I take magnesium pills, I can only tolerate glycinate. The other forms of magnesium give me the flying shits.
Now here’s a question, how much magnesium does your body absorb if you take a bath in Epsom salts? If it is an adequate amount, it looks like a good way to relax and get your magnesium.
It’s an interesting question, as certainly there is differing effect on tissues from soaking in Epsom salts versus regular water.
However, my first take on it is that the amount of magnesium absorbed is probably near zero, relative to amounts that are needed as dietary intake.
The reason is that non-fat-soluble ions have virtually no ability to permeate the stratum corneum (of the outer layer of the skin.) Such compounds can penetrate pretty much only through pores. I wouldn’t think much could get through that way. And by analogy, other metal salts that I have seen data for have extremely little flux through the skin.
However I’ll see if I can find anything. Probably can’t as from home I can search only abstracts and papers that might have the data within may have no indication within that they have that specific thing.
Oh, and as to how there could be a differing effect on tissue in Epsom salts versus plain water without substantial magnesium going through the skin: From drawing water through the skin due to a differential in osmotic pressure, the Epsom salts solution being more concentrated in dissolved molecules or in this case ions than body fluids are. As for effect on skin, it may be that enough magnesium is absorbed dermally to be of significance within the skin itself, though not an amount to be near to dietary needs systemically I would think.
In a quick effort I did not find anything providing evidence of much or in-any-way quantitated transport of magnesium through the skin, but did find cosmeceutical literature, carefully referenced in other ways, saying that little study had ever been done on penetration of brine solutions through the skin, and choosing to rely on “Assuming magnesium can penetrate the skin” (paraphrase.)
(The work itself focused on other measurable properties.)
One somewhat-commercial site touting magnesium named an FDA researcher that supposedly was going to look into it, but the webpage provided for that researcher gave no indication that she has in fact done so.
Well, we could always plug it into the Roberts-Sloan equation as applied to the Flynn database (as it has ionized species) and see what happens:
log JMAQ = x + y log SOCT + (1 - y) log SAQ + z MW
where x = -2.574, y = 0.586, z = 0.00440
where the coefficiencs x, y, and z are respectively -0.322, 0.530, and 0.00337.
This is for transdermal flux from a saturated water vehicle.
Well, we don’t have values for solubility in octanol (SIPM) or water (SAQ) but SOCT will be zero for all practical purposes and SAQ is better replaced, in this instance, with the actual concentration.
So how much Epsom salts do you put in how much water?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The fellow need only read – this time paying attention and comprehending – his own cited thread to see that what I said was accurate.
He insists he has read it but still posts with no comprehension of what his own cited source says on the point I raised.
I don’t waste time arguing with people that don’t comprehend what they read. There is no point. The statements he needs to comprehend are already there for him on a site he moderates himself, in a thread he cited himself. Since he doesn’t “get” that, he won’t get anything I say either.[/quote]
I understand what your saying.
But I was trying to come across and say that, based on 4 other peoples responses on the board, who all had tests to back it up, some several tests, that more than 5000IU of vitamin D3 often needs to be taken in a day. These guys were all needing 6 to 7 thousand.
Many people take like…1000IU. I was just trying to point out that much more is needed.
soo…Whats a good multi?? Superfood was the verdict? How bout that Greens ++ Multi.
[quote]xivb4m wrote:
soo…Whats a good multi?? Superfood was the verdict? How bout that Greens ++ Multi.[/quote]
Superfood covers the basics.
Ya know I’m up in the air about multi’s. TC covered it pretty good in the Superfood write up, and Michael Pollan, author of “Eat Food, Not to Much, Mostly Plants” and “The Omnivores Dilemma”, said as well.
We don’t necessarily know what combinations, interactions, or, for a lack of a better word, STUFF, is present in food that is beneficial. Nor do we really understand the complex mechanisms involved.
I mean extracting things like fish oil and protein powder is great. And whole food supps like Superfood are awesome.
But to just dump down a bunch of multi’s I dunno man.
I think ZMA is a good grab and obviously D3 
Perhaps a good complex b vitamin might be your next best bet.
Either way, like what was echoed earlier. Go with a solid company its usually better.
Oh, and I think alot of stuff in Greens + to be sorta meh, some it good, worth the cost? I’m not really sure.
[quote]Wise Guy wrote:
I understand what your saying.
But I was trying to come across and say that, based on 4 other peoples responses on the board, who all had tests to back it up, some several tests, that more than 5000IU of vitamin D3 often needs to be taken in a day. These guys were all needing 6 to 7 thousand.
Many people take like…1000IU. I was just trying to point out that much more is needed.
[/quote]
The thing is that what you were in fact actually saying, your actual words, was a flat statement that “you will need at least 6000IU a day” and after my pointing out that for example 5000 might be sufficient for someone, continuing to maintain 6000 as a minimum. While the actual situation is that some, as proven by blood tests, do fine with less than 6000.
It seems the problem is that you were taking a generality that MANY need at least 6000 and making it a statement that the person posting did, or people in general do.
Even now your final sentence is “much more is needed” when you know, it seems, that on your own board, the thread you cited yourself, JackBauer reports that blood tests show 5000 IU per day works for him, and Greenie tells you that some do fine on 4000 IU per day, which I have the impression he was basing on actual measurements. It also seems to me that he’s the guy you learned higher doses of D3 from in the first place, just to mention. It’s odd that he’s your primary source for the 8000 figure but you seem to reject when he says that 4000 is all some need.
You’re in the right general ballpark but you are going to extremes by saying, in comparison to 5000 IU/day, “much more is needed.”
Rather, it’s “Some people may need more.”
That is what I am disagreeing with, your insistence that 6000 is a minimum period, "“you will need at least 6000IU a day,” etc. You’re overstating it and the information on your own board shows that for you (as well as literature research.)
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Wise Guy wrote:
I understand what your saying.
But I was trying to come across and say that, based on 4 other peoples responses on the board, who all had tests to back it up, some several tests, that more than 5000IU of vitamin D3 often needs to be taken in a day. These guys were all needing 6 to 7 thousand.
Many people take like…1000IU. I was just trying to point out that much more is needed.
The thing is that what you were in fact actually saying, your actual words, was a flat statement that “you will need at least 6000IU a day” and after my pointing out that for example 5000 might be sufficient for someone, continuing to maintain 6000 as a minimum. While the actual situation is that some, as proven by blood tests, do fine with less than 6000.
It seems the problem is that you were taking a generality that MANY need at least 6000 and making it a statement that the person posting did, or people in general do.
Even now your final sentence is “much more is needed” when you know, it seems, that on your own board, the thread you cited yourself, JackBauer reports that blood tests show 5000 IU per day works for him, and Greenie tells you that some do fine on 4000 IU per day, which I have the impression he was basing on actual measurements. It also seems to me that he’s the guy you learned higher doses of D3 from in the first place, just to mention. It’s odd that he’s your primary source for the 8000 figure but you seem to reject when he says that 4000 is all some need.
You’re in the right general ballpark but you are going to extremes by saying, in comparison to 5000 IU/day, “much more is needed.”
Rather, it’s “Some people may need more.”
That is what I am disagreeing with, your insistence that 6000 is a minimum period, "“you will need at least 6000IU a day,” etc. You’re overstating it and the information on your own board shows that for you (as well as literature research.)
[/quote]
I think Jack Bauer uses 50,000 a week, which would put him at a little over 7000IU a day…Could be wrong but i thought thats what he wrote
LOL hey its silly to argue over silly details like D3 on the internet :). Lets agree that we all need to up our D3 status 
And it was actually an interview here I think with Johnny Bowden that mentioned D3 that really piqued my interest.
Either way its cool to talk stuff like this with the chemist of the company! Yes I am a geek.
Actually, my mistake on the Jack Bauer. He did say he uses 5000 IU capsules but apparently it’s 10 a week, not 7 per week, so apparently some days are 5000 IU but some are more and so of course the average value is what should be looked at. I’d found that one (I thought) just now when going to look for quotes. My error there. You are right on what he wrote there.
Still Greenie definitely did provide the information that some do fine on 4000 IU/day. That was the one that had me previously wondering what the heck, it says right here in this thread he is citing, from someone he obviously respects as a source, that some have been seen to do fine on less than 6000.
By the way, even the fact that a given person does well on say 6000 or 8000 IU/day is reason to expect that there will be some others doing well on for example 5000 IU/day: particularly if that 6000-8000 IU/day person is larger than average (if this is the same Jack Bauer, we are indeed talking larger than average) and we are wondering if a person of more average size or maybe even a smaller person might do well on 5000 IU/day. It really is problematic drawing a hard black line.
I do agree people in general will do well to increase their D3 and the ballpark area you are recommending is the right one, and the vastly-lower recommendations found elsewhere are wrong.
What, you mean it wasn’t my posts on D3 that sparked your interest in it, but Johnny Bowden?
Just kidding.
Thanks for the compliment!
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Actually, my mistake on the Jack Bauer. He did say he uses 5000 IU capsules but apparently it’s 10 a week, not 7 per week, so apparently some days are 5000 IU but some are more and so of course the average value is what should be looked at. I’d found that one (I thought) just now when going to look for quotes. My error there. You are right on what he wrote there.
Still Greenie definitely did provide the information that some do fine on 4000 IU/day. That was the one that had me previously wondering what the heck, it says right here in this thread he is citing, from someone he obviously respects as a source, that some have been seen to do fine on less than 6000.
By the way, even the fact that a given person does well on say 6000 or 8000 IU/day is reason to expect that there will be some others doing well on for example 5000 IU/day: particularly if that 6000-8000 IU/day person is larger than average (if this is the same Jack Bauer, we are indeed talking larger than average) and we are wondering if a person of more average size or maybe even a smaller person might do well on 5000 IU/day. It really is problematic drawing a hard black line.
I do agree people in general will do well to increase their D3 and the ballpark area you are recommending is the right one, and the vastly-lower recommendations found elsewhere are wrong.
What, you mean it wasn’t my posts on D3 that sparked your interest in it, but Johnny Bowden?
Just kidding.
Thanks for the compliment![/quote]
Yep, sorry, but Johnny beat ya to the punch.
What is really cool about D3 is it costs practically zip. I mean were talking a couple bucks for a month supply. Can’t beat that.
And eh, I know you guys usually stick to exotic stuff, but, it would be nice not to have to deal with iherb and get my D3 here.
Just saying
Came across several Bill Roberts posts today in various threads. “Who is this guy?” I thought. Gratifying that the Biotest chemist (or one of them?) posts here like a regular shmoe. And I learned something about vitamin D, and a little about vitamin supplementation, even if the answer to the question, “Dude, what exactly should I take?” is not yet clear to me.
Here is another question, though – and I hope this isn’t hijacking, as the topic was broached earlier in the thread: The importance of getting tested to see what levels of, um, various stuff you have was brought up. The test(s) are diagnostic tools, but it’s hard to use them if you don’t know what you’re looking for. I don’t. I don’t even know what tests to get, or how to go about getting them. Is there a home kit? Do I go to my doc and say, “Doc, give me a (whatever)?” I’m an adult male, non-steroid using – what should I be looking for from these tests in terms of overall health and of optimal performance?
Perhaps more to the point, is it even worth taking one of these tests before you’ve done what you can to get your diet and supplementation in line beforehand? It doesn’t make sense to tweak the timing on your ignition when what you really need is a valve-job…
As may have been mentioned in this thread already, or if not was mentioned in the link WG provided, Life Extension Foundation is a good source for many types of tests.
It’s worth noting though that the way human psychology often works, often people will fall into the trap of “Well the completely best way to accomplish this is to do both this and that, but doing both costs too much and is too much trouble. So therefore I will instead do nothing.”
Whereas doing only the “this” is not too much trouble, is not too expensive, and is much better than doing nothing, though not as ideal as doing both this and that.
The relevance here is that many are not, in practice, going to go get their blood levels checked for Vitamin D (or more precisely 25-OH Vitamin D.)
If not, the above natural-enough psychology should not cause them to then just not bother taking D3 at all. It would be much better to take 5000 IU/day (if buying a 5000 IU capsule product) or if buying a 2000 IU/capsule product then 6000 or 8000 IU per day, according to personal choice, and not do the test, than to do nothing at all. This is assuming having no abnormal health conditions.
And yes, it makes more sense to make a best-guess estimate of what seems appropriate for supplementation and get settled into that before spending money on tests.
Really the testing thing can get silly when the purpose is not scientific or commercial research but personal use. For example there was a fellow who was pushing blood tests for zinc at some astoundingly high price, in case one was zinc deficient.
Hmm, it makes a lot more sense to just supplement zinc in a safe way that ordinarily is effective than to blow giant amounts of money on tests.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And yes, it makes more sense to make a best-guess estimate of what seems appropriate for supplementation and get settled into that before spending money on tests.
Really the testing thing can get silly when the purpose is not scientific or commercial research but personal use. For example there was a fellow who was pushing blood tests for zinc at some astoundingly high price, in case one was zinc deficient.
Hmm, it makes a lot more sense to just supplement zinc in a safe way that ordinarily is effective than to blow giant amounts of money on tests.
[/quote]
Great stuff. I think testing for things like Zinc is overboard as well. I just take my ZMA, cycle off of it every once and awile and forget about it.
I get the LEF Male Panel every april when its on sale. Its 200 bucks. This year I plan on running the D3 test and the IGF-1 test to see where I’m at.
So lets say I am now beginning to take 6000 IU/day of D3 → since D3 is deficient in my family so I know it will be fine. Should I take it in one shot or take 2000IU at 3 different times a day?
[quote]Fluid wrote:
So lets say I am now beginning to take 6000 IU/day of D3 → since D3 is deficient in my family so I know it will be fine. Should I take it in one shot or take 2000IU at 3 different times a day?[/quote]
I running 6000IU as well a day.
I take supplements in the morning and afternoon - Its just the way I always do things.
So I take 3000IU twice.
I have Carlsons 2000IU softgels, and some leftover LEF 1000IU.
Another Magnesium question → how many mg should I be consuming/day? Is 200 mg fine or do I need to be taking more for recovery?
Not as a proven exact value but it has seemed to me that a good value for magnesium intake is to consume 500 mg for each 100 lb of bodyweight.
Now, how much supplementation is required, if any, to achieve this depends on the diet. So if let’s say you weigh 200 lb and are consuming 800 mg/day from your diet, while the difference would not be major and you won’t have overt, provable problems from the dietary intake alone, another 200 mg could be beneficial and there would be little need if any for more than that.
On the other hand, if on a cutting diet, or especially if on a diet largely comprised of protein drinks of a type that don’t provide added magnesium, much more supplementation than 200 mg could be called for.
if you want a quality vitamin E supplement just drink some damn olive oil