M(>  Ron, are you saying that cramps of the left leg are due to Ca
M(>  and right leg due to Mg?  Or are you saying that people who get
M(>  cramps sleeping on their left side need Ca and right siders
M(>  need Mg?  Please explain the asymmetrical distribution of
M(>  minerals.
M(>  
M(>  What is a circulatory cramp and how does Vit E help it?
M(>  
M(>  Mike Kurilla
---
 When chemistry is tested electronically, its electric potential can
 be measured along the spine (done usually on animals), or at the
 extremities. Half the minerals are tested on the left side, and the
 other half on the right side, but while minerals can effect the
 entire body, they are still side specific first.

 Let's say someone has a calcium (L) spur on the RIGHT heel, - even
 though zinc (L) or phosphorus (L) are calcium antagonists, they won't
 take the spur away, or it could take a very long time. However using
 magnesium (R) or potassium (R) (whichever is low in ratio to calcium)
 will get rid of it in usually two to three weeks, depending on the
 size of the spur. For a LEFT-sided spur, zinc (L) or phosphorus (L)
 will work instead.
 If you have left-sided tonsillitis and you take chromium (L), you
 will make it better; if you take copper (R) it will make it worse
 but would improve tonsillitis on the right side.
 If you check someone with breast cancer for instance, the chemical
 pattern for the right side is totally different from the one of the
 left side and requires an altogether different preventative approach.

 Even with headaches, kidney stones/infections, ovarian cysts, etc.,
 you'll need a different remedy for each side, provided you want to
 correct the cause and not just ease the symptoms, or "cut it off."
 That is also the reason why two "controlled" studies may come up
 with different results - the medical conditions were either not on
 the same side or in unproportionate ratios between the two studies.
 This of course doesn't apply to drugs as much, since they generally
 don't affect the cause.
 ---
 Since Vit E has a vasodilating effect, people with circulatory cramps
 due to arterial clogging have claimed relief when using it.
 Some literature links Vit E's anti-cramping/spasm properties to its
 effect on the cholinergic and adrenergic nervous system, unfortunately
 I'm too short on time right now to quote the details in its entirety.

The circulatory cramps sounds to me like claudication which is
pain in the leg due to insufficient vascular supply.  Given
that this would be due to atherosclerosis, Vit E may have a
role, but I would question the short term efficacy of Vit E.
If it does this would be easy to demonstrate.

Ron was good enough to tell me a little bit about what he was doing through
E-mail.  I told him that I was interested in human nutrition and that I
would probably be posting some material and I wanted to get a feel for what
he was doing.  I thought that I might get hit by the M.D's in Sci. Med. too
for suggesting nutritional intervention for some of the diseases that were
being posted in Sci. Med.  I did, especially regarding Candida and kidney
stone formation.

I've said all along that better lab testing of nutrient status is needed.  
In most cases, the lab tests are already available but physicians don't
really know when they would be useful.  And then there is the problem of
third party payers and proven efficacy if supplementation is contemplated.

Ron appears to have taken the testing that I've talked about one step
further.  Being a biochemist, I really do have a hard time comprehending
how the metabolism on one side of the body can be that different from the
other side.  But I was also unsure about the right brain-left brain work
that was and still is being done.  I've come to the conclusion that the
right brain is really quite different from the left brain as far as
function is concerned (maybe there are some metabolic differences too).

I've looked at acupuncture and herbal medicine in my pursuit of knowledge
about human health over the past 10-15 years, but I still don't really
understand either area of "alternative medicine".  I think that I've
learned enough about the vitamins and minerals to be able to comment on
their importance in maintaining human health as well as their use in the
treatment of human disease.

But when it comes to Ron's electrical analysis of body nutrient balance,
I'm lost.  If acupuncture turns out to be a really good map of body
function and metabolism, and if the principle upon which it is based (Yin
and Yang) turns out to be correct, then what Ron is doing may make an awful
lot of sense.  He may be right when he says that measuring the calcium,
magnesium, B6, zinc, etc. status of a patient using lab tests that reflect
total body metabolism are useless because of the difference in the metabolism
between the right and left side of the body.

But to be honest with you Mike, I have never come across any study in
humans or other animals where the metabolism in the right kidney was
different from the metabolism in the left kidney.  This doesn't necessarily
mean that Ron is wrong, it may just mean that we haven't found the right
method (tool) to look for differences in metabolism between the right and
left side of the body.

The left side / right side aspect of Ron's statements should be
easily testable.  There are plenty of people with only one
organ where the normal is two.  Lots of people are walking
around with only one kidney, lung, breast, etc.  I would think
if there was a dramatic difference such as Ron describes,
someone would have picked up that left sided breast resections
do better or worse than the other.  There is too much data in
tumor and other disease registries that are regularly sifted
for subtle variations to miss this.  I may be wrong, but I
think someone would have been able to document this by now.

I have agreed with you about the value of nutrition in health
and disease.  I think it is underrated at present, but that is
not to say that MDs are interested.  The NCI is funding quite
alot of cancer studies looking at all aspects of nutririons and
supplementation.  These things take time; probably too much
time for people who feel they already know the answer.  Look at
Vit E and heart disease (they also looked at Vit A and C).  A
recent study concluded that Vit C and E are not involved in
breast cancer incidence.

I think one problem with nutrition research has been the focus
on deficiency states.  Lack of Vit C causes scurvy.  That's
true, but vit C is not there to prevent scurvy, it does
things.  When nutritional deficiencies were common, there was a
need to understand minimal levels to prevent these bad outcomes.

Now however, I think focus is shifting to evaluating optimal
nutritional needs.  The potential pitfall in this is the common
belief that if some is good more is better.  In an earlier post
you mentioned the fact that Vit C is involved in the synthesis
of carnitine.  True enough, but I'm sure that some people will
believe that more Vit C will then produce more carnitine.  I
don't know if that's true but I doubt it.  You also mentioned
iron, but if the recent studies linking high normal iron levels
to increased risks of heart disease hold up then overdoing the
iron might not only nonproductive (in terms of carnitine), but
may be counterproductuve for overall health.  This is the issue
that many people in the health field are concerned about.

The folate birth defects debate is another point.  Folate
supplementation my reduce birth defects, but may also mask B12
deficiencies as well.  As a public health issue this is a topic
that needs to be discussed.

The issue of optimal nutrition is also important for those of
us who regularly partake in exercise to stay fit, because that
is where increased needs may be very important.  Several
studies have demonstrated increased needs in people who engage
in high intensity exercise.  Unfortunately, most of the work
in this area focusses on performance evaluation as opposed to
training which are not necessarily the same in terms of
nutrition.

Anyway, Ron sounds like an acupuncturist who has gone high
tech.  If he wants what he does to be thought of as
scientifically grounded, he needs to produce the scientific
documentation to show this.  All I ask is to see the data.

[deleted]

And no, vitamin C by itself will not promote carnitine formation.  If
everything that is needed to form carnitine is increased, you might get
more formed than you would normally expect.  But as you point out, loading
up on iron to try to get more carnitine formed is not the way to go.  But
only the headline "iron is needed for carnitine formation" gets circulated.
That's one reason why I decided to spend some time on the net and try to
help people understand how some of this "nutrition stuff" works.

The best way to deal with nutrient problems is to have a medical profession
that is trained to look for nutrient deficits and excesses.  But this means
that we have to have a healthcare system where everyone can see a physician
on a regular basis.  We got rid of most cases of Pellagra because of the
niacin supplementation program.  Same thing with Beri-beri (thiamin
supplementation).  As I understand the rationale behind the U.S.
supplementation program, the decision was made to supplement everybody
because not everyone saw a physician on a regular basis.

 The bottom line is that without an appropriate test, we are dealing
 with a trial and error approach when acting on the recommendations
 of a book, or listening to someone on the radio, or trying to follow
 any advice given on the net. There is nothing wrong with discussing
 any of these issues in this forum or even debate the validity of the
 many posts and ideas presented, but anyone smart enough to use the
 electronic media for information must realize that neither a book,
 nor the net can give a valid diagnosis or treatment.  That doesn't
 just apply to the use of magnesium, but to the whole range of all
 other supplements, smart drinks, amino acids, and energy/performance
 -enhancing concoctions.

 I'm dead set against a recipe-type approach in treating ANY medical
 conditions, whether the remedies are drugs or 'natural' supplements.
 I have indeed used magnesium for nocturnal leg cramps, not because
 of a quote in a book, but because my test indicated that magnesium
 matched the chemical deficiency and the symptoms.  Not only was it
 successful, but I would have still used it even if I had been the
 the last person on earth to do so, and despite Gordon R.'s inability
 to find a reference to a controlled study. I have also seen a number
 of other supplements resolve that same problem.

 On a similar note, I WOULD NOT use magnesium supplements ROUTINELY
 in heart patients, even with studies showing the benefits in *many*,
 but not *all* people, as magnesium is an antagonist to a lot of
 other important nutrients. If a coronary artery gets clogged up and
 triggers a heart attack, no amount of magnesium will prevent that,
 in fact, while magnesium may be effective in lowering cholesterol
 *levels*, it unfortunately also increases the production of the LDL
 fraction, despite what has been claimed in some literature to the
 contrary.
 As adamant as Gordon R. is in calling for references on controlled
 studies, as adamant am I in NOT following the results of those, or
 any other studies, regardless of their source, since people are in-
 dividuals, and as such need to be tested and treated on an individual
 basis! What good is it if a dozen studies have shown that ASA reduces
 heart attacks if I'm presented with a patient that is either allergic
 to aspirin, or suffers from bleeding ulcers?
 It also makes no difference to me if all of a sudden beta carotene
 or Vit E are advertised do all these wonderful things. It does in no
 way affect the recommendations to my patients, which (as always) will
 be matched exactly by their ACTUAL requirements.

 A while back back I tested a person who's main diet consisted of
 almost no vegetables, but of at least one or two steaks EVERY DAY,
 and of a size big enough, to cause the average vegetarian to choke
 on their celery juice just by the thought of it :)
 He's had a clean bill of health all his life and passed every con-
 ceivable medical test, including mine, in every aspect. His chemical
 analysis was nearly perfect, including cholesterol, triglycerides,
 kidney/protein/sodium aspects, etc, etc...
 He was expecting me to give him the thumbs down on his 'diet', but
 who am I to argue with near perfection?  OTOH, if the guy had pre-
 sented himself with a long list of medical problems attributable to
 his diet, I would have not hesitated to hint on a little vegetarian
 conversion.

 Perhaps a controlled study on tylenol being effective for leg cramps
 would satisfy Gordon R. and would get him busy with his prescription
 pad, but it sure would leave me unimpressed and I would rather con-
 tinue to treat the REAL cause.
 I know, anecdotal evidence isn't perfect, but why then do we read
 books in the first place, since the information presented - whether
 from controlled studies or not - is only meant to be a guideline
 anyways.  Even the findings of *controlled studies* are still not
 suitable for EVERY patient,  and let's not forget that they may
 well be in vogue today, but fall victim to new headlines tomorrow!

I often lament the fact that specific clinical tests are available for
physicians to use to see if their patients do have a lowered nutrient
level but physicians don't use them.  However, testing really isn't the
answer.  As you point out, medicine is not a cook book.  Some of the best
physicians that I have encountered in my professional life of some 20 odd
years were the docs who ran very few tests.  Medicine is more of an art than
a science (in my opinion).  The physician is really just a detective, using
the signs and symptoms that the patient gives, along with a few standard
clinical chemistry tests, to try to figure out who done it (what disease, if
any is at work here).  If the trail seems to be leading to a disease that
requires more specialized tests before a diagnosis can be made, then run them.
Treatment is the same way, try what has been proven to work.  If it doesn't
work for your patient, then try something else.  Treatment wouldn't be the
problem that it is if humans were all inbred like rats are.

My real lament is that not enough physicians think about possible nutrient
deficits (imbalances) when they try to figure out what's wrong with their
patients.  Gordon has been quick to point out that without conclusive proof
that some diseases are either caused by nutrient deficits (aside from the
classic deficiency diseases) or that they respond to nutrient supplementation,
it's premature to seriously consider specific nutrients as being causes of or
treatments for human disease.  But the tide is changing.  Not only are we
beginning to see that some nutrients may be useful in both treating and
preventing disease, but the whole emphasis on health care in the U.S. is
beginning to change.  This was Dr. Koop's message (prevention of disease
has to be emphasized over the treatment of disease).  He was a little ahead
of his time when he gave that message in 1988.  We are starting to hear it
more and more now.  As the cost of treating sick people goes up, pressure is
being applied to the medical profession in this country to try to keep people
healthy.  As Dr. Koop points out in his book, this is not the kind of training
that most doctors in the U.S. get while in medical school.

I think the issue with nutritional imbalances is that many
physicians are believing precisely in the concept of
homeostasis.  The notion is that the body does a pretty good
job of handling a little more or less of things and adjusts it
all in the end.  The emphasis on getting the right intake sort
of denies the homeostatic mechanisms for regulating this.
Remember all these things evolved before man even knew what
vitamins, mineral, and other supplements were.

I will be curious to see how most physicians will react to the
Vit E / heart disease association.