SpectraCell

Anyone know anything about SpectraCell micro nutrient testing?

Josiah - Yes, they are one of the better specialty labs that offers the more comprehensive nutrient testing although if you are looking for the accurate magnesium testing, I don't believe they do it. Only Exatest does that which accurately reflects what's Intracellular.

Jackie

Thanks Jackie. After following this forum for a couple of years I'd be very remiss if I wasn't aware of the shortcomings of the RBC magnesium test. I'd like to get another EXATEST but I'm a bit tight in the liquid assets department right now.

Josiah

Josiah:

I have a holistic doctor, David Brownstein, I have asked him about the merits of the exactest test and he said he had found it not to be reliable, and says the Red Blood cell test for magnesium is more reliable. Jackie is adamant about the exactest, but she is not a doctor who uses that test in a practice.

Liz

Hi Liz,

Is this the same Dr.David Brownstein who advocates fairly aggressive Iodine supplementation in treating hypothyroidism?

Josiah

Josiah... Medicare pays for Exatest.... all you need is a Medicare provider to order it in for you. You can even do cell collection yourself... It's a sublingual scraping ...I've done my own.

Be assured about the reliability of Exatest. I queried a forum of health practitioners about their experiences and reliability of Exatest. The responses were that it was considered highly reliable. Of course these are physicians who are going the extra mile in their education and applying it to their practice of functional-type medicine so they are on the cutting edge of new approaches to diagnostics.

If it were not reliable, the US Government would not entrust the lives, safety and health of astronauts who are monitored in space travel with Exatest.

Exatest directly reflects magnesium levels inside heart cells where it works. Not in the Red Blood Cells where magnesium is transported... hoping to get access inside the cells... and often it doesn't. There's a huge difference.

Jackie

.

Josiah:

Dr. Brownstein has written a book about iodine, "Iodine why you need it, Why you can 't live without it". I don't know why he doesn't use the exatest, but when I asked him about it he said he did for a time but found it not to be reliable, so I am just saying what he told me. NASA did tests on the astronauts to check for muscle atrophy and deterioration of their skeletons, they studied muscle and bone changes in space using sublingual and epithelial cells. NASA also advised taking calcium tabs--this board does not recommend taking calcium tabs, oh well, pick and choose.

Liz

Exatest was developed for NASA’s use with astronauts who are monitored continually to maintain health and functionality.

Weightlessness or zero gravity in space flight has a huge impact on bone health and muscle strength so the critical nutrients are undoubtedly included in daily food packets containing the essential nutrients. Most likely, NASA flight surgeons recommending calcium were not concerned with arrhythmias because, if present, those astronauts would not qualify for space flight. Hopefully, they aren’t recommending just calcium as it’s well-documented that calcium alone doesn’t build bone.

Plus, it’s found that the liberation of calcium in bone during space flight also increases the risks for kidney stone formation.

Renal Stone Risk During Spaceflight: Assessment and Countermeasure Validation

Experiment Description
• Bone loss that is known to occur in space significantly increases the amount of calcium in the urine which can lead to the formation of renal (kidney) stones.
• Renal stone formation could have severe health consequences for crewmembers and negatively impact mission success.
• This experiment tests the performance of potassium citrate, a proven therapy to minimize calcium containing renal stone development on Earth, as a countermeasure to reduce the risk of renal stone formation in space.

Space Applications
• Human exposure to microgravity results in a number of physiological changes. Among these are changes in renal function, fluid redistribution, bone loss, and muscle atrophy, all of which contribute to an altered urinary environment and the potential for renal stone formation during and immediately after flight. In-flight changes previously observed include decreased urine volume and urinary citrate and increased urinary concentrations of calcium and sodium. The formation of renal stones could have severe health consequences for crewmembers and negatively impact the success of the mission. This study will provide a better understanding of the risk factors associated with renal stone development during and after flight, as well as test the efficacy of potassium citrate as a countermeasure to reduce this risk.

[www.nasa.gov]

quotes on cal/mag ratio and tendency for MI’s.
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

[internetwks.com]

Jackie

I would imagine that NASA would want something simpler than taking blood in the space capsule, don't know if that would be the reason for using the exatest, I don't see where NASA has said they use the exatest because it is more reliable than the RB cell test. Anyway, I would probably think that the exatest and the RB cell test are both good.

Liz

The info on the development of the Exatest is at their website. The Exatest does not involve a blood draw.

In my experience, the RB cell test is a bit better than the typical serum test Liz, but does not correlate as consistently and as accurately with the gold standard which is direct biopsy of muscle and organ tissues for IC ionic mineral testing as does the Exatest.

Studies have shown a very close correlation between biopsy samples taken during open heart surgery with corresponding the epithelial buccal swabs and Xray profile testing which is what the Exatest is based on. Plus, you get the valuable ratio correlations between the most important relative mineral balances with Exatest, And those measures are less meaningful when comparing various serum mineral tests due the vary different assay methods used in various serum mineral test kits.

Anyway, I've done around 10 Exatests and compared each one with a same time serum blood draw, and most of them with both serum and RB cell blood draws, done within 10 to 15 minutes of the Exatest sample swab. And even when the other two blood-based tests said my magnesium was in a good range, and yet I had a number of signs and symptoms of magnesium deficiency such as excess ectopics and frequent cramps in my calves mild constipation, fasciculation's in my arms and eyelids etc ... the Exatest results showed a frankly low or borderline low IC magnesium level that far more closely correlated with my actual symptoms and physical signs.

The few times I got the magnesium up into a decent IC mag range on the Exatest, which can take heroic efforts for some Afibbers who are often serious mag and potassium wasters, then all of those symptoms pretty much had disappeared and yet the serum and RB cell levels were still within the normal reference range though trending toward the upper quartile of their respective ranges by then.

That is good enough for me. Perhaps it will help clarify the differences if you read the literature on Exatest's website Liz, or consider calling and asking for an phone appointment with Dr. Burt Silver who helped develop the test for more insights into the differences.

Shannon

PS , one reason why I think some patients and a some docs are not so sure about the Exatest is because it doesn't always show in the same general confirming and conforming ranges for magnesium in particularly that both the serum and RBC mag tests tend to do, The both have different values but tend to reflect similar levels in blood.
Then when they see a patient with what looks to be in range serum and RBC blood tests and yet the Extest reports low magnesium or border line low they automatically assume its the Exatest that is inaccurate, when, in fact it is giving a closer reading of true IC magnesium levels which do not correlated well at all with blood levels of magnesium either by Serum or RBC.

Again RBC tends to tell a little closer to the truth story than does serum testing, but in my experience and that of a number of very experience functional medicine docs I know, they and I have found the Exatest a better and closer reflection of ones one symptoms and sign, at least of magnesium deficiency and the methodology should remain consistent for the other ionic minerals tested.

I do understand how some people, even docs who should know better, can make a quick off the cuff wrong assumption though when they see that too often the Exatest is telling a different story than the two blood tests which ver often stay in a broader 'reference range' for a much longer time and often for years after IC levels have dropped to frankly low levels before that starts to show in the serum labs as well be they regular serum or the somewhat more sensitive and revealing RBC test.

The key insight here is that you will very rarely if ever see Exatest IC magnesium report higher than serum and RBC levels taken at the same time. If is was really unreliable you would tend to get a random mix of too high, too low and some coincidently telling the same story as the two serum tests. But what you find is that the Exatest either tells the same 'in range' story as the two serum test kits or is lower to border line lower. Precisely what you would expect from an accurate true Intracellular reading.

When all three tests are low you really are in trouble! and Ive never seen an Exatest show a normal to high level of IC magnesium when the serum and/or RBC showed low to borderline low.

These along with the close correlation to my own obvious symptoms and physical signs of magnesium wasting in spite of having 2.0 to 2.3 levels ( which is clear 'normal sufficient range on serum Mag and from 3.5 to 5.1 on RBC mag which was also within the RBC sufficient range during the same test period, further proved the validity of the Exatest beyond any reasonable doubt in my mind as distinguishing between the known disconnect between blood magnesium testing and true IC magnesium stores ... Dr Brownstein's opinion not withstanding.

Shannon



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2014 02:27PM by Shannon.

Shannon:

According to my RB cell test for mag. I always test towards the low end of the lab values, so if the exatest shows my mag. even lower, than what will it solve for me----I cannot take anymore mag. supplements than I already do, if I take more mag. I get lots of cramps and have to go to the bathroom a lot, that isn't good.
I take the Bluebonnet clelated magnesium, 200mg., I tried using a spray in addition=lots of cramps, so all I can take is the 1 capsule a day. A few years ago Dr. Brownstein suggested taking an IV of mag., one time after taking the IV, I got an episode of AF that night, thought mag. is supposed to help AF. I have come to the conclusion that AF comes when it wants to, so I don't get in a tizzy of what I eat, do, or not do, except the only thing that is consistent is I get AF when I press the left side of my back into a pillow when reclining on my couch, it doesn't always happen but when AF does, the pressing of the left side of my back precedes it, I try to watch it but It just sometimes happens.

Liz

Jackie:

I know the exatest does not involve taking blood, that is why I said that may be why NASA uses the exatest because it doesn't use blood. I must not be making myself clear.

Liz



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2014 03:11PM by Elizabeth.

Hi Liz,
Its very hard to draw a hard and fast conclusion about immediate intake of magnesium and any particular AFIB episode. Repletion of IC mag is rarely quick, yes it happens quicker with IV but can still take a good month of two of twice weekly IVs to settle down an arrhythmic sensitive substrate .. if it is going too ... and as you noted it does not always work to everyones hopes and satisfaction. But it does seem to help a lot of people either a lot of a little and in my view is thus worth at least making a good effort to see if it will help enough to be worthwhile.

Often too regardless of its impact on AFIB, many people tend to notice other benefits over long enough time like better sleep, less muscle cramping less constipation etc, once the IC mag is more restored toward a decent level.

But the very same symptoms you are wanting to end with magnesium are often variable still stimulated during the early months of of mag repletion. especially when we are also taking mag depleting cardiac drugs at the same time which is often necessary to keep the beast somewhat under control.

In short, this is more the race of the turtle rather than the rabbit with nutrient repletion and its easy for many to get fed up or lose interests along the way when the results are not as quick in coming as they had hoped or expected and there are continued breakthroughs and various symptoms. That is understandable.

Still, more often than not, it is worth the effort and there is usually some real benefit even if, like in my case, it wasn't nearly enough without an expert ablation process as well.

take care,
Shannon