TreasureVibe
Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2016
- Messages
- 1,941
Is molybdenum neurotoxic? According to this case study you would think so:
https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/4533
Opinions?
https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/4533
Opinions?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
What bothers me is how molybdenum apparently entered the brain tissue, and I think that is an issue with any dose as it would accumulate over time in your brain tissues.Looks like a really good reason to not overdose on it.
Exactly, this is why I raised the issue. Some experts should weigh in for the greater good as some people take it for sulfur issues.It's really helpful for people like me who have sulfur absorption issues
I had no idea it cold be toxic
i posed it in another group and the general consesus is that if you do supplement it, you have to pulse itExactly, this is why I raised the issue. Some experts should weigh in for the greater good as some people take it for sulfur issues.
What does pulse mean?i posed it in another group and the general consesus is that if you do supplement it, you have to pulse it
Not constantly. Off and on. Long breaks in betweenWhat does pulse mean?
How much were you taking, compared with the numbers in that article about maximum safe levels?I don't know, supplementing it (sodium molybdate drops) always gives me this pressure in my frontal brain lobe, trouble focusing and stupid mistakes when writing and reading things which I normally never make, so I am convinced that the molybdenum enters the brain tissue in my case, and causes negative neurotic symptoms.
I would get these symptoms with a one time dose of approx 48 mcg having never used it before.How much were you taking, compared with the numbers in that article about maximum safe levels?
Looks like it would be easy to overdose if you were not careful.
Hmm. That looks like it's well within the safe limits described in the article (something like 75-350mcg). Unless you had some higher dietary or other unrecognised source that meant you already had more than usual.I would get these symptoms with a one time dose of approx 48 mcg having never used it before.
Well I can think of two things: first one is, I spoke to @Travis, a very knowledgeable member of the RP forums, and he said that trace minerals are harmless when taken in chelated form. However, this does not reflect well with the study I have posted, now that I think of it. Because the patient in the study used a chelated form of molybdenum. I did not take the Mo with any special digestive aid. It happened twice actually, as I also had a similar dose 5 months ago and had the exact same neurotic symptoms.Hmm. That looks like it's well within the safe limits described in the article (something like 75-350mcg). Unless you had some higher dietary or other unrecognised source that meant you already had more than usual.
It only happened once? Then I guess it might have been the Mo, or it might have been coincidence, and something else entirely caused it? You weren't taking it with HCL or special digestive aids of some kind?
The article does seem to suggest that some Mo is required, as well as excess being dangerous.
Precisely! But I found out that mainstream health media outlets, even promote these trace minerals, like healthline.com for example. Even taking them as supplements is adviced by such mainstream media outlets. So we are being influenced badly as a whole on this subject, so I can't fully blame the people for making these mistakes.I gotta say I cringe at how some people on some forums recommend and talk about supplementing with trace minerals. On Amazon there's a woman who developed Parkinsonian symptoms after OD'ing on manganese. Supplementing with these things is not like taking potassium or magnesium, there's serious risk involved. Their chemistry is very different and more complicated.
The guy in the study took massive amounts, so even if it might have been a relatively suitable form, it looks to me, as a lay person with no expertise in this area, like it was way too much.Well I can think of two things: first one is, I spoke to @Travis, a very knowledgeable member of the RP forums, and he said that trace minerals are harmless when taken in chelated form. However, this does not reflect well with the study I have posted, now that I think of it. Because the patient in the study used a chelated form of molybdenum.
The second thing I can think of is: we're having a cognitive bias. That is, our assumption about the intake of a trace mineral, is wrong. I think we falsely assume that because something is not in our bloodstream, we are deficient in it and should be supplementing it. While the healthy way in my opinion should be is we as humans are supposed to just sometimes, occasionally, in trace amounts, should come across this trace mineral, in a food form, like a fruit or a piece of organ meat liver. The body is able then to detox any excess of the nutrient that would float somewhere other than the liver, because the excess would be very small.
Could be. We evolved to get trace minerals from food, not supplements, and maybe getting even very small amounts of them in supplements can be disruptive. I certainly believe that getting too much can be a problem, and that the molecular form is important, and likely ingesting them along with real foods makes a difference. I don't count myself knowledgeable enough to assess the details.I gotta say I cringe at how some people on some forums recommend and talk about supplementing with trace minerals. On Amazon there's a woman who developed Parkinsonian symptoms after OD'ing on manganese. Supplementing with these things is not like taking potassium or magnesium, there's serious risk involved. Their chemistry is very different and more complicated.
I didn't mean to imply that taking molybdenum at any dose besides a very small one was a good idea, but only that a chelated form would be immune to Ray Peat's objection against supplements having 'free metals.'Well I can think of two things: first one is, I spoke to @Travis, a very knowledgeable member of the RP forums, and he said that trace minerals are harmless when taken in chelated form. However, this does not reflect well with the study I have posted, now that I think of it. Because the patient in the study used a chelated form of molybdenum. I did not take the Mo with any special digestive aid. It happened twice actually, as I also had a similar dose 5 months ago and had the exact same neurotic symptoms.
The second thing I can think of is: we're having a cognitive bias. That is, our assumption about the intake of a trace mineral, is wrong. I think we falsely assume that because something is not in our bloodstream, we are deficient in it and should be supplementing it. While the healthy way in my opinion should be is we as humans are supposed to just sometimes, occasionally, in trace amounts, should come across this trace mineral, in a food form, like a fruit or a piece of organ meat liver. The body is able then to detox any excess of the nutrient that would float somewhere other than the liver, because the excess would be very small.
What seems problematic to me still though is, that according to logic, no matter how small of an amount of the trace mineral is floating in the bloodstream, it will have an affinity to settle in a tissue, and in the case of molybdenum, a specific affinity for brain tissue. The question that rises is, can molybdenum be pulled out of the brain tissue and does the body have its own way of doing this? And if so, how exactly or with what nutrient.
Because essentially, if we have the answer to that, then supplementation or food intake would both not be a problem. In the case of the patient of the study, it required Calcium-EDTA, a strong chelating agent. The brain is able to regenerate, but the offending trace minerals must be removed from it first in order for it to do so, and perhaps long term presence of a trace mineral could deal devastating and even irreversible, or rather far reversible damage to the brain.
Molybdenum is purely good for the enzyme creation. I think we should ask ourselves if the way we're approaching this correctly. Isn't for example, molybdenum supposed to be converted to a safe form within the body, like a liposomal form, by for example the liver, before the body uses it to create the enzyme with? And that this liposomal molybdenum form that is converted within the body, would not have the affinity to settle in brain tissue, or perhaps it would but it would not be damaging like the raw molybdenum?
I think that is a process we should really look into in order to figure this out, because perhaps we are missing something. In my mind I think of lipoprotein(a), which is a converted form of cholesterol created out of ordinary cholesterol by the body, which mainstream scientists did not know the existence of, pointing at cholesterol as the big bad guy in coronary heart disease. Other scientists found out about the lipoprotein(a) form of cholesterol partly due to the cholesterol-statin drug controversy, but wether it is true or not that lipoprotein(a) is the form that forms deposits in the artery walls, it serves as an example that alot of these biochemical substances are poorly understudied, even to this day. And that we should be cautious with them. Molybdenum, like other trace minerals, need much more scrutiny, and biochemical analysis in vivo before we should think of supplementing them, imho.
Precisely! But I found out that mainstream health media outlets, even promote these trace minerals, like healthline.com for example. Even taking them as supplements is adviced by such mainstream media outlets. So we are being influenced badly as a whole on this subject, so I can't fully blame the people for making these mistakes.
Certainly, my apology!I didn't mean to imply that taking molybdenum at any dose besides a very small one was a good idea, but only that a chelated form would be immune to Ray Peat's objection against supplements having 'free metals.'
It is complicated yeah. It needs more studying.The guy in the study took massive amounts, so even if it might have been a relatively suitable form, it looks to me, as a lay person with no expertise in this area, like it was way too much.
Could be. We evolved to get trace minerals from food, not supplements, and maybe getting even very small amounts of them in supplements can be disruptive. I certainly believe that getting too much can be a problem, and that the molecular form is important, and likely ingesting them along with real foods makes a difference. I don't count myself knowledgeable enough to assess the details.
It's tricky, given that the science round trace minerals in human physiology is not all sufficiently well researched or well known for us to easily (or in some cases even with difficulty) know how much of each of them we as a species really need, whether we personally are replete or deficient, which foods actually contain useful (or excessive amounts) of them, which supplemental forms can be helpful or harmful when diet is inadequate, what the safety tolerances are, etc.
I think you are both right to note the need for caution.
Does anyone know how to chelate molybdenum from brain tissues?
I remember reading in a book before sulfate could help in lowering molybdenum levels in the body.