I just bought a generic zinc-magnesium-calcium (daily respective dosage: 11mg, 400mg, 800mg) supplement and was surprised to find that according to several T-Nation reports calcium inhibits zinc absorption. Example here: http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=460596 (search for “calcium” on the page)
Biotest ZMA doesn’t include calcium for this particular reason. But as it costs $35 (!) here in Europe, and is 6+ times as expensive as a “normal” ZMA supplement which includes calcium, I find it hard to justify buying the Biotest product.
Even if the claim in the above link that up to 70% of zinc is not absorbed if taken with calcium holds, taking twice or even three times the supplement I bought would be cheaper than Biotest ZMA.
So I did some reading and found quite a few studies which question the very claim that calcium interferes with zinc absorption, for example here:
So, what’s going on? Should I stick with the ZMA supplements that have calcium - by far the most popular and cheapest ones - or is there a real benefit from paying six times as much for Biotest or similar product that doesn’t include calcium?
I was always under the imnpression that calcium interfered with zinc AND magnesium absorption. My question is, if you don’t have access to Biotest or other ZMA products, why not just buy the ingredients seperately? It’s constituents are readily available at any health store/supermarket… and it’s probably cheaper (and more effective) than the calcium one you have.
[quote]kevbo wrote:
I was always under the imnpression that calcium interfered with zinc AND magnesium absorption. My question is, if you don’t have access to Biotest or other ZMA products, why not just buy the ingredients seperately? It’s constituents are readily available at any health store/supermarket… and it’s probably cheaper (and more effective) than the calcium one you have.[/quote]
yea… just zinc or just magnesium at any drug store is cheap as balls.
Using just logic here, however, without pulling up a google before posting this… if people are producing ZMA and 99% of people dont know what it even stands for, and of the 1% that get off their couches/lift/take it, probably 75% dont know the exact ingredients. If the calcium was unnecessary or detrimental, wouldnt it stand to reason that they wouldnt waste production time and money on adding it?..
[quote]eclypse wrote:
Using just logic here, however, without pulling up a google before posting this… if people are producing ZMA and 99% of people dont know what it even stands for, and of the 1% that get off their couches/lift/take it, probably 75% dont know the exact ingredients. If the calcium was unnecessary or detrimental, wouldnt it stand to reason that they wouldnt waste production time and money on adding it?..[/quote]
Most Zinc, Magnesium, and Calcium combined supplements in the health food and drug stores are not geared towards athletes, so the minor interaction between calcium and the other two from an absorption standpoint isn’t important. For athletes, who are typically the ones who are deficient in Zinc and Magnesium, it is important.
[quote]eclypse wrote:
Using just logic here, however, without pulling up a google before posting this… if people are producing ZMA and 99% of people dont know what it even stands for, and of the 1% that get off their couches/lift/take it, probably 75% dont know the exact ingredients. If the calcium was unnecessary or detrimental, wouldnt it stand to reason that they wouldnt waste production time and money on adding it?..[/quote]
According to one T-Nation article (might be the one I linked to) the most abundant raw mineral source of zinc includes both zinc and calcium, ie. the manufacturer would have to separate them. This is the reason for most zinc supplements including calcium, as well.