Posted by Patient on July 22, 2004, at 19:33:36
In reply to Re: Multi vit/min complex-Larry » Patient, posted by Larry Hoover on July 21, 2004, at 10:43:32
> > > > 50mg zinc plus 3mg copper. Helpful is Essential Fatty Acids.
> > >
> > > The Upper Limit for zinc intake is 40 mg. LOAEL (Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level) is 60 mg. As most people get around 10 mg from diet, your recommendation is excessive, IMHO. See:
> > > http://books.nap.edu/books/0309072794/html/486.html#pagetop
> > >
> > > The reason zinc intake must be limited is because it directly competes against copper (and wins) for uptake. I have no idea if 3 mg of copper is sufficient compensatory intake. Far better just to stay lower on the zinc, IMHO.
>
> I feel an essay coming on, but I also fear that I am debating with a textbook. A single textbook, perhaps. Que sera.
>
> > I see no concern for zinc 50mg or higher, but definitely not more than 100mg daily total from all supplements. But, it also doesn't hurt to take less than 50mg. Zinc levels may be lowered by diarrhea, kidney disease, cirrhosis of the liver, diabetes, or the consumption of fiber, which causes zinc to be excreted through the intestinal tract.
> > As well as a significant amount is lost through persipiration, as well as the consumption of hard water can upset zince levels, and, compounds called phytates that are found in grains and legumes bind with zinc so that it cannot be absorbed, are some of the reasons that I see 50 mg zinc being safe. I should tell India that zinc and iron supplements should be taken at different times as these two minerals interfere with each other's activity if taken together.
>
> I am a professional toxicologist. I see enough potentially dangerous information here that I cannot fail to respond. What is completely absent is the context, the biochemical context, of the doses, the interactions, the risks. This isn't personal, Pat.
>
> Here we go. <essay mode on>
>
> First, about zinc, and the metals, in general.
>
> The metals which are essential for healthy bodily function fall in the class called trace minerals. The concept of "trace" should not ever be overlooked.
>
> Which metals are we talking about? This isn't an exhaustive list, here (really, the only transition metal with no known metabolic benefit, so far, is mercury), but these include manganese, chromium, iron, copper, cobalt, zinc, selenium, molybdenum, arsenic (yes, arsenic, key to SAMe metabolism, and DNA transcription), nickel, vanadium, silicon... Another concept that also makes them distinct is that they must be ionized for substantial uptake from the gut to occur. There are specific ion-binding proteins released into the intestine, and ATP-powered uptake pumps lining the intestinal wall, all specifically adapted to moving metal ions into the bloodstream.
>
> It is essential to recognize something else, right here. We do not yet fully understand how uptake of mineral ions is regulated, but it is a major research topic, with many articles published this month alone. It was once thought that all divalent (twice ionized) mineral cations (the positive ion form) were transported by (tada!) the Divalent Mineral Transporter, Type 1 (DMT-1). Even the one, there, is a clue. We've discovered other forms of this transporter. Zinc alone has at least four variants of the ZnT (Zinc Transporter). DMT-1 is primarily an iron transporter, but other metals do use it, too. And the zinc one gets hitch-hikers. It's not so important that we know how it all works, though. What is important is that active transport across the gut wall, to the bloodstream (which heads directly to the liver, via the portal vein....more on that later), is both regulated, and less than perfect (i.e. no mineral is absorbed at 100% of intake).
>
> Now, back to something Pat talked about earlier, with respect to dietary components interfering with uptake, possible interference by disease, and so on.
>
> First, about dietary interference. The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA), and Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) or Upper Limit (UL), and similar concepts, are INTAKE thresholds. It is quite incorrect, and dangerous, to consider them to be UPTAKE targets. Dietary interferences, inefficient uptake, and all of that are already factored into those recommendations. Intake is what gets past the teeth. Uptake is assumed. (For example, at 5 mg Copper(II) intake, uptake is about 20%. If copper uptake was 100%, it could have deadly consequences.)
>
> About mineral intake when adverse health conditions exist....Yes, without doubt, there are special considerations for special populations. Diarrhea (for healthy people) is usually a brief event, and as RDA is a concept based on week-long average intake, expressed as a daily target, short-term diarrhea is of no consequence at all. However, intestinal disorders such as diarrhea-predominant IBS, celiac sprue, inflammatory bowel disease, steatorrhea, etc. do require nutritional management. The same holds for frank kidney dysfunction, or liver disease (hepatitis, cirrhosis, etc.). The fact is, if someone has these disorders, they would (or should) be under a doctor's care, and receiving nutritional advice. Absent these health issues, the RDA, TDI, and UL apply, by definition.
>
> As I began this portion of my remarks, I held zinc as a specific topical element, though I have so far been mainly talking about the minerals collectively. That's because zinc is special, amongst all the minerals.
>
> One of zinc's functions is to regulate all mineral transporters. The supposition that zinc has interactions with other minerals is correct, but to call it interference is not. It's simply how it all works. Your body uses zinc as a mineral marker compound. In essence, it uses zinc exposure and uptake to symbolize exposure to all other minerals collectively, as a matter of efficiency. In food, zinc is generally found in relatively narrow concentration ratios with the other minerals. If zinc exposure is low, your body upregulates all the transporters, to increase the efficiency (percentage extracted from the gut) of the cation uptake transporter pumps, for all the minerals simultaneously. If zinc exposure is high, it slows those pumps down.
>
> Zinc, in the body, plays a structural role, more than anything. Unlike other minerals, which tend to be involved as the reactive atoms at the center of huge enzyme proteins, zinc atoms are incorporated within the enzyme to properly fold it (like Origami), via structures called zinc fingers. If you want to look this up, zinc is (usually) a tertiary element of enzyme structure, whereas the reactive site is quaternary.
>
> Also unique amongst all metal cations, zinc requirements are in the tens of miligrams per day. No other transition metal has such a high requirement. Moreover, the toxic intake threshold is only about four times the deficiency intake threshold. No other mineral has anything close to that ratio, except perhaps arsenic. Contrast that with the intake of cobalamin (vitamin B-12, which is a cobalt atom surrounded by a heme-like porphyrin complex) has an RDA of micrograms/day (not visible to the naked eye), yet it has no Upper Limit.
>
> Now, to this specific comment, "I should tell India that zinc and iron supplements should be taken at different times as these two minerals interfere with each other's activity if taken together." That is absolutely false. Iron supplements are in a non-food format (i.e. not bound to heme, for example), and cause direct injury to the intestinal wall, unless zinc is present. See:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15147971
>
> Now, to the toxic threshold of zinc intake. Most people get about 10 mg per day of zinc from diet. The RDA is set to avoid deficiency effects, and most people don't meet the RDA, so supplementation is generally warranted, for every person. However, exceeding the Lowest Observeable Adverse Effects Level of 60 mg (the toxic threshold) should only be done under direct medical supervision, and only for such disorders as the copper storage disorder known as Wilson's disease (more on that, in the next section).
>
> > For optimal health, a proper 1 - to 10 balance between copper and zinc should be maintained. (oh no, I think I saw your jaw drop).
>
> Yes, but not for the reason you assume. Your recommendation was 50 mg zinc to 3 mg copper, a ratio of 16.7:1. It would help if you were internally consistent, if nothing else.
>
> > This is what I've been taking and it has especially helped with PMS time of month for me. It's true, every body is different from meds. to supplements. That is why I think one should keep a daily journal on their reactions.
>
> Indeed. Metal toxicoses can be acute (massive single intake) or chronic (long-term excess intake). The failure to note short-term effects is not evidence of safety. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
>
> > As for copper, the level of copper in the body is relaated to the levels of zinc, as you said, as well as vitamin C.
>
> Copper homeostasis is almost a fluke. Uptake is not copper-specific, as the influences of other metals change uptake parameters no matter what the level of copper exposure actually is. Excretion (a term you mis-applied to zinc, as excretion does not include substances which simply fail to be absorbed, and end up in feces) of copper does not take place via the kidney. If your kidneys are allowing excretion of copper in urine, you'd be on the transplant list. The only route of copper excretion is via an inducible (and very stressful, from a biochemical sense) process in the liver. The liver passes excess copper in bile, but the bile is released upstream from the divalent cation transporters, giving copper another chance at uptake, so excess copper is really a very dangerous condition.
>
> > Copper levels are reduced if large amounts of zinc or vitamin C are consumed. If copper is too high, levels of vitamin C and zinc will drop.
>
> The correlation between copper status and ascorbate metabolism is the opposite of what you infer. Excess copper places the body under ascorbate stress. Period. Vitamin C does not mobilize copper.
>
> The interaction with zinc is quite complex, and still not fully elucidated. However.....
>
> Excess zinc intake (at about the Upper Limit, and perhaps at even lower levels) induces the liver to produce cation-binding proteins called metallothionines. The effect is to sequester the reactive ions, as free circulation of metal ions in the blood causes gross disturbance of oxidative parameters. It isn't yet exactly clear whether increased zinc intake has a greater effect on copper via uptake pumps, or via liver-stressing metallothionines, but the net effect is that circulating copper is reduced. That is exactly why high zinc intake is a recommended therapy for Wilson's disease, which is the copper-based version of the excess iron disorder, hemochromatosis. It takes years for the liver to slowly excrete the excess copper.
>
> And, quite apart from this, I see no direct impact of copper status on zinc status, and no interaction of the three. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8440814
>
> The danger of high blood copper is that it disproportionates the free ion concentration with that bound to the carrier/regulatory protein ceruloplasmin (literally, copper blood protein). There is no divalent cation with higher protein binding affinity than copper. Free copper messes everything up.
>
> Notwithstanding that, copper-based enzymes are some of the absolute "bedrock" enzymes in our body. You cannot form hemoglobin without sufficient copper. There is a specific anemia named after that. Every step of the way from tyrosine through dopamine to norepinephrine depends on copper. (But, both forms of monoamine oxidase are also cerulo-enzymes....you don't want those upregulated if you're depressed.) And, Cu/Zn-SOD (copper-zinc superoxide dismutase, which converts superoxide (O2-) to the less dangerous but still reactive hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)) is part of our antioxidant defense network. Oxygen is the second most corrosive element, and life itself is really just Nature's way of controlling fire. Playing with copper is literally playing with fire.
>
> > The consumption of high amounts of fructose (fruit sugar) can make a copper deficiency worse.
>
> True, but only because fructose metabolism depends on a cerulo-enzyme. In other words, copper deficiency symptoms are partly caused by disordered fructose metabolism. Fructose is a macro-nutrient. The inability to metabolize it is serious business.
>
> > Excessive copper is not good, either, as it can promote destruction of eye tissue through oxidation.
>
> It does more than that. How about liver failure?
>
> > It's especially important to balance the intake of copper with that of iron, zinc, and calcium.
>
> Calcium now? No way. I'm getting tired. Calcium is regulated by the parathyroid... oh forget about it. I'm just going to say, no way.
>
> > A tangent, but wanted to mention it since all of these supplements are like a fine tuned orchestra and must be taken in balance for best results and safety reasons.
>
> We will agree on this point. Increasing zinc intakes to toxic levels, and then trying to compensate for that by increasing intakes of other minerals, or scheduling them at different times, is both dangerous and pointless. All you need do to prevent these difficulties is to keep the zinc intake within safe parameters, in the first place.
>
> > I tend to caution
>
> I don't see caution, here.
>
> > on the side of shying from the mentioned excitatory supplements to prevent mania in those where mania is a symptom.
> >
> > That's it really, Pat
>
> More, in Pat's next post.
>
> Lar
>
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.
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 ;). Is this true concerning excessive sweating reduces zinc levels, as well as phytates found in beans and grains? Now I know I can take iron and zinc at the same time, but is it true I shouldn't take calcium with iron. I've often read calcium interferes with many drugs as well. So, I should disregard calcium in the claim made from Balch's book, about calcium having anything to do with zinc. 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." Then they state "a hair analysis can determine the levels of these and other minerals in the body." Okay, maybe we can title this book, Prescription for Nutritional Death.
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.
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. 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. 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 : )
Sincerely,
Patient,
poster:Patient
thread:367111
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20040718/msgs/369155.html