Welcome to the Afibber’s Forum
Serving Afibbers worldwide since 1999
Moderated by Shannon and Carey


Afibbers Home Afibbers Forum General Health Forum
Afib Resources Afib Database Vitamin Shop


Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

WW cost. Also, magnesium cost, WW vs. tablets

Posted by Erling 
Erling
WW cost. Also, magnesium cost, WW vs. tablets
July 17, 2010 11:20AM
We should know the cost of making WW, so I checked the prices of raw materials at the local super market:

-- carbonated water, 'BigK Sparkling Water', 2 liters: $0.79
-- MoM, plain, Kroger brand, 12 fl oz (354 mL): $3.59

So, the cost of 1 liter of WW is:

-- 1 liter carbonated water: $0.40
-- 3 tbsp (45 mL) MoM: $0.46
-- total for 1 liter of concentrate, $0.86. Diluted 11:1 to make WW, the cost of WW is - drum roll - 7 CENTS PER LITER!

I also thought it would be useful to know the cost of magnesium from WW compared to the cost from tablets:

-- Since 1 liter of the concentrate has 1,500 mg (1 1/2 grams) of magnesium, 1 liter of the diluted concentrate, called WW, has 125 mg (1/8th gram) of magnesium. So, the cost of 1 gram of magnesium from WW is $0.56

Comparing this with the cost of 1 gram of magnesium from a quality magnesium tablet:

-- From Hans's iHerb.com: Solgar Chelated Magnesium, Albion process, 250 tablets, each with 100 mg of magnesium: $19.92. One 100 mg tablet costs $0.08, so the cost of 1 gram of magnesium from Solgar tablets is $0.80.

WW WINS AGAIN!

BUT: Does Mg-glycinate by Albion perhaps get from the mouth to inside the cells more readily than Mg++ from WW? Hmm? Anybody?

Skaal!

Hi Erling,

"BUT: Does Mg-glycinate by Albion perhaps get from the mouth to inside the cells more readily than Mg++ from WW? Hmm? Anybody?"

Who knows? I'm guessing it is "good enough" in any case! In addition, the research in the patent indicates that WW's benefits are also attributable to its basic pH.

So your calculation prompted me to do the same for my Nigari/Mag chloride concoction <[www.afibbers.org];.

The molecular weight of magnesium is 24.305 and of magnesium chloride hexahydrate ( MgCl2(H2O)6 ) is 203.31. So, on a weight basis, the hexadydrate is 11.95% magnesium. A pound of nigari - about 95 %. The hexahydrate cost is $1.89 [www.naturalimport.com]. There are 454 grams/pound so 1.89/((454x.95)x.1195) = 0.037 or $0.04/gram of magnesium.

A supersaturated solution of hexahydrate is called "magnesium oil" as it feels oily. Various purveyors of expensive mag oil tout its benefits and ability to be absorbed. The Japanese make a drink out of nigari called "nigarisui" (which has numerous purported health properties). The ratios I've seen are 1/4 to 1/2 teaspoon of Nigari to 1 liter. 1 tsp is about 5 cm3 and the density of hexahydrate is 1.569 g/cm3. So 1/2 tsp is 1.569/2 grams hexahydrate or 1.569/2x.1195 = 0.0937 grams or 94 mg/l. Interesting coincidence that the amount of magnesium in "nigarisui" is pretty close to that in WW. My own concoction of mag chloride water is a much higher concentration of magnesium.

Thank you again for all you've done in this area. It has been a great boon for me and has lead me down many interesting paths - I even use dilute WW as drinking water for my pet cats.

Cheers,

George

Re: WW cost. Also, magnesium cost, WW vs. tablets
July 17, 2010 01:43PM
Skaal to you, too! Erling.

A couple of things come to mind with your question. The WW form of magnesium, ie, magnesium bicarbonate, would be vulnerable to dissociation in the presence of the chemical soup/stomach acid environment. I don’t know if we ever determined how much actual magnesium is bioavailable…did we? Maybe in the Noah’s water or Unique Water there is some data on bioavailability of this form.

According to Dr. Burford-Mason when discussing the Albion process, amino acid chelated magnesium, “ the amino acid chelate is the smallest and is taken through the gut cells very easily whereas the other forms, not as easily, and they can become dissociated in the gut as well. We are so primed to absorb protein, we may also be more selective about various minerals."

In the discussions on this particular patented version of magnesium (in the glycinate form – which is the amino acid version) they emphasize they are formulated not to break down in presence of stomach acid and are ready to go once they pass through the villi in the intestine and into the blood stream with no further chemical reaction.

From personal experience, I know I can tolerate a fairly large dose (800-1000 mg of the magnesium glycinate) but if I would attempt to do that with the WW, I would not be able to tolerate that much… (unlike GeorgeN…who is a special situation). I also know that I was unable to optimize my magnesium totally with the WW and needed the glycinate form as the primary source of magnesium… using the WW as an adjunct supplement. That could just be unique to my biochemistry. While I love the WW, I can’t rely on it as a sole source of my magnesium. It could be that I have a wasting issue as well.

Probably, the best indicator of optimizing magnesium on an individual basis would be the lessening of all symptoms associated with magnesium deficiency, including afib. Some individuals may be able to optimize IC levels with the WW alone; and others may not. I would think that in cases of chronically low or depleted magnesium, the chelated versions offer a quicker repletion rate but the proof would really be in the IC testing with before and after using only one type of supplement form… either the ionized WW or the chelated amino acid magnesium glycinate.

From the Albion literature on this topic addressing the ligand, glycine (the amino acid portion)…
Glycine is an amino acid that can be in a long chain of atoms, specifically oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen. Ligand size or chain length, is a key factor involved in having a chelated mineral that can be absorbed at a highly efficient rate. Ligand molecule size together with the attached mineral atom makes a combined size. This combined size is important because these molecules can get larger than the size of the cell it is suppose to be absorbed into.

It makes just plain sense that if the chelated molecule is too large to go into the cell the only way it can be absorbed is if it hangs around long enough to be broken down in the digestive process. If the “chelate” is present long enough to be broken down, it has a chance to be absorbed but is little better than an inorganic form of mineral. A larger size substantially lowers the effectiveness of the chelate if the ligand must be broken so the body can re-chelate the mineral for absorption. Chances are the larger chelate will be passed through the digestive system without absorption taking place at all.

Chelate molecule size as determined by the choice of ligand used and the process used to create the specific chelate is a second differentiating feature. Albion chelation assures no free, unbound material in the mixature between chelates in the marketplace. Albion’s science turns inorganic mineral into very small individual organic mineral molecules which are neutral and therefore highly bioavailable and effective.

Size:
Picture in your mind the fuel filter on your car engine. The filter allows fuel to pass through but holds back large particles from entering the engine. The same idea applies to the absorption of minerals from the intestine to the blood stream. Large particles cannot easily pass through the intestinal wall. Many mineral products on the market have molecular weights too large to be absorbed intact. Through patented technology, Albion produces chelated minerals with molecular weights small enough to easily pass through the intestinal wall. The Albion chelate is similar to that which the body itself produces by natural chelation.

Neutrality:
The process of chelation results in the final mineral compound becoming neutral, i.e., containing no electrical charge. This is important because electrically charged mineral compounds can interact with other dietary components such as phytates and other oppositely charged molecules, and from substances that are not absorbable. In addition, charged mineral compounds are reactive and can deactivate other important nutrient factors, such as vitamin E, ascorbic acid, various B-vitamins, and certain medications.

Thanks for bringing this up and making me think about it.
Jackie

Re: WW cost. Also, magnesium cost, WW vs. tablets
July 17, 2010 01:48PM
George... be cautious about giving felines magnesium. I recall thinking it would be a good thing for mine and after researching, discovered it was not good to give magnesium to cats. Jackie
You beat me to it Jackie! Careful with elderly dogs also.
Hi Jackie,

Thanks for the note. I presume you're referring to FUS & possibly kidney disease in older cats.

George
Isabelle
Re: WW cost. Also, magnesium cost, WW vs. tablets
July 17, 2010 06:16PM
Erling:

My question is why use carbonated water? Carbonated water has phosphoric acid in it which is implicated in leaching calcium out of our body.

How do you compensate for this loss?

Thanks.

Isabelle
Isabelle,

First, "Carbonated water has phosphoric acid" this is false. Colas have phosphoric acid in them. Carbonated water is just that, CO2 & H20.

"My question is why use carbonated water?"

Because the CO2 in the water reacts with magnesium hydroxide (Milk of Magnesia) to make magnesium bicarbonate: Mg(OH)2 + 2 CO2 &#8594; Mg(HCO3)2

When the reaction has gone to completion, there is no more CO2 in the system - hence the pressure in the bottle decreases and in partially collapses.

While carbonated water has an acidic pH, the magnesium bicarbonate solution has a basic pH.

If you read the patent application for the Aussie water (Unique Water) that Erling patterned WW after, you'll see that the sheep that drank the water from the mag water spring had less osteoporosis than those who drank from a regular spring. More links on Unique Water here: <[www.afibbers.org];

George

Re: WW cost. Also, magnesium cost, WW vs. tablets
July 18, 2010 04:31AM
Yes - the FUS...Cats need a low magnesium diet (low ash). If they do develop the FUS, then you have to switch to the special food. Jackie
Re: WW - alkalinity
July 18, 2010 06:31AM
Isabelle - relating George's response to humans... the WW is alkaline in nature. Therefore, it assists in the homeostasis requirement of kidney function where it acts to buffer acids by pulling out stored calcium from bones. There are many benefits to keeping a slightly alkaline pH in tissues not the least of which is osteoporosis prevention... in humans and as George references, sheep.

There is a big thrust currently for the alkaline pH in tissues when it comes to cancer prevention and treatment. This remains a taboo topic in mainstream medicine because there are 'no miracle cures for cancer'. However, locally, we have an owner of a health food store; yoga studio who developed breast cancer and refused all conventional treatment in favor of the alkalizing protocols set forth by Robert O. Young, PhD.... (his book The pH Miracle...Balance Your Diet, Reclaim Your Health).... if you are interested, you can see Cindy Wheatcraft and her testimonial at the link below. Truly remarkable.

I don't know Cindy but I have several friends who do and they say it is absolutely amazing. This plan involves a juicing diet to keep the body alkaline. The WW would be as useful with this protocol as it is for ours.

It's interesting because there is so much controversy over Robert Young's approach.... hoax, quack, etc. But... if you take a look at Cindy in the video, she is the picture of health and her breast tumors are gone.

In any event, the WW is useful in reducing overall tissue acidity, promoting health and sparing the kidneys from extra work and sparing bone mineral usage as well. It also works nicely for those who have arthritic joint complaints that are a result of an overly acidic diet.

[www.youtube.com]

Jackie
The Unique Water patent is interesting to read: US Patent #6048553

[news.google.com] choose: download PDF.
or
[www.rexresearch.com]

From the patent:
EXAMPLE 3 (sheep study)

An Experiment to Improve the Buffering Capacities of the Extracellular and Intracellular Bicarbonate Buffers and to Decrease Senescence and to Increase Longevity in a Representative Mammal

______________________________________
Fifty percent survival
Control group 8 years
Treatment group 11 years
Maximum life span
Control group 13 years
Treatment group 17 years
______________________________________

Prevalence of pathology at autopsy (%)
Macroscopic Significant
Pathology Control Group, Treatment Group
(*most significant) (42 autopsies) (38 autopsies)
_____________________________________
Lungs 24% 21%
*Heart 29% 11%
Liver 43% 21%
Kidney 24% 16%
Other Genito-urinary 17% 16%
Lymph nodes 40% 37%
Intestinal tract 10% 8%
*Joints 43% 5%
*Bone 24% 3%
Teeth 71% 40%
*Skin-wool 48% 21%
Cancer 12% 3%

As Jackie says, the basic pH is the actor in this case.

George
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login