Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 10:36:12
In reply to Re: Multi vit/min complex-Larry, posted by Patient on July 22, 2004, at 19:33:36
> Hello,
>
> Boy, do I feel the fool for parroting a book....yes, I should have put what I stated in many quotes for much of the info. was from the book "Prescription for Nutritional Healing" by Balch and Balch. I've quoted them here before in the past with reference to the book and writers, but yes, I knew better-I'm sorry-I was trying to impress folks-in trying to impress I got made a fool of-a lessened hopefully learned.Thank you for expressing your humility. I wasn't trying to humiliate you.
There's always a danger when you have only a single source for information. I've got that book somewhere, but with the Internet at my fingertips, I seldom use books much any more.
There is an astounding resource on-line, if you want to get an in-depth look at any nutrient (or any health issue, probably), but I have my favourite saved with a nutrient search term...
http://lab.nap.edu/nap-cgi/discover.cgi?term=tolerable%20daily%20intake&restric=NAPAll the books are readable full-text, and fully searchable.
> So, what doses of supplements should I be taking so I know I'm on the safe side if Balch's book is to be disregarded? A world of information, but it's still a Barnum and Bailey world-a sucker born every minute. I take a multi/vit min. with zinc oxide 15mg and cupric oxide 2mg. About 3 times a week or less I take Tri-Zinc 50 (citrate, chelate, picolinate), by KAL. As for the book stating 10 to 1 ratio, then later it was 16.7 to 1, the later was for manic depression; I guess Balch is saying that bipolars sweat more or maybe eat more beans ;).
Your regime is fine. The RDA is best thought of as weekly intake divided by seven. That said, I think our bodies are shaped by evolution. We are adventitious eaters. What that means is we eat what we find. Compare that to e.g. a bison on the Great Plains. Grass, and more grass.
Adventitious omnivores like humans might best benefit from nutrient intake that is pulsatile, i.e., which comes in waves. Water solubles, every day, but the other stuff might best come in bursts with rest periods. That way, you don't ever risk down-regulating the uptake mechanisms. They'll always be primed for uptake, because some days there isn't much for them to do.
> Is this true concerning excessive sweating reduces zinc levels, as well as phytates found in beans and grains?
I just wouldn't worry about them much. They're factors, but they're also factored in.
> Now I know I can take iron and zinc at the same time, but is it true I shouldn't take calcium with iron.
Calcium is so common in the diet that you are already taking calcium with iron. It would take a lot of effort to not do so.
> I've often read calcium interferes with many drugs as well.
Yes, but those drugs come with very specific instructions on how they must be taken. You'd know it, because the pharmacist would ensure you'd know all about it.
> So, I should disregard calcium in the claim made from Balch's book, about calcium having anything to do with zinc.
Not disregard. It's factored in, already. There are all sorts of interactions, and you can't avoid them altogether.
> The Balch's state, "Too much calcium can interfere with the absorption of zinc, and excess zinc can interfere with calcium absorption (especially if calcium intake is low. For most people, the best ratio between supplemental calcium and zinc is up to 2,500mg of calcium with 50 mg of zinc daily."
Look at the concentration ratio. Zinc will always be overwhelmed by calcium, unless there are zinc-specific uptake pumps.....tada, there are four zinc-specific uptake pumps (that we know of).
> Then they state "a hair analysis can determine the levels of these and other minerals in the body."
Hair analysis has *never* been validated as a means of assessing nutritional status. It can provide evidence of long-term metal toxicosis (as by mercury, for example), but that's not the same thing as assessing day-to-day mineral status.
> Okay, maybe we can title this book, Prescription for Nutritional Death.
No, that's an excessive response. It's generally a very useful book. I spoke to zinc intake because of its regulatory function. They were recommending too much zinc.
> Yes, I understand that toxic amounts of metals can build up in the body without physical signs showing up until many years later. I wish I could remember the name of the book, but there is an interesting book you might be interested in written by a dentist from Norway I believe, who wrote a book about his theory that Napoleon Bonaparte was poisoned while on the Island of Helena. Speaking about Bonaparte, I already understood that arsenic is a trace mineral.
Many people are surprised to learn that you need arsenic. Dose makes the poison.
> I'm sure you've written all the questions I am wanting answers to on this board, so I will simply type in your name and find helpful information that way.Don't be so sure. And, please don't be afraid to challenge anything I say. I'm not always right.
> Thanks for your informative input on this board, and I appreciate all the correction and information you've given me, and the time you have taken, which I'm sure is precious.
You're welcome. And you're welcome to more. As much as you want.
> I'll stick to asking questions instead of giving info. on subjects I know nothing about which are many. You wanna talk about dog training-now that I know about : )
I know nothing about dogs. Well, not nothing. Oh, never mind. ;-)
> Sincerely,
>
> Patient,Best,
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:367111
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20040718/msgs/369386.html