Posted by Larry Hoover on August 1, 2003, at 15:27:29
In reply to Larry Hoover, (Sean too), Re: Pfeiffer, posted by McPac on August 1, 2003, at 12:05:21
> Thanks again Lar!
>
> Either/or, not both. Regular oral B-12 (i.e. tablets you swallow), at 5,000 mcg/day would be more than adequate. Using sublingual forms would easily exceed the efficacy of the oral form. I can see no reason to consider injections.
>
> >>>>>>>>>Some folks are said to not absorb B-12 very well at all....which is why (I guess) they're suggesting the sublimgual or injection forms.....so, "IF" I am not absorbing the B12 well at all, you think that enough will be absorbed if I just take a regular 5,000 mcg capsule huh?Even a few years ago, "conventional wisdom" had it that people who didn't absorb B-12 due to a lack of what is called intrinsic factor had to have B-12 injections to avoid pernicious anemia. Well, when somebody actually gave oral B-12 to people who shouldn't be able to absorb it, guess what they found? Lo and behold, those people absorbed some anyway. Not as much as those with intrinsic factor, but enough to supply basic needs. The daily requirement for B-12 is said to be on the order of 6 or 8 micrograms. If even 1% of the 5,000 mcg you're taking is absorbed, you'll take in 50 mcg. I personally think that 6 or 8 micrograms is inadequate for optimal functioning, but passive absorption (in the total absence of intrinsic factor) is generally accepted to be about 3% of dose, so you'd get at least 150 mcg (based on 5,000 mcg available). Sublingual absorption would be greater than that.
> Their rules are arbitrary, IMHO. I did recommend a B-complex to you already. I don't believe in high doses of individual B's, except when they are on top of a B-complex.
>
> >>>>>>>> The reason that they say, "No B-Complex" is (as you know, lol) because they don't want me on B3 and folic acid, due to (they say) the fact that they build histamine blah, blah, blah....I don't know whether or not that is true but that's their reasoning.I think their arguments are simplistic. In any case, your own levels have risen, despite the advice they have given you.
> > 5)Zinc Picolinate has been INcreased from 85 mg to 165 mg (despite taking 85 mg of Zinc for 7 months, my Zinc level FELL from a 96 to a 91 (per Pfeiffer's lab scale)! They say they want my Zinc between 105-130....my ratio of zinc:copper has improved though
>
> Picolinate? When I researched chromium picolinate a few weeks back, I discovered compelling evidence that picolinic acid has adverse effects. Find a different form of zinc, OK? I use citrate, but I've also used chelated zinc.
>
> >>>>>>>>>Yeah, I heard awhile back about chromium picolinate doing DNA damage (or something like that)....so picolinate, no matter what supp (nutrient) it is in, would do the same harm as if it were in chromium (i.e. 'anything picolinate' is not good?)The DNA damage was only associated with chromium picolinate, not other forms of chromium. Picolinate (the salt of picolinic acid) is the culprit.
> It takes months, even years, to get the zinc/copper ratio adjusted, it you're high copper to begin with.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> yeah, I've went from a zinc-copper ratio of .80 to .89 in 7 months of treatment so far.You can probably block a substantial source of copper intake by always running the tap for 2 minutes before you collect water that will be used for food preparation or drinking. That's assuming you have copper plumbing.
> As always, thanks Hooverman!As always, you're welcome.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:241945
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030728/msgs/247406.html