By Tim O'Shea, D.C.
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 @ shiloh@netmagic.net
![[SWIRL 2]](../GRAPHICS/SWIRL-2.GIF)