a much higher rate of absorption, since it is

complexed with other living, organic forms, and as such is classed as a

nutrient mineral. Minerals are not living, though they are necessary for

life. Minerals are necessary for cell life and enzyme reactions and

hundreds of other reasons. But they must be in a form that can make it

as far as the cells. What is not bioavailable passes right through the

body, a waste of time and sometimes money.

 

 

Bioavailability has a precursor, an opening act. It is called

absorption. Take a mineral supplement pill. Put it in a glass of water

and wait half an hour. If it is unchanged, chances are that the tablet

itself would never even dissolve in the stomach or intestine, but pass

right out of the body. You would be astounded how many mineral

supplements there are in this category.

 

 

OK, let's say the tablet or capsule actually does dissolve in the

digestive tract. Then what? In order to do us any good, the mineral must

be absorbed into the bloodstream, through the intestinal walls.

Elemental minerals are absorbed about 1-8% in this manner. The rest is

excreted. Elemental means rocks. Elemental minerals are those found in

the majority of supplements, because they're very cheap to produce. For

the small percentage that actually makes it to the bloodstream, the

mineral is available for use by the cells, or as catalysts in thousands

of essential enzyme reactions that keep every cell alive every second.

Use at the cellular level is what bioavailability is all about.

 

 

With this background in mind we can begin to understand that varying

amounts of the seven macrominerals and approximately 14 trace minerals,

in a bioavailable form are necessary for optimum cell activity, optimum

health and would seem to contribute to long lifespan. So besides

epidemic mineral deficiency, what's the problem?

 

 

In a word, supplementation. Mineral deficiency has become such an

obvious health concern, causing specific diseases because of a lack of a

single mineral, and general immune suppression with a lack of several,

that the obvious need for supplementation has spawned an entire industry

to the rescue. But in any market-driven industry involving pills, again

we find that often the cures are worse than the original problems. Why?

 

 

First off, toxicity. Remember, even macrominerals are only necessary in

tiny amounts. Most trace minerals are necessary in amounts too small to

be measured, and can only be estimated. Toxicity is a word that simply

means extra stuff. When extra stuff gets put into the body, it's a big

deal. All forces are mobilized for removal of the extra stuff, which are

called antigens, toxins, poisons, reactants, etc, but you get the idea -

it doesn't belong there. Toxicity means taking a nonessential

non-nutrient mineral into the body.

 

 

Take lead poisoning, for example. If lead gets into the blood, the body

will try to remove it. Since the metal atoms are so heavy compared with

the body's immune forces, removal may be impossible. Lead can initiate a

chronic inflammatory response and can remain in the body permanently,

which is why we don't have lead in paint or gasoline any more.

 

 

Most minerals can be toxic if taken to excess. And this excess would not

happen from food; only from supplements. What supplements would be bad?

 

 

Well, for starters, any supplement containing more than about 21

minerals, because that's all that have been proven to be necessary for

humans. New toxicities are always being discovered. Aluminum linked to

Alzheimer's is a recent discovery. Beyond these 21 or so it's simply

anybody's guess, no matter what they tell you about the 5 civilizations

where people live to be 140 years old. People who show dramatic

improvements from taking these 60 and 80 mineral drinks generally were

so depleted that they rapidly absorbed the essential minerals in which

they were deficient. But the toxicities from the nonessential, unknown

minerals may take a long time to show up. Why take in anything extra?

 

 

Here's an example of an ingredient list from one of these mega-mineral

drinks. I pulled it off the Net: Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc, Vanadium,

Manganese, Potassium, Selenium, Chromium, Phosphate, Iron, Sulfur,

Carbon, Sodium, Barium, Strontium, Cesium, Thorium, Molybdenum, Nickel,

Cerium, Germanium, Copper, Rubidium, Antimony, Gallium, Neodymium,

Lanthanum, Bismuth, Zirconium, Thallium, Tungsten, Ruthenium, Boron,

Iodine, Chloride, Bromine, Titanium, Cobalt, Dysprosium, Scandium,

Samarium, Fluoride, Niobium, Praseodymium, Erbium, Hafnium, Lithium,

Ytterbium, Yttrium, Cadmium, Holmium, Rhenium, Palladium, Gold, Thulium,

Terbium, Iridium, Tantalum, Europium, Lutetium, Rhodium, Tin, Indium,

Silver, Beryllium, Tellurium, and Platinum.

 

Any questions?

 

 

 

 

Again, we only need a little. So the mineral supplements we take should

be as absorbable and as bioavailable as possible - that way we won't

have to take much. Less chance of toxicity.

 

 

So the question then becomes: which mineral supplements are the most

absorbable and the most usable, and therefore effective in the smallest

amounts possible? Four candidates present themselves, all contending for

the title:

 

Elemental

 

Ionic

 

Colloidal

 

Chelated

 

 

 

 

Unraveling this puzzle is one area where the internet actually impedes

progress. Try it and you'll see why. There's only one answer, but it's

buried deep. To find it, we have to review a little basic plumbing.

 

 

The digestive tract goes like this: mouth, esophagus, stomach, small

intestine, large intestine, and out. Mineral absorption means

transferring the mineral from the digestive tract through the wall of

the intestine, into the bloodstream. You really have to picture this:

the digestive tract is just a long tube, from one end to the other. As

long as food and nutrients are inside this tube, they are actually

considered to be still outside the body, because they haven't been

absorbed into the bloodstream yet. This is an essential concept to

understanding mineral absorption. Minerals can't do any good unless they

make it into the bloodstream. This is exactly why most minerals bought

at the grocery store are almost worthless: they pass right through the

body - in one end and out the other. It's also why many nutritionists'

and dieticians' advice is valueless; they commonly pretend everything

that is eaten is absorbed. When they start talking about calories, look

for another speaker.

 

 

 

Two main reasons for lack of mineral supplement absorption:

 

The pill never dissolved

 

The mineral was in its elemental form (non-nutrient, e.g., iron filings)

 

 

 

 

 

Let's say these problems are overcome; neither is true. Or let's say the

mineral is contained within some food, such as iron in molasses, or

potassium in bananas. Food-bound minerals are attached or complexed to

organic molecules. Absorption into the blood is vastly increased, made

easy. The mineral is not just a foreign metal that has been ingested; it

is part of food.

 

 

Fruits and vegetables with high mineral content are the best way to

provide the body with adequate nutrition. Food-bound minerals are the

original mode. As already cited above, however, sufficient mineral

content is an increasingly rare occurrence. Foods simply don't have it.

How little, what portion of normal depends on what studies one finds.

Soon the necessity for supplementation becomes obvious: if the food no

longer has it, and we need it, pass the supplements, please. At that

point, the marketplace assaults one's awareness and we're almost back to

the days of the tonics, brews, toddies, and snake potions of yesteryear.

 

 

 

Let's look at the four types one by one. Least beneficial are the

supplements containing minerals in the elemental form. That means the

mineral is just mentioned on the label. It's not ionized, it's not

chelated, it's not complexed with an oxide or a carbonate or a sulfate,

or with a food, and it's not colloidal. Under " ingredients " it just says

" iron " or " copper, " or " calcium, " etc.

 

 

 

 

1. Elemental

 

 

Elemental minerals are obviously the cheapest to make. A liquid would

only have to be poured over some nails to be said to contain iron.

Elemental minerals are the most common in grocery store supplements.

They may not be toxic, as long as only the minerals mentioned on the

label are included in the supplement. The problem is absorption: it's

between 1 and 8 percent. The rest passes right through. Not only a waste

of money; also a waste of energy: it has to be processed out of the

body. This can actually use up available mineral stores.

 

 

 

2. Ionic

 

 

Next comes ionic minerals. Usually a step up. Ionic means in the form of

ions. Ions are unstable molecules that want to bind with other

molecules. An ion is an incomplete molecule. There is a definite pathway

for the absorption of ionic minerals through the gut (intestine) into

the blood. In fact, any percent of the elemental minerals that actually

got absorbed became ions first, by being dissolved in stomach acids.

 

Ionic minerals are not absorbed through the intestine intact.

 

 

The model for mineral ion absorption through the intestine is as

follows. Ions are absorbed through the gut by a complicated process

involving becoming attached or chelated to some special carrier proteins

in the intestinal wall. Active transport is involved; meaning, energy is

required to bring the ionic mineral from inside the intestine through

the lining, to be deposited in the bloodstream on the other side.

 

 

Ionic minerals may be a good source of nutrients for the body, depending

upon the type of ions, and on how difficult it is for the ion to get

free at the appropriate moment and location. Minerals require an acidic

environment for absorption. Remember low pH (less than 7) is acidic;

high pH (above 7) is alkaline. As the stomach contents at pH 2 empty

into the small intestine, the first few centimeters of the small

intestine is the optimum location for mineral absorption. The acidic

state is necessary for ionization of the dissolved minerals. If the pH

is too alkaline, the ions won't disassociate from whatever they're

complexed with, and will simply pass on through to the colon without

being absorbed.

 

 

As the mineral ions are presented to the lining of the intestine, if all

conditions are right, and there are not too much of competing minerals

present, the ions will begin to be taken across the intestinal barrier,

making their way into the bloodstream. This is a complicated, multi-step

process, beyond the scope of this chapter. Simply, it involves the

attachment of the free mineral ion to some carrier proteins within the

intestinal membrane, which drag the ion across and free it into the

bloodstream. A lot happens during the transfer, and much energy is

required for all the steps. Just the right conditions and timing are

necessary - proper pH, presence of vitamins for some, and the right

section of the small intestine.

 

 

Iron, manganese, zinc, copper - these ions are bound to the carrier

proteins which are embedded in the intestinal lining. The binding is

accomplished by a sort of chelation process, which simply describes the

type of binding which holds the ion. The carrier protein or ligand hands

off the mineral to another larger carrier protein located deeper within

the intestinal wall. After several other steps, if all conditions are

favorable, the ion is finally deposited on the other side of the

intestinal wall: the bloodstream, now usable by the cells.

 

 

Ionic mineral supplements do not guarantee absorption by their very

nature, although they are certainly more likely to be absorbed than are

minerals in the raw, elemental state. However, ionic minerals are in the

form required for uptake by the carrier proteins that reside in the

intestinal wall.

 

 

The uncertainties with ionic minerals include how many, how much, and

what else are the unstable ions likely to become bound to before the

carrier proteins pick them up. All ionic supplements are not created

equal. Just because it's an ion doesn't mean a supplemental mineral will

be absorbed. Too many minerals in a supplement will compete for

absorption, crowding out the others. The idea is to offer the body an

opportunity for balance; rather than to overload it with the hope that

some will make it through somehow.

 

 

 

3. Colloidal

 

 

Speaking of overloading, the third type of supplemental minerals is the

one we hear the most about: colloidal. What does colloidal really mean?

Colloidal refers to a solution, a dispersion medium in which mineral

particles are so well suspended that they never settle out: you never

have to shake the bottle. The other part of the dictionary definition

has to do with diffusion through a membrane: " will not diffuse easily

through vegetable or animal membrane. " Yet this is supposed to be the

whole rationale for taking colloidal minerals - their absorbability.

Colloidal guru Joel Wallach himself continuously claims that it is

precisely the colloidal form of the minerals that allows for easy

diffusion and absorption across the intestinal membrane, because the

particles are so small. Wallach claims 98% absorption, but cites no

studies, experiments, journal articles or research of any kind to back

 

 

up this figure. Why not? Because there aren't any. The research on

colloidal minerals has never been done. It's not out there. Senate

Document 264 doesn't really cover it.

 

 

In reality, colloidal minerals are actually larger than ionic minerals,

as discussed by researcher Max Motyka PhD. Because of the molecular size

and suspension in the colloid medium, which Dorland's Medical dictionary

describes as " like glue, " absorption is inhibited, not enhanced. No less

an authority than Dr. Royal Lee, the man responsible for pointing out

the distinction between whole food vitamins and synthetic vitamins,

stated

 

" A colloidal mineral is one that has been so altered that it will no

longer pass through cell walls or other organic membranes. "

 

Does that sound like easy absorption?

 

 

 

 

For a mineral to be absorbed, it must be either in the ionic state, or

else chelated, as explained above. The percentage of colloidal minerals

which actually does get absorbed has to be ionized somehow, due to the

acidic conditions in the small intestine. Only then is the mineral

capable of being taken up by the carrier proteins in the intestinal

membrane, as mentioned above. By why create the extra step? Ionic

minerals would be superior to colloidal, because they don't have to be

dissociated from a suspension medium, which is by definition

non-diffusable. All this extra work costs the body in energy and

reserves.

 

 

Max Motyka further points out the error of Wallach's claims. Wallach

states that colloidals are negatively charged, and this enhances

intestinal absorption. The problem is his science is 180 backward:

Wallach claims the charge of the intestinal mucosa is positive, but all

other sources have known for decades that the mucosal charge is

negative. (Guyton, p13) This is why ionic minerals are presented to the

intestinal surface as cations (positively charged ions). Opposites

attract, like repels - remember? Another big minus for colloidals.

 

 

Quality control. Consistency of percentages of each mineral from batch

to batch. Very simply, there isn't any with the mega mineral

supplements, as the manufacturers will themselves admit. The ancient

lakes and glaciers apparently have not been very accommodating when it

comes to percent composition. Such a range of variation might be

acceptable in, say, grenade tossing or blood dilution in seawater

necessary to attract a shark, or IQ threshold of terrorists, or other

areas where high standards of precision are not crucial. But a

nutritional supplement that is supposed to enhance health by drinking it

- this is an area in which the details of composition should be fairly

visible, verifiable, the same every time. In these 80-trace-mineral

toddies, there is no way of testing the presence or absence of many of

the individual minerals. Many established essential trace minerals do

not even have an agreed-upon recommended daily allowance, for two

reasons:

 

the research has never been done

 

the amounts are too small to measure

 

 

 

 

How much less is known about the amounts and toxicities of those unknown

minerals which have never been studied, but are claimed to be present in

these " miraculous " toddies?

 

 

Many essential minerals are toxic in excess, but essential in small

amounts. Iron, chlorine, sodium, zinc, and copper are in this category.

Toxic levels have been established, and resulting pathologies have been

identified: we know what diseases are caused by their excesses. How

risky is it to take in 40 or 50 minerals for which no toxicity levels

have ever been set?

 

 

Doug Grant, a nutritionist, cites several minerals which frequently

appear on the ingredient labels of certain mega-mineral products they

actually admit their supplements contain or " may contain " some of the

following: (the phrase " may contain " has always been scary for me. If

they're not sure, then what else is there that this product " may

contain " that they don t know about?)

 

 

 

Aluminum: Documented since the article in Lancet 14 Jan 1989 to be

associated with Alzheimer's Disease, as well as blocking absorption of

essential minerals like calcium, iron, and fluoride.

 

 

Silver: questionable as a single-dose antibiotic, consistent intake of

silver accumulates in the blood-forming organs - spleen, liver, and bone

marrow-, as well as the skin, lungs, and muscles. Serious pathologies

have resulted: blood disorders, cirrhosis, pulmonary edema, chronic

bronchitis, and a permanent skin condition known as argyria, to name

just a few. Silver is better left in the ancient lakes, and in

tableware.

 

Gold: Manufacturers of mega-minerals hawk that " there's more gold in a

ton of seawater than there is in a ton of ore. " So what? Our blood is

not seawater; it evolved from seawater. Gold used to be used to treat

rheumatoid arthritis, but has largely been abandoned when they proved

that it caused kidney cell destruction, bone marrow suppression, and

immune abnormalities.

 

 

Lithium: Rarely used as an antipsychotic medication, lithium definitely

can cause blackouts, coma, psychosis, kidney damage, and seizures.

Outside of that, it should be fine.

 

 

The list goes on. The above are just a few examples of mineral

toxicities about which we have some idea. But for at least half the

minerals in the mega toddies, we know nothing at all.

 

 

 

4. Chelated

 

 

The fourth form of supplemental minerals is the chelated variety. Some

clarification of this term is immediately necessary. Chelated is a

general term that describes a certain chemical configuration, or shape

of a compound in which some molecule gets hooked up with some other

chemical structures. When a mineral is bound or stuck to certain carrier

molecules, which are known as chelating agents, or ligands, and a

ring-like molecule is the result, we say that a chelate is formed.

Chelate is from the Greek word for claw, suggested by the open v-shape

of the two ligands on each side, with the mineral ion in the center.

 

 

Chelation occurs in many situations. Many things can be chelated,

including minerals, vitamins, and enzymes. Minerals in food may be bound

with organic molecules in a chelated state. Many molecules in the body

are chelated in normal metabolic processes. The carrier proteins in the

intestinal wall discussed above, whose job it is to transport ionic

minerals - these chelate the ions. Another sense of the word chelation

as exemplified in a mainstream therapy for removing heavy metals from

the blood is called chelation therapy. The toxic metals are bound to a

therapeutic amino acid ligand called EDTA. With a Pac-Man action, the

metals are thus removed from the blood.

 

 

Molecular weight is measured in units called daltons. The ligands or

binding agents may very small (800 daltons) or very large (500,000

daltons) resulting in a many sizes of chelates. Mineral + ligand =

chelate. Generally the largest chelates are the most stable, and also

the most difficult to absorb. Ionic minerals absorbed through the

intestine are chelated to the carrier proteins, at least two separate

times.

 

 

Using the word chelated with respect to mineral supplements refers a

very specific type of chelation. The idea is to bind the mineral ion to

ligands that will facilitate absorption of the mineral through the

intestine into the bloodstream, bypassing the pathway used for ionic

mineral absorption. Sometimes minerals prepared in this way are

described as " pre-chelated " since any ionic mineral will be chelated

anyway once it is taken up by the intestinal membrane.

 

 

After decades of research at Albion Laboratories in Utah, it was learned

that small amino acids, especially glycine, are the best ligands for

chelating minerals, for three reasons:

 

bypasses the entire process of chelation by the intestine's own carrier

proteins

 

 

facilitates absorption by an entirely different pathway of intestinal

absorption, skipping the intermediate steps which ionic minerals go

through

 

the chelate will be the at the most absorbable molecular weight for

intestinal transfer: less than 1500 daltons

 

 

 

 

It has also been established beyond controversy that certain pairs of

amino acids (dipeptides) are the easiest of all chelates to be absorbed,

often easier than individual amino acids. Proteins are made of amino

acids. Normal digestion presumably breaks down the proteins to its amino

acid building blocks so they can be absorbed. But total breakdown is not

always necessary. It has long been known that many nutrient chains of

two or three or even more amino acids may be absorbed just as easily as

single amino acids. Food-bound copper, vitamin C with hemoglobin

molecule, animal protein zinc, are some examples of amino acids chelates

that are easily absorbed intact. (Intestinal Absorption of Metal Ions,

Chapter 7).

 

 

To take another example, in abnormal digestion it is well known that

chains of amino acids - dipeptides, tripeptides, even polypeptide

proteins - sometimes become absorbed intact in a pathology known to

gastroenterologists as Leaky Gut Syndrome. Obviously it is not healthy

and has many adverse consequences, but the point is that amino acids

chains are frequently absorbed, for many different reasons. It's not

always like it says in the boldface section headings in Guyton's

Physiology.

 

 

The reason these dipeptide chelates are absorbed faster than ionic

minerals is that the chelated mineral was bonded tightly enough so that

it did not dissociate in the acidic small intestine and offer itself for

capture by the intestinal membrane_s carrier proteins. That whole

process was thus avoided. The chelate is absorbed intact. An easier

form. This is a vast oversimplification, and the most concise summary,

of why chelated minerals may be superior to ionic, provided it's the

right chelate. Only a specific chelate can resist digestion and maintain

its integrity as it is absorbed through the gut. Again, all chelates are

not created equal. Inferior chelates, used because they are cheaper to

produce, include the following:

 

carbonates

 

citrates

 

oxides

 

sulfates

 

chlorides

 

phosphates

 

 

 

 

If the label gives one of these chelates, it means the mineral is bound

either too strongly or not tightly enough, and will be released at the

wrong time and the wrong place. Chelation of minerals in nutrient

supplements is a very precise science, yielding chelates superior to

those occurring naturally in foods.

 

Intact absorption is faster, easier, and requires less metabolic energy,

provided the chelate is about 1500 daltons.

 

 

To compare chelated and ionic minerals, once the research is presented,

there is really not much of a dispute about which is absorbed faster,

ionic minerals or dipeptide-like amino acid chelates. Meticulous isotope

testing has shown the following increases in percent absorption of

chelates, as compared with ionic:

 

Iron 490% greater

 

Copper 580% greater

 

Magnesium 410% greater

 

Calcium 421% greater

 

Manganese 340% greater

 

Journal of Applied Nutrition 1970; 22: 42

 

 

 

 

Again, this is just the briefest glance at the prodigious amount of

research comparing ionic with chelated minerals, but the results are

uniform. The winner of the bioavailability contest is: chelated

minerals, provided the chelate was maintained as small as possible,

generally using glycine as the amino acid ligands, at a total weight of

about 1500 daltons.

 

 

Food-bound chelated minerals. Often you will hear this or that company

claiming that " organic " minerals contained in food are the best, cannot

be improved upon, and are superior to all possible types of mineral

supplements. This is almost true. The only exception is glycine-chelated

minerals, for two reasons:

 

 

- the exact amount of minerals in any food is extremely variable and

difficult to measure, even if there is high mineral content of the soil.

Pesticides destroy root organisms in the soil. These bugs play a major

role in selective mineral absorption into the plant. (Jensen p 55)

 

 

- the ligands that bind the mineral in the food chelate may be too

strong or too weak to dissociate at exactly the right time for maximum

absorption in the human digestive tract. Glycine chelates are uniform

and easily measurable. No question about dosage.

 

 

Marketing is a wonderful thing - two different companies are now

attributing the longevity of the Hunza tribe in Pakistan to two entirely

different properties of their water: one, the minerals; the other,

molecular configuration. A classic error in logic is described as " post

hoc, ergo propter hoc " - after this, therefore because of this. Maybe it

was the weather that made the Hunzas live longer, or their diet, or

their grains, or the absence of toothpaste or webservers or... Marketing

is the art of persuasion by suspending logic.

 

 

The average lifespan of an American is about 75 years. No one has ever

proven that taking mineral supplements will extend life. Many old people

never took a mineral or a vitamin in their life. It really comes down to

quality of life. Incidence of disease during the lifespan. For how many

days or months of the total lifespan was the person ill? We are the

walking petri dishes of Alexis Carrel, remember? Carrel was the French

biochemist, a Nobel prize winner, who did the famous experiment in which

he kept chicken heart cells alive in a petri dish for 28 years just by

changing the solutes every day. Could've gone longer, but figured he'd

proven his point. Mineral content factors largely in the quality of our

solutes: the blood - the milieu interior, the biological terrain.

 

 

The U.S. has the highest incidence of degenerative diseases of any

developed country on earth. In addition, the infectious diseases are

coming back; antibiotics are getting less effective every year.

Americans' confidence in prescription drugs is weakening. Allow me to

disabuse you of unfounded hopes: cancer and AIDS will never be cured by

the discovery of some new drug. It's not going to happen. There probably

will never be another Alexander Fleming - turns out penicillin was just

a brief detour anyway. Bacteria have had 50 billion years to figure out

ways to adapt. The only way that anyone recovers from any illness is

when the immune system overcomes the problem. Allergy shots never cured

an allergy - people who take allergy shots always have allergies.

 

 

Our only hope of better health is to do everything possible to build up

our natural immune system. One of these preventative measures is

nutritional supplementation. It may not be dramatic, but daily deposits

to the immune system bank account will pay off down the road. Healthy

people don't get sick.

 

 

With respect to minerals, then, what are our goals? My opinion is that

having once realized the necessity for mineral supplementation, our

objectives should be simple:

 

Take only the minerals we absolutely need

 

Take the smallest amounts possible

 

Nothing left over ( no metabolic residue)

 

 

 

 

Some of the above ideas may seem strange and difficult to understand, on

first reading. But it is truly a very simplified version of what

actually takes place. Most of the technical details were omitted for the

sake of clarity and brevity. However, the correctness of the above basic

framework is verifiable. The reader is encouraged to flesh things out a

little by consulting the attached reference list.

 

 

We are living in the age of the Junk Science Hustle. Everybody's an

expert, often quoting shaky sources, shaky facts, and shaky claims which

may have no foundation in physical reality. Seems there's a formula:

 

Get a product

 

Get a marketing company (preferably in Utah or Texas)

 

Get some university MD endorsements

 

Get some miraculous testimonials

 

Get a downline

 

 

 

 

In a certain way, all this is actually a good sign - a natural

consequence of the explosion in holistic nutrition and supplementation.

Because in the midst of the quagmire of hype and junk science, some

truly superlative items have emerged onto the marketplace which have

benefitted indirectly from biomedical advances evolved in the

challenged, time-bomb world of mainstream pharmacology. Most of the new

holistic supplements are less toxic than standard pharmaceutical drugs,

because they're in a category the FDA calls GRAS (Generally Regarded As

Safe. That's probably more than we can say for Prozac, fen-phen, and

Viagra.) Many of the extraordinary holistic supplements won't be sold in

stores, and no one is going to give them away. So welcome to the

American marketplace. Very time-consuming and confusing is the screening

process one must go through to unearth the treasures that can reward the

patient and resolute search. Caveat emptor.

 

 

Are minerals important? Two-time Nobel prize winner Linus Pauling

thought so: " You can trace every sickness, every disease, every ailment

to mineral deficiency. "

 

 

Using the image of Carrel's solutes in the petri dish as the analogue of

blood in our bodies, adequate mineral content is undoubtedly an

advantage and a vital component of the body's own solutes in its

constant effort to cleanse and operate all its cells at an optimum

metabolic vibrancy and resilience. After childhood, healthy people don't

get sick. Ever.

 

- Tim O'Shea

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

 

Guyton, A.C., MD Textbook of Medical Physiology, 9th Ed. 1996

 

Lee, Royal, DDS The Mineral Elements in Nutrition

 

Anderson, F. The Thesis of Body Mineral Balancing; Utah Teachers

Resource Book

 

Robbins, John Diet for a New America

 

Turner Relating Land Use and Global Land Cover Change, 1992

 

Grant, Douglas The Truth About Colloidal Minerals, 1996

 

Ashmead, H. DeWayne, PhD Intestinal Absorption of Metal Ions and

Chelates, 1985 Charles C. Thomas

 

Fisher, Jeffrey A., MD The Plague Makers 1996

 

Ashmead, Harvey, PhD Tissue Transportation of Organic Trace Minerals

 

J Appl Nutr, 22:42 1970

 

Underwood, E Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nutrition

 

Academy Press, New York 73, 1977

 

Matthews, D " Final Discussion " in Peptide Transport and Hydrolysis

 

Amsterdam: Elselvier, 1977

 

Miller, G.T. Living in the environment: An introduction to environmental

science

 

Sixth edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company 1990

 

The Merck Manual 16th ed., 1996

 

Carrel, Alexis MD Man, The Unknown 1939

 

Tilden, J.H., MD Toxemia Explained 1926

 

Motyka, Max, PhD Minerals, Trace Minerals, Ultra Trace Minerals

 

Albion Research Notes Vol.5 No.2 May 1996

 

Jong, Carol, PhD Precious Metals 1998

 

Biomed Publications

 

Journal of the American Medical Association 24 Dec 1996

 

Senate Document 264 74th US Congress, 1936

 

" US CO2 Budget for Atmosphere & Climate Stabilization "

 

Presentation, June 1994 International Society for Systems Sciences

 

MacDougall, John MD MacDougall's Medicine: A Challenging Second Opinion

 

Birchall,JD Aluminum, Chemical Physiology, And Alzheimer s Disease

Lancet 29 Oct 1988

 

Von Leibig, Baron Justus The Natural Laws of Husbandry

 

For comments or questions, contact Dr. O'Shea @shi-

_________________

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

DietaryTi-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Genes

 

 

 

 

 

AIM Barleygreen

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

That was excellent JoAnn, thanks!

 

I guess when I finish the bottle of colloidal iron I'll head for an

amino acid chelate and I've already noticed amino acid chelated zinc

on the market.

 

Thanks again:-) (I assume you put that article up in response to my

question!)

 

Holly