Supplement Ratios

[Jeffrey_of_Troy]

You need at least as much calcium as magnesium, but not more than twice as much.

If 400 mg mag, then 400 - 800 mg cal; if 1000 mg cal, then 500 - 1000 mg mag (NOT recommended).

You need at least as much omega-6 as omega-3, but not more than twice as much.

If 1000 mg o-3, 1000 - 2000 mg o-6; if 2000 mg o-3, 2000 - 4000 mg o-6.

You need at least as much vitamin A as vitamin D, but not more than twice as much.

If 5000 IU vit A (the RDA), then 2500 - 5000 iu vit D; if 5000 iu D, then 5000 - 10,000 iu A.

With cal:mag and o-6:o-3, the closer you get to 2:1 the more benefit; as soon as you cross over into 2.1+:1, it switches over into harmful.

With vit A:vit D, 1:1 is ideal. As you go from 2:1 towards 1:1, benefit increases; as soon as you get more D than A, you switch over to harm. (Dr. Cannell of the Vit D Council is very anti-A, but A - like D - is fat-soluble, so we store it; I think he’s assuming most Americans have a ton of A stored, and need to avoid it while getting increased D. Would be nice if he would clarify it’s a temporary, corrective measure.)

Absolute amounts also matter.

You can’t get 100 mg mag and 150 mg cal, and say, “It’s in the ratio Jeffrey said.” You would clearly be deficient in both at that point. The RDA for cal - 1000 - 1200 mg - was decided based on studying a vit D-deficient population (the RDA for D - 400 iu - was/is about 1/10th what we now know is the right amount). The RDA for mag - 350 for teh wimminz, 400 for men - is probably just a little low.

You also can’t get 20 grams of o-6 per day, and take 10 g o-3 per day, and say “It’s the right ratio.” It is the right ratio, but your body cannot safely metabolize those absolute amounts. They are WAY outside what any human ingested on a regular basis before the 20th century.

[Note: amounts are from food (or sunlight, in the case of vit D) + supps.]

[jehovasfitness]

good stuff on the calcium/magnesium part. Just finished reading The Paleo Answer where it goes into detail on the studies of calcium supplementation

[MAF14]

Interesting… I had no idea. Thanks for posting.

Edit: Is beta carotene ok for Vit A or is there a preferred form?

[Jeffrey_of_Troy]

[quote]MAF14 wrote:
Interesting… I had no idea. Thanks for posting.

Edit: Is beta carotene ok for Vit A or is there a preferred form?[/quote]

Beta-carotene is not vit A. Your body CAN convert beta-c into vit A, but how much it actually DOES is another question. I would not rely solely or mainly on beta-c for vit A needs, but as much A as D, or nearly, + some beta-c should be fine.

Do NOT take synthetic beta-c; seriously bad results in studies. Beta-c from food (cooked if veg like carrot, w/fat for better absorption) is all good. Watermelon has all the carotenes (raw of course).

[MAF14]

[quote]Jeffrey of Troy wrote:

[quote]MAF14 wrote:
Interesting… I had no idea. Thanks for posting.

Edit: Is beta carotene ok for Vit A or is there a preferred form?[/quote]

Beta-carotene is not vit A. Your body CAN convert beta-c into vit A, but how much it actually DOES is another question. I would not rely solely or mainly on beta-c for vit A needs, but as much A as D, or nearly, + some beta-c should be fine.

Do NOT take synthetic beta-c; seriously bad results in studies. Beta-c from food (cooked if veg like carrot, w/fat for better absorption) is all good. Watermelon has all the carotenes (raw of course).[/quote]

I follow a CKD so eating carrots day to day isn’t really an option, strictly speaking… Would “Vitamin A USP - from fish liver oil and Vitamin A palmitate” be a decent solution?

[Fulford]

[quote]MAF14 wrote:

[quote]Jeffrey of Troy wrote:

[quote]MAF14 wrote:
Interesting… I had no idea. Thanks for posting.

Edit: Is beta carotene ok for Vit A or is there a preferred form?[/quote]

Beta-carotene is not vit A. Your body CAN convert beta-c into vit A, but how much it actually DOES is another question. I would not rely solely or mainly on beta-c for vit A needs, but as much A as D, or nearly, + some beta-c should be fine.

Do NOT take synthetic beta-c; seriously bad results in studies. Beta-c from food (cooked if veg like carrot, w/fat for better absorption) is all good. Watermelon has all the carotenes (raw of course).[/quote]

I follow a CKD so eating carrots day to day isn’t really an option, strictly speaking… Would “Vitamin A USP - from fish liver oil and Vitamin A palmitate” be a decent solution?[/quote]

The glycemic load of carrots is less then 5 per 100g.

[MAF14]

[quote]Fulford wrote:

[quote]MAF14 wrote:

[quote]Jeffrey of Troy wrote:

[quote]MAF14 wrote:
Interesting… I had no idea. Thanks for posting.

Edit: Is beta carotene ok for Vit A or is there a preferred form?[/quote]

Beta-carotene is not vit A. Your body CAN convert beta-c into vit A, but how much it actually DOES is another question. I would not rely solely or mainly on beta-c for vit A needs, but as much A as D, or nearly, + some beta-c should be fine.

Do NOT take synthetic beta-c; seriously bad results in studies. Beta-c from food (cooked if veg like carrot, w/fat for better absorption) is all good. Watermelon has all the carotenes (raw of course).[/quote]

I follow a CKD so eating carrots day to day isn’t really an option, strictly speaking… Would “Vitamin A USP - from fish liver oil and Vitamin A palmitate” be a decent solution?[/quote]

The glycemic load of carrots is less then 5 per 100g. [/quote]

I’m not worried about the insulin response. I already have my carbs higher than recommended and am trying to bring them back down a bit… So supplementing just makes it easier.

[Alex_Stoddard]

[quote]Jeffrey of Troy wrote:

You need at least as much calcium as magnesium, but not more than twice as much.

If 400 mg mag, then 400 - 800 mg cal; if 1000 mg cal, then 500 - 1000 mg mag (NOT recommended).

[/quote]
According to “the Magnesium Miracle” (and many functional medicine experts) the Calcium: Magnesium Ratio will suit most better at 1:1.
Dr. Mark Houston says a man should not supplement with Calcium, as it can increase risk of heart attack. I think aside from the calcium we eat, it’s more about not losing what we have (in our bones).

[jehovasfitness]

[quote]Alex Stoddard wrote:

[quote]Jeffrey of Troy wrote:

You need at least as much calcium as magnesium, but not more than twice as much.

If 400 mg mag, then 400 - 800 mg cal; if 1000 mg cal, then 500 - 1000 mg mag (NOT recommended).

[/quote]
According to “the Magnesium Miracle” (and many functional medicine experts) the Calcium: Magnesium Ratio will suit most better at 1:1.
Dr. Mark Houston says a man should not supplement with Calcium, as it can increase risk of heart attack. I think aside from the calcium we eat, it’s more about not losing what we have (in our bones).[/quote]

absolutely. Grains and dairy create an acidic load which leach calcium. Grains also contain phytates that bind calcium, so that milk with cereal ain’t such a great idea for bone health afterall

[Jeffrey_of_Troy]

[quote]Alex Stoddard wrote:

[quote]Jeffrey of Troy wrote:

You need at least as much calcium as magnesium, but not more than twice as much.

If 400 mg mag, then 400 - 800 mg cal; if 1000 mg cal, then 500 - 1000 mg mag (NOT recommended).

[/quote]
According to “the Magnesium Miracle” (and many functional medicine experts) the Calcium: Magnesium Ratio will suit most better at 1:1.
Dr. Mark Houston says a man should not supplement with Calcium, as it can increase risk of heart attack. I think aside from the calcium we eat, it’s more about not losing what we have (in our bones).[/quote]

I think that 1:1 is temporary/remedial, like with Dr. Cannell of Vit D Council saying to avoid vit A because he thinks its built up from years of not enough vit D. Similarly, I’ve seen some “too much calcium causing probs” articles around the web recently (part of the reason for my OP). The RDA’s for cal and mag did have people getting “too much” cal - esp. because most Americans were/are not even getting the RDA of mag. Whether better to get closer to 1:1 than 2:1, even if temporary, depends on severity/acuteness of problem being addressed…

Also, because of the medical model, people over-focus on one micronutrient (e.g., the magnesium MIRACLE!); it’s about how they work together, ideally.

[Raw_Finn]

I have read that O6 : O3 used to be between 2 : 1 and 4 : 1 for our ancestors eating fish on the African shore way back, like 30 000 years ago, and that would still be optimal for our species. I think it is also so that 1 : 1 would mean too little O6 or too much O3, relatively speaking. I have read about these ratios from multiple sources (only on the Internet, though).

Ca : Mg, I have read, should preferably be 1,5 : 1 and 2 : 1 is also ok, but 1 : 1 would not be right. These are, of course, for maintaining, not solving an imbalance like you (Jeffrey) said most people have.

I have not heard about the vit A : vit D ratio before but I do know that vit A deficiency is extremely rare so I just supplement with vit D.

My fish liver oil bottle contains 31 % of vit A’s daily need = 250 micro grams per 5 ml of fish oil. As I understand, there is only one kind of actual vit A, as is the case with all vitamins. But minerals have many forms, like calcium carbonate, calcium nitrate, calcium sulfide, calcium chloride, calcium carbide, calcium cyanamide and calcium hypochlorite (Wikipedia) and we need all of these types, am I right, Jeffrey?

[Raw_Finn]

I used to obsess about these ratios but these days I just eat a very simple diet of meat, rice, vegetables and fruit with occasional pizza (once a week; calcium, vit A, omega 6), nuts (once a week; magnesium, omega 6) and fish oil (randomly; vit A, D, omega 3). I also sometimes eat other random stuff. I supplement with calcium, magnesium, zinc and vit D. I eat fish (to me = meat) quite a lot so I rarely take fish oil.

Jeffrey, you seem to know more about this stuff than me, would you say this is a good plan?

[Jeffrey_of_Troy]

@Raw Finn

1. yes, I think multiple forms of cal are desirable, as our ancestors probably got it from multiple sources (including fish bones).

2. I mainly wanted to address some recommendations that have been out there, over-focusing on one nutrient, leading to imbalances; even the “alternative” recs to correct the resulting imbalances make the same mistake, IMO. If what you are doing is working for you, no need to freak out about micromanaging; most Americans are screwed up six ways from Sunday…

[Raw_Finn]

@Jeffrey

Thank you for your response!

Well, I’m feeling healthy and progressing in my goals so I guess I’m fine. When I supplement, I try to get a different form of calcium, magnesium or zinc after I run out of current type. Sometimes I take a multi. I guess I should get blood work done to know whether my supplementation plan is working or not.

[Jeffrey_of_Troy]

[quote]Raw Finn wrote:
@Jeffrey

Thank you for your response!

Well, I’m feeling healthy and progressing in my goals so I guess I’m fine. When I supplement, I try to get a different form of calcium, magnesium or zinc after I run out of current type. Sometimes I take a multi. I guess I should get blood work done to know whether my supplementation plan is working or not.[/quote]

The trace minerals are best as “chelated”: attached to an amino acid for better absorption across the intestinal wall; find one you like and stick w/it. Big minerals like cal and mag might be good to get multiple forms.

[Raw_Finn]

Ooooh, Thanks for the info! Wikipedia (in Finnish) told me that trace minerals are those that are needed less than 100 mg a day. I guess I should try chelated zinc.

EDIT: My current zinc IS chelated zinc. I don’t find this to be the most effective one I have used, though. The most effective one was a particular zinc gluconate that was dissolved in the mouth by sucking it. Sadly, they ceased manufacturing this. I feel the swallowable form wasn’t as good in fighting cold and raising testosterone but these were all just how I felt, so take it for what it is.