I recently was asked to give an opinion about the relative merits of the RBC test and Exatest for judging intracellular magnesium levels. My inquisitor has osteoporosis a condition for which magnesium is known to be very important.

I saw one post form Erling which indicated that the two tests were fundamentally different and that for Afibbers the RBC test was essentially worthless.

Any advice much appreciated.

Josiah

Magnesium researcher Aileen Burford-Mason, PhD, says in one of her interviews that RGC magnesium is not a good long-standing indicator of Mg status. Magnesium just doesn't stay put in a red cell once the red cell is formed so it isn't a long-standing indicator of magnesium status... and it's only 1% of magnesium in blood. The rest is divided between bone and a muscle. About 30% in bone can be quickly released and dumped into blood if needed if that 1% goes down. No studies have shown that RBC magnesium or serum Mg, either one, are good reflectors of whole body magnesium status. In fact, hospital lab biochemists report that the only people who ever have low serum magnesium are those who are very, very ill or are in bed all the time. Physical activity recycles magnesium in and out of bones.

Rather than testing, she relies on physical signs all related to full function or malfunction of skeletal, smooth or cardiac muscle. If there is constipation, muscle cramps, fasciculations, it's a sure indicator more magnesium is needed. (Osteoporosis would be an indicator as well).

(My comment) Rather than going to the fuss and expense of testing with Exatest, why not just asssume that because there is osteoporosis, there is also a magnesium deficiency?... remember that vitamin D3, magnesium, and vitamin K2 MK7, all work toward building and maintaining healthy bone stores along with weight bearing exercise.

Jackie

Jackie thanks so much.

Josiah