Rethinking Magnesium: Why You're Deficient And Need To Supplement

[KalosKaiAgathos]

Thanks for the reply! Yeah I haven't found much info about it in my limited web searching but it seems to be working alright so far.

From the very quick search I've done, there are not that many studies investigating that specific magnesium form. Just this study:

Magnesium acetate vs. magnesium gluconate supplementation in short bowel syndrome. - PubMed - NCBI

Most of the info on acetate out there seems "experimental".

 

[KalosKaiAgathos]

This is an issue with being an expert who has published books and committed to his proclamation of facts. As new information is discovered that would disprove his facts, it becomes difficult for an author to walk back what he has said. The attitude you have is noteworthy, as you had made mention of before, that what we know could change, as we are continually in a process of discovering new truths.

And while there are many people we consider experts, there is hardly an expert who doesn't get it wrong in some aspects. We can be critical in appreciating and getting what they get right, and understand not to expect them to correct what they get wrong. Luckily, there are many views we can listen to, and we can, with enough study and thought, and discussion, arrive at a good salad of ideas very carefully picked likes perfectly ripe cherries in the field

Next to a Master's in Clinical Health Sciences, I've actually completed a Master's in Philosophy and Philosophy of Science and Technology as well. I've specialized heavily on the justification of the methodology of science in the last few years.

I will say that my approach with my blog is going to be totally different than many other people (bloggers, experts) out there.

Why? Contrary to many people, I think even the most fundamentally accepted facts in health care will get revised over time - even though I'm hinting at a very complex discussion here.

Most generations of scientists think they are "right". But Aristotelean physics got overturned by Newtonian mechanics, which got overtuned by Einsteinian physics.

For people who are interested in my philosophical position on the methodology of science: I accept Thomas Kuhn's notion that science develos in certain paradigms, which all have their own theoretical frameworks, metaphysical presuppositions, core principles, exemplars, etcetera, but I do not accept Kuhn's notion that different scientific paradigms are incommensurable. I strongly believe that there is a cumulative and progressive tendency in science - as knowledge of the world - that cannot be reduced to social phenomena (as so often assumed from the 1970s).

Because of this philosophical position, however, any claims to truth that I make regarding health care are necessarily only tentative. With the emergence of new data, some of my theories on how to best unify that data will be incomplete at best, or untrue at worst. Old data which I accepted as true, might also turn out wrong in time.

To me, it's shockingly dangerous to stick to your opinion in the face of new developments of science. I also think it's very very dangerous to think that by using Ray Peat's health principles, or principles of another experts, we have somehow arrived at an "eternal truth" regarding how health works.

Let's make the following though experiment to demonstrate why I reject the notion that Ray Peat has arrived at some "eternal truth" regarding the functioning of health. Under my very pragmantic conception of truth in healthcare, we would fully understand health if and only if we can manipulate health at a 100% level at our fingertips.

What does 100% manipulation mean? For example, you would be able to induce cancer into that patient, then quickly heal that patient without the risk of side-effect or other risks, induce a mitchondrial disease after that, and cure that disease effortlessly afterwards again. Ray Peat's system of health - although it's powerful - cannot do such things at this time. Because Ray Peat's system of health does not give us total control over our health (or, as denoted earlier: 100% manipulability), it cannot yield a complete understanding of health.

(bear in mind that my argument does have some presuppositions, such as a necessary relationship between manipulability and understanding. Contrary to my argument, one could claim that someone could fully understand how cancer originates, even though that person cannot manipulate the disease at will).

But even though my argument is simplistic, I hope you get the point.

I must say, that because of my background in philosophy and philosophy of science and technology, I do not have the confidence that I've found an eternally true theory of health. Many other experts out there are far more certain they are "right" than I do.

The consequence? I'm absolutely certain that some beliefs that I have on health today, will turn out wrong in the future. The fact that some of my beliefs (or theories) on health are necessarily untrue, gives rise to an ethical dilemma. Why? Well, I'm recommending interventions to patients, which will turn out incorrect in time.

I've studied the history of science deeply enough to know that many beliefs (or theories) I hold true today will be considered wrong in 50 years, or 100.

So, the questoin then becomes: why engage in science? And how can we engage in science ethically?

To me, the role of the scientist is to best unify all data out there on health (or a subcategory of health). If current data turns out wrong, or new data emerges, the process of unification has to occur anew.

For example, in my opinion, Ray Peat might be wrong about magnesium. But, in Ray's defense, he could have never known about the extent of the soil depletion during the peak of his life. Even though Ray might turn out "wrong" about some things, he did unify the data in a spectacular way for the 80s, 90s, and 00s. New data has thus emerged that Ray could not have fully taken into account in his earlier theories.

"Experts" out there who do hold steadfast to a conception that their Paleo lifestyle, or Ray Peat lifestyle is in some way or form "eternally true", cannot even see the limitations of their way of unifying all the data. Why? Because such followers blindly accept how their predecessor (the Paleo guru, or another expert) unified the data. That method of blind following, already places an artificial limitation upon yourself, IMO, becuase you become less receptive for new data inputs, or disqualifying old data that might already be incorrect.

Of course, my argument is way too simplified again, becuase I know that 99,9% of people do not have the time to check all the presuppositions of a theory, and to double check all the data themselves.

The bottom line of my dilemma is this: I will turn out wrong about many subjects, but I do not know which ones right now - even though I make recommendatoins to my clients, and people who read my blog - which is a very scary thought...

Edit: If this blog post is not understandable, the reason is because I've not edited my argument to perfection.

 

[Amazoniac]

First of all, you don't seem snobbish. All people have to search the forum - me included. Secondly, thank you very much for the correction to my article.

I'd rather be an "expert" who assimilates all the criticism that others give him into a new system, than the traditional expert who will hold onto their opions no matter what.

I agree that people should not reduce salt consumption to lower their chloride intake.

One of the problems with magnesium water is.. water. Considering that many cases seem to have trouble with retention, having to ingest extra water can make you urinate more magnesium than the water can supply. I think concentrated dry forms have ad and vantage in this regard.

The main reason why I suspect the gluconate form isn't more popular is because it's too voluminous. It's good.

The malate form is also good, I can't think of anything wrong with it other than maybe enhancing the absorption impurities. Same for acetate.

 

[yerrag]

One of the problems with magnesium water is.. water. Considering that many cases seem to have trouble with retention, having to ingest extra water can make you urinate more magnesium than the water can supply. I think concentrated dry forms have ad and vantage in this regard.

I beg to differ. If one drinks magnesium water instead of water, he isn't drinking any more water than he normally drinks. Even if the magnesium water were highly concentrated, at around 5000mg/liter of elemental magnesium, it is still easy to drink. It's because that is what I do.

In like manner, we wouldn't be saying there is a disadvantage to drinking orange juice, because we know advocating drinking OJ would not cause people to drink more water.

The problem is that there are people who just have to drink x glasses of water a day, regardless of whether they thirst or not, just because they think if water is good, they just have to drink lots of it. And they just have to drink x glass of water a day, regardless of whether they drank magnesium water or orange juice.

 

[Amazoniac]

I beg to differ. If one drinks magnesium water instead of water, he isn't drinking any more water than he normally drinks. Even if the magnesium water were highly concentrated, at around 5000mg/liter of elemental magnesium, it is still easy to drink. It's because that is what I do.

In like manner, we wouldn't be saying there is a disadvantage to drinking orange juice, because we know advocating drinking OJ would not cause people to drink more water.

The problem is that there are people who just have to drink x glasses of water a day, regardless of whether they thirst or not, just because they think if water is good, they just have to drink lots of it. And they just have to drink x glass of water a day, regardless of whether they drank magnesium water or orange juice.

Most people on the forum have enough liquids to the point of requiring little wasser, the extra would be a hassle just to get some magnesium. Carbonating coconut water with a streaming of the sodas might be a way of having a more nourishing beverage, I don't know how that would work out for people.

 

[yerrag]

Most people on the forum have enough liquids to the point of requiring little wasser, the extra would be a hassle just to get some magnesium. Carbonating coconut water with a streaming of the sodas might be a way of having a more nourishing beverage, I don't know how that would work out for people.

I think most people in this forum, especially in this forum, know well enough the dangers of taking too much water as far as diluting our body of electrolytes. As I said earlier, taking more water in the form of magnesium water just means taking less of regular water. That's not hard to figure out.

As far as carbonation of coconut water goes, that's a good idea. I'll let you know how carbonating it works out as soon as I crack open my next coconut.

 

[Amazoniac]

I think most people in this forum, especially in this forum, know well enough the dangers of taking too much water as far as diluting our body of electrolytes. As I said earlier, taking more water in the form of magnesium water just means taking less of regular water. That's not hard to figure out.

As far as carbonation of coconut water goes, that's a good idea. I'll let you know how carbonating it works out as soon as I crack open my next coconut.

That's pointing at the fairy. According to Daniel, it has about 350 mg for every cup, so it's a very good source. If the person is replacing regular wasser with the magnesium one, that's great. But having to drink when not thirsty isn't so great but still practical.

Let me know how it does the workings.

 

[Obi-wan]

Iamamanic (@Amazoniac ) has his own language... reminds me of Yoda...

 

[yerrag]

That's pointing at the fairy. According to Daniel, it has about 350 mg for every cup, so it's a very good source. If the person is replacing regular wasser with the magnesium one, that's great. But having to drink when not thirsty isn't so great but still practical.

Let me know how it does the workings.

Yes, 350mg of elemental magnesium per cup, when using MagBiCarb (the brand) water. But too pricey at $80/liter. It's just as well you make it yourself, with a DIY carbonator. I made my own mag bicarbonate water, and I could make it at at least 1000mg elemental magnesium per cup. At a lot lower cost. The DIY carbonator pays for itself after 3 liters of mag bicarbonate water is made.

I also get to develop my forearm from shaking the PET bottle a lot to make the mag bicarb water.

I think that commercial makers of magbicarb water just have to throttle the concentration of the magbicarb water they sell. Selling to a wide variety of people, they can't put themselves in a position to be sued for the probable overdose of magnesium. Making your own mag bicarb water is the answer to that. Your make your own, and if you overdose on it, you can't sue yourself.

 

[Entropy]

I use the magnesium spray from earthshift.

So today, woke up with sore back muscles from doing pullups, with just one spray worth lathered on the sore area, had immediate relief. Really potent stuff.

 

[Amazoniac]

Synergestic Effects of Magnesium and Creatine on Ergogenic Performance

 

[Glassy]

Ive been drinking around 200ml of the mg bicarb water concentrate and recently made up a fully saturated solution of MgCl2 to spray on my skin. I don’t always get a chance to make the mg bicarb water and wanted a quick way to top up my magnesium. I’ve been experimenting with dissolving the MgCl2 flakes in water and drinking on a relatively empty stomach. I was surprised to find that I could tolerate a teaspoon (5g) of the flakes in water at once without any noticeable digestive reaction (initially I had a bit of disturbance but it was minor and I adapted to it).

I assume absorption would be better if it was distributed over the day but it is pretty convenient for me. I’m going to start mixing bicarb with it.

 

[smith]

The reference list is epic.
Magnesium sulfate is the main form used in emergency as far as I know. I don't want to play the knowledgeable here because I'm not, it's just that I always read about it being favored instead of chloride. The other forms are more expensive, so this might be one of the ressons why these are more popular.

These two forms are trash because both provide too much of what doesn't interest you to get a little of what does. The body will need to get rid of them somehow at a cost. I won't go over this again in details, I'll just add that these two will acidify the body in unnecessary and avoidable ways, and magnesium is flushed out when bicarbonate production is impaired, which isn't uncommon. Magnesium chloride's taste is a good indicator of how great it is, especially in large doses.

Magnesium bicarbonate is probably the best. But it forces the people to consume liquid to get magnesium.

Magnesium carbonate is more difficult to be digested and might shift the state of the person in unwanted ways.

Most forms deserve preloading with a bicarbonate salt. It can make a big difference. Supplementing during or after exercise is also useful.

If Mag Bicarbonate requires it be in liquid to drink, could it be used to replace Sulfate as a higher-quality epsom salt in bath water to be absorbed through skin? Would taking Magnesium Sulfate cause far less strain on the body if taken with lots of bicarbonate?

I'm wondering why magnesium bicarbonate is not considered. I have very good experience with magnesium bicarb. It is expensive when you buy it, but very inexpensive when you DIY it. That is what I do. The nice thing about it is that it's easy to take, as you drink it. For people who don't like taking yet another pill, or mix yet another powder, drinking magnesium bicarbonate water is a very good alternative. I make magbicarb water for two older ladies, and I give them a ration of 2 1.5 liter bottles each week, and it is so easy for them to incorporate it into their routine. It's just like drinking water.

Do you make it with MoM as most recipes instruct or would any form suffice with some slight deviations in recipe?

 

[Amazoniac]

If Mag Bicarbonate requires it be in liquid to drink, could it be used to replace Sulfate as a higher-quality epsom salt in bath water to be absorbed through skin? Would taking Magnesium Sulfate cause far less strain on the body if taken with lots of bicarbonate?

Do you make it with MoM as most recipes instruct or would any form suffice with some slight deviations in recipe?

It's already difficult to absorb it when concentrated (as lotions), with added alcohol and leaving it for a long time, so I think most will wasted. Even if it was possible to concentrate it somehow, bathing in would still be a waste of supplement. There are people who enjoy bathing in chocolate instead of just layering the body with it.

There are people who go further on fanciness:
- The Cadogan hotel's champagne bath launches
- I Want To Take A Bath In Estroban

--
Have you ever noticed how the halogen salts taste alike?

 

[smith]

It's already difficult to absorb it when concentrated (as lotions), with added alcohol and leaving it for a long time, so I think most will wasted. Even if it was possible to concentrate it somehow, bathing in would still be a waste of supplement. There are people who enjoy bathing in chocolate instead of just layering the body with it.

There are people who go further on fanciness:
- The Cadogan hotel's champagne bath launches
- I Want To Take A Bath In Estroban

--
Have you ever noticed how the halogen salts taste alike?

Thanks, a large amount of Epsom Salts is required as part of a certain protocol to rid the body of Morgellon's and skin biofilms, so I was wondering if I could replace the low-quality sulfate garbage with something more effective and less toxic. Perhaps it is the sulfate that's meant to do all the work instead of the magnesium, but then, why not just bathe in pure sulfur?
And not sure, other than table salt I don't taste chlorine or iodine that often

 

[sunraiser]

I just went through my notes and journals and wanted to add some further magnesium anecdote here.

My experiences with magnesium chloride (usually 200-400mg mixed in water over the day) have occasionally initially been positive (1 or 2 days), but they have almost almost devolved into some unpleasant feeling. Be it a headache, general feeling of malaise, stomach irritation, it doesn't seem to ever have a perpetual positive. I have certainly had issues tolerating magnesium for various reasons, but I'm leaning towards chloride generally being a bad form - I don't think it's sustainable or tolerable, and I don't think finding a bicarb balance is really feesible. Also it tastes like ***t which is a good signal from the body!

Thinking in terms of healing from a poor metabolic state (like really really poor), I find the idea of a supplement being "necessary" really uncomfortable. I think magnesium glycinate (the legit one from dr's best) is an okay stopgap and have seen many have success with it, but it still feels wrong.

I had a period of "somewhat" thriving on a wholegrain heavy diet but also including lots of fat - eating whole grain pasta and oats almost every day. Sometimes whole grain rice, also. This was in the context of 4x per week weight lifting (body weight plus added weight). The barrier I think I ran into was zinc deficiency due to phytic acid partly, but also partly a fear of red meat. Zinc deficiency leads to B6 deficiency which leads to magnesium deficiency which is rather bad when horrendously overtraining! I likely already had a zinc deficiency when starting this diet and was still able to do well to a degree, however the overtraining is what killed me. I ate this way for probably 4-5 years.

It's easy to list magnesium rich foods and just say "eat these", but in reality it doesn't work that way. In a depleted state I just did not ever crave greens, the added vitamin A and vitamin K also might be a hindrance if your body doesn't need them. Perhaps they're too heavy to digest when you're unable to tolerate enough calories to have metabolic sufficiency. Dark chocolate, I did crave, but the stimulant effect caused too much adrenal stress.

I suppose I'm putting across the idea that, to me, whole grains (and some nuts) feel absolutely imperative in the context of any grain/carb heavy diet. I think eating any "white/refined" grain creates such an unrealistically high magnesium need through the insulin response that supplementation becomes necessary. This leads to either choosing lower carb/higher fat or simply avoiding grains, which many do. Also note that fortified wheat is twice as bad because the added B1 is going to increase your magnesium need, but I have still found issue with unfortified french bread at times. It's the most convenient source of folate so I find it's something I often crave and a useful easy addition to the diet, though.

I had absolutely no bloodsugar issues when eating a whole grain heavy diet, though I did develop depression (due to aforementioned zinc > intracellular magnesium) deficiency, I believe, in addition to the calcium deficiency through lowered vitamin D + overtraining.

Whole grains are obviously hard to digest, so maybe for a normal recovery it's necessary to spend long hours outside in the sunshine to promote digestion (it can be in the shade, just light in the eyes), and if you're spending less time outside then make sure you get out early in the morning and avoid blue light in the day. Blue light is definitely a metabolic issue - I have consistently had success in periods of blue light avoidance. Though it's ******* hard as it's rather addictive when blue light is a means for your main connection to the world at points!

I understand this is anti peat, but I'm sharing my current thought pattern just for interest. There really does seem to be an unnaturally high magnesium need when not eating whole grains (in the context of high carb), though the phytic acid can obviously cause problems. The magnesium issues could also perhaps be solved with a high fish diet, but then how can you tolerate such a high level of animal protein when metabolically challenged?

**To add - perhaps I'm just becoming convinced that a higher fat diet is both more natural (intuitive), simpler and healthier. I'm unsure what to conclude at current!

 

[yerrag]

Next to a Master's in Clinical Health Sciences, I've actually completed a Master's in Philosophy and Philosophy of Science and Technology as well. I've specialized heavily on the justification of the methodology of science in the last few years.

I will say that my approach with my blog is going to be totally different than many other people (bloggers, experts) out there.

Why? Contrary to many people, I think even the most fundamentally accepted facts in health care will get revised over time - even though I'm hinting at a very complex discussion here.

Most generations of scientists think they are "right". But Aristotelean physics got overturned by Newtonian mechanics, which got overtuned by Einsteinian physics.

For people who are interested in my philosophical position on the methodology of science: I accept Thomas Kuhn's notion that science develos in certain paradigms, which all have their own theoretical frameworks, metaphysical presuppositions, core principles, exemplars, etcetera, but I do not accept Kuhn's notion that different scientific paradigms are incommensurable. I strongly believe that there is a cumulative and progressive tendency in science - as knowledge of the world - that cannot be reduced to social phenomena (as so often assumed from the 1970s).

Because of this philosophical position, however, any claims to truth that I make regarding health care are necessarily only tentative. With the emergence of new data, some of my theories on how to best unify that data will be incomplete at best, or untrue at worst. Old data which I accepted as true, might also turn out wrong in time.

To me, it's shockingly dangerous to stick to your opinion in the face of new developments of science. I also think it's very very dangerous to think that by using Ray Peat's health principles, or principles of another experts, we have somehow arrived at an "eternal truth" regarding how health works.

Let's make the following though experiment to demonstrate why I reject the notion that Ray Peat has arrived at some "eternal truth" regarding the functioning of health. Under my very pragmantic conception of truth in healthcare, we would fully understand health if and only if we can manipulate health at a 100% level at our fingertips.

What does 100% manipulation mean? For example, you would be able to induce cancer into that patient, then quickly heal that patient without the risk of side-effect or other risks, induce a mitchondrial disease after that, and cure that disease effortlessly afterwards again. Ray Peat's system of health - although it's powerful - cannot do such things at this time. Because Ray Peat's system of health does not give us total control over our health (or, as denoted earlier: 100% manipulability), it cannot yield a complete understanding of health.

(bear in mind that my argument does have some presuppositions, such as a necessary relationship between manipulability and understanding. Contrary to my argument, one could claim that someone could fully understand how cancer originates, even though that person cannot manipulate the disease at will).

But even though my argument is simplistic, I hope you get the point.

I must say, that because of my background in philosophy and philosophy of science and technology, I do not have the confidence that I've found an eternally true theory of health. Many other experts out there are far more certain they are "right" than I do.

The consequence? I'm absolutely certain that some beliefs that I have on health today, will turn out wrong in the future. The fact that some of my beliefs (or theories) on health are necessarily untrue, gives rise to an ethical dilemma. Why? Well, I'm recommending interventions to patients, which will turn out incorrect in time.

I've studied the history of science deeply enough to know that many beliefs (or theories) I hold true today will be considered wrong in 50 years, or 100.

So, the questoin then becomes: why engage in science? And how can we engage in science ethically?

To me, the role of the scientist is to best unify all data out there on health (or a subcategory of health). If current data turns out wrong, or new data emerges, the process of unification has to occur anew.

For example, in my opinion, Ray Peat might be wrong about magnesium. But, in Ray's defense, he could have never known about the extent of the soil depletion during the peak of his life. Even though Ray might turn out "wrong" about some things, he did unify the data in a spectacular way for the 80s, 90s, and 00s. New data has thus emerged that Ray could not have fully taken into account in his earlier theories.

"Experts" out there who do hold steadfast to a conception that their Paleo lifestyle, or Ray Peat lifestyle is in some way or form "eternally true", cannot even see the limitations of their way of unifying all the data. Why? Because such followers blindly accept how their predecessor (the Paleo guru, or another expert) unified the data. That method of blind following, already places an artificial limitation upon yourself, IMO, becuase you become less receptive for new data inputs, or disqualifying old data that might already be incorrect.

Of course, my argument is way too simplified again, becuase I know that 99,9% of people do not have the time to check all the presuppositions of a theory, and to double check all the data themselves.

The bottom line of my dilemma is this: I will turn out wrong about many subjects, but I do not know which ones right now - even though I make recommendatoins to my clients, and people who read my blog - which is a very scary thought...

Edit: If this blog post is not understandable, the reason is because I've not edited my argument to perfection.

In a world that has been gamed by companies taking advantage of people's desire for guidance by relying on experts, it is always good to rely on one's good argument and logic, as well as good observation and analysis, as almost always the majority opinion cannot be relied upon. Sticking to what was believed in the past, and not being open to new evidence that poses a challenge to the current basis of knowledge, serves only to enshrine myths that should have emerged from the cocoon of mystery and be laid bare to the light of new discoveries that bring us closer to truth.

Mystery requires faith, but knowledge requires understanding. The less it is a mystery, the less a belief system is needed. But belief systems exist outside the realm of the metaphysical and religion, especially in the field of health and medicine.

Ironically, it is the most worldly in us that endeavours to keep this belief system intact. The more of a mystery something is, the more it becomes necessary to worship a class of priests garbed in titles of academia.

 

[Amazoniac]

Guru, I just want to let you know that I feel grateful for your title choice since it was easy to find to the thread.

This might interest you:

Timeline (Bioavailability) of Magnesium Compounds in Hours: Which Magnesium Compound Works Best?

Only magnesium sulfate was injected, the other forms were ingested. The interesting part about it is that they did some tests after supplementation for anxiety, ex and ploratory behavior, grip of the strengths, motor coordination, and they also analyzed tissues for magnesium levels. None of this matters because we will forget it in a matter of hours since magnesium salts experiments look all the same and they never reach a consensus. They make it worse by copying and pasting the introduction from previous publications but changing a few numbers to prevent us from retaining the information. But here's what they found:

"As early as 4 h post administration, blood magnesium levels were high in rats administered with magnesium malate (indicating fast intestinal absorption), but no statistical difference was found between the magnesium malate and magnesium acetyl taurate groups. At the eighth hour, blood magnesium levels were significantly higher in the magnesium malate group when compared to all other groups (p < 0.001) (Fig. 3a). No difference was observed in erythrocyte magnesium levels between the experimental and control groups (Fig. 3b).

The area under the magnesium curve is the difference between all magnesium compounds. Magnesium malate’s AUC is much higher than all other groups (p < 0.0001). Magnesium acetyl taurate and magnesium sulfate’s AUC are higher than magnesium oxide and citrate (both p < 0.0001) (Fig. 3c)."

"In our experiments, we did not observe any differences between the control group and the inorganic magnesium groups (magnesium oxide and magnesium sulfate), which can be interpreted as the low bioavailability of these compounds [15, 17]. We showed that the magnesium acetyl taurate (an organic compound) group had the highest brain magnesium levels, followed closely by magnesium malate."

"[..]Consistent with these results, in our study, inorganic compounds did not affect anxiety either while magnesium acetyl taurate—an organic compound—reduced anxiety. Other organic magnesium compounds (magnesium citrate and magnesium malate) had no effect on anxiety indicators." "Level in brain tissue was only shown to be increased in the magnesium acetyl taurate group."

"Abraham and Flechas treated fibromyalgia patients with a daily magnesium malate supplementation of 300– 600 mg, for 8 weeks, and reported improvement in the fibromyalgia symptoms of the patients [33]. In our study, acute magnesium administration did not affect muscle tissue magnesium levels in our magnesium malate group. We also did not find any difference in muscle strength of the magnesium malate group when compared to its controls. Our results support a previous study data demonstrated no correlation between that serum magnesium level and muscle strength [34]."

 

[Glassy]

I tend to think magnesium salts all deliver magnesium to the body when taken orally. I think it’s a balancing act for the individual on dosage since each salt seems to stimulate gut transit of both the magnesium salt and other stomach contents. Different forms stimulate the gut to different degrees and it seems the more it stimulates transit time the less Mg is absorbed. While it’s nice to have a quick transit time, too quick can be problematic for absorbing nutrients and quite inconvenient for the individual.

I disolved 100g of MgCl2 flakes in 600ml of water and add about 30ml to a big mouthful of water before downing it in one go. It’s more convenient than the mag water for me and I agree it’s not a pleasant taste (quite bitter and salty) but I found when taken with food I get no diarrhoea while my food moves quickly through my digestive system. I don’t mind bitter substances and believe bitterness is an acquired taste rather than an indication of the body’s need for the substance. Natural poisons are often bitter so we’ve evolved to reject bitterness. While I still get sore muscles after working out I’ve found that I’ve recently lost a little weight (both fat and water retention) which is welcome for me but may or may not be from the magnesium (I also started weight lifting again after having 2 months or so off).

 

[yerrag]

I disolved 100g of MgCl2 flakes in 600ml of water and add about 30ml to a big mouthful of water before downing it in one go.

That's 5g in one drink. Is that once a day? If you're doing it once in a while, you won't be likely to feel anything untoward. But if you are doing it daily, the effects could be cumulative in terms of acid load. Keep a log, and see at what point your urination frequency increases. I got to a point where I would wake up 4x a night to pee. Needless to say, I had less sleep and my health went down. Got allergies back and a cough that wouldn't go away. The extra work on the liver and the kidneys needed to keep acid-base balance means energy wasted that would otherwise have been used to bolster your immunity, among other things the body does to maintain itself in top shape.