11-11-2010, 06:09 AM
Since I stared browsing these forums and others like it I've seen the mention of magnesium many times. Then sooner or later it was suggested that I may need it. I was also told that everyone needs to supplement because most everyone is low due to the SAD. When I was last at my cardiologist I suggested we might check my magnesium and also thyroid (something else suggested might be a problem by forum members). He told me they don't normally check mag anymore because it is rare that anyone is low (that's why they stopped checking it). He said we would check mine. It was fine.....thyroid too. I was also told on forums that my potassium might be low.....that too was fine. My doc is starting to think I'm nuts.
11-11-2010, 01:43 PM
Normal serum magnesium and potassium only mean that your kidneys are working fine. Those numbers do not mean you have acceptable or optimal intracellular Mg or K. Generally speaking, you will only show up low on either once you are extremely dangerously deficient or if there is a kidney issue.
Tissue levels/intracellular levels are another thing entirely. If you're not getting 3500 mg *minimum* per day of potassium, you are indeed deficient. And optimal intake is much higher and relates to total caloric intake and sodium intake. It's alllll about ratios. Magnesium needs are in the range of 400-1000 mg, maybe higher if you believe Cordain.
This topic has been discussed extensively. Exhaustively.
✿ iherb referral code CIL457- $5 off first order ✿
11-12-2010, 08:12 AM
I am very interested in theis question too!
Originally Posted by piano-doctor-lady
11-12-2010, 04:32 PM
Let's see. My molecular bio and biochem knowledge fills something smaller than a fairy's thimble but I can answer a tiny bit...
Originally Posted by Grokann
•rancid oils, no. they're a problem for the liver and are a huge hit for our available antioxidants - but so are PUFAs in general.
•mercury isn't oil soluble so it won't store in fat.
our liver does the best it can with other toxins but iirc, some does get stored....when released, hopefully our now healthier liver can do a better job and with our improved diets we can get rid of the junk.
I do know that breastfeeding our first child, we essentially download our toxins into that first baby. :/
Even though human breastmilk is the most polluted food on the planet, it's still, thankfully, the best food available for human infants - though I do worry that that won't be the case forever.
✿ iherb referral code CIL457- $5 off first order ✿
11-15-2010, 08:49 AM
I've been catcjing up on this fabulously informative thread. Thank you for your generous answers for these many questions.
I've a question.
Since in the past I've unfortunately eaten trans-fats, and I've read that, because they can, they attach to various places in place of healthy sat fats. How can I get rid of them? I do eat a goodly amount of healthy sat fats and omega 3s now and avoid all the bad fats like the plague that they are.. Any advice? I'm actually quite worried about these past food sins.
thanks in advance!
04-24-2012, 01:25 PM
I have suffered from "Contamination" OCD for 25 years. I have some questions which having the answers to would help me a lot.
I put my clothes through a wash 4 times before I feel they are "germ" free would once be enough?
Do pre treaters in washing powder kill all "germs" or just clean away dirt?
When I'm having a bad OCD day I put 2 bottles of bleach in my bath water and saturate my body and hair in it for 15 mins and leave neat bleach on my hands for 1hr 15mins. What is the minimum time I could do this for to kill all "germs"?
Since I have been doing this (for over 4 years now) my hair and nails have stopped growing would the bleach be the cause?
Is there an alternative I could use in the bath which would have the same "germ" killing effect as the bleach?
When my OCD is not too bad I shower using Dermol and leave on my skin and hair for 10 mins is this as effective as using bleach?
When you take a shower does the water cause "germs/dirt" on your body to stick to the walls. If this is the case when you are "clean" does the water cause "germs/dirt" on the walls to again stick to your body?
What is the best "germ" killing cleaner to use around the home ie disinfectant, bleach, household products and how long should you leave the cleaner in contact for, for it to work?
I used to use neat disinfectant before I began using the bleach on my skin. Is disinfectant more effective than bleach?
04-24-2012, 04:59 PM
Originally Posted by cillakat
I'm an Atlanta grok myself. I new to the whole PALEO thing, but love what Mark is doing with it.
Well, except for possibly one thing - something near and dear to him.
I started a thread on it: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread52743.html
Do you have any insight on this topic? The research seems compelling but not complete.
I have more questions than answers. I like red meat. Help.
PS: I'm going to be looking at perfecthealthdiet.com, thanks for the link!
02-23-2013, 11:34 AM
This is a question that has been bugging me for a while because I can't see anything wrong with it (and neither can anyone else I've talked to), but no one will even consider the possibility.
Is it possible to use virus-like particles to "reboot" someone's cancerous cells by injecting them with healthy DNA? It is possible to create a virus-like particle containing a sample of a patient's DNA, isn't it? Here's my reasoning: The virus-like particles would contain the patient's DNA and would go about injecting the DNA into their cells. Healthy cells would experience no change (as their normal DNA would be replaced with an exact copy), but cancerous cells would have their mutated DNA replaced with normal DNA, eliminating the cancer. Is this possible? If so, why don't we use it? If not, what's wrong with my reasoning? (Please, don't quote I Am Legend. Virus-like particles can't mutate).
02-26-2013, 11:00 AM
What is the ideal ration of potassium to Magnesium? Are any other minerals or vitamins necessary for the absorbtion of these 2 minerals?
02-26-2013, 03:54 PM
It is not done because it is hideously expensive and doesn't work (yet; it has been tried).
Originally Posted by johngalt
Your idea is possible, maybe, practical, not at all. I took a "Gene Therapy" class in grad school and ultimately it is the delivery of the viral particles to the tumor that is the biggest problem to overcome, although there are many many viruses, ways to create the virus, and the anti-cancer therapies for the viruses to carry. There are also nano-particles and liposomes for targeted therapy. And usually we do not seek to cure the cancer cell, we want to kill the cancer cells - it is much easier and simpler, and safer. The limitation is that, there is nearly no way to reach or kill 100% of cancer cells, especially with a viral or particle-based vector. Chemotherapy or using drugs or drugs in combination is better because drugs can usually permeate the entire body, reaching all cells. There are also many other problems with viral gene therapy, but I will not go into it here. You can go to pubmed if you want to see for yourself: a search for "viral gene therapy" yields 25246 articles, starting in 1971: Home - PubMed - NCBI
Here is a current review of the situation: http://www.newmicrobiologica.org/PUB...f/2013/1/1.pdf
Each cancer cell may have multiple mutations and you would have to know exactly what the mutations are and how to cure them. Also, as a cancer grows it may gain more mutations, so it is practically impossible to know all of or keep track of the exact mutations in the cancer, although certain cancers are caused by certain mutations, but rarely is the situation very simple. Typical cancer fighting methods these days are to try to find something about the cancer cells that marks them as abnormal, so that we can create a targeted therapy to kill them, while not killing normal cells, or so many normal cells that the patient cannot survive it. Which I think is a better strategy than trying to cure them; they are pretty much past curing already if they progress to cancer; you have trillions of cells in your body, you can afford to lose all the cancerous ones. It is safer to kill all cancerous cells than to try to cure them, and if failing, have a continuation of the cancer. But besides all this, there are limitations to gene therapy methods that make them impractical as well as far too expensive for general use; such approaches are inferior to current methods (drugs and surgery) for many reasons.
Gene therapy methods have gone to clinical trials. But typically, clinical trials with no or negative results do NOT get published and afaik there is no regulation in place to require the publication of negative results. Therefore, if it has been tried and failed, no one will even know about it. And yes, that is a problem.
In my opinion if you want to cure or inhibit cancer, consume a very large variety of whole vegetables daily, they contain many flavonoids and other phytochemicals that suppress cancer, all of which we have not even yet characterized, much less understood the mechanisms of how they work, as an augmentation to conventional cancer treatments. For instance, I have seen with my own eyes the chemical Apigenin (found in parsley and celery and other plants) to stop the growth of cancer cells. It is best to assist your own immune system with the best diet you can (organic, whole, non-processed, fresh, vegetables and clean meats), in addition to drugs and surgery if the cancer is advanced.
There are NO simple cures for cancer, it is an incredibly complex disease; also, every cancer is different and finding an effective cure to any one persons cancer is a multi-dimensional task. And currently Gene therapy does not work well enough now to be practical. But if someone you know has cancer, it could be helpful to enroll them in clinical trials of new treatments. Perhaps it will help them, or if not, their participation can still add to all that we know about cancer, to help future cancer patients.