<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>
 
At 12:04 PM 6/17/96 +0000, Phil Sheard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
>                However, the posting by Don Wiss, which
>has at its heart a quote from a 25 year-old cookbook has put me very much
>on edge. We are constantly bombarded by a bewildering amount of
>information, much of which is hard for us to understand, however, I feel
>that to rely on a book of this sort for useful, up-to-date medical
>information is risky at best.
 
But can you provide something to refute it?
 
> As a Physiologist I am usually dismayed at
>the level of accuracy of scientific writing in the popular press, and would
>like to urge all to treat the information they receive via these channels
>with caution.
 
Oh I see. If it isn't published by a medical publisher it is no good.
 
> Let me illustrate my point, the quote begins with a statement
>that the lungs contain twice as much Magnesium as lime. Don is correct,
>lime is calcium carbonate, which, if pure, therefore contains no magnesium
>at all! The opening phrase could therefore be restated "Healthy lungs show
>twice as much magnesium as a substance which has no magnesium!."
 
Huh? The statement is discussing a ratio of two different substances. If you
increase or decrease one you change the *ratio*. It appears you misread the
quote.
 
>The
>remainder of the quote is filled with vague, inaccurate, and
>uninterpretable phrases like "invigorating the excretory organs and
>producing pressure" (What on earth does this mean?!). If my students wrote
>this in an essay they would be very severely criticised! All I wish to say
>is, be careful that if you are basing a lifestyle change on material you
>read, then try to make sure it is written by someone who knows what they
>are talking about, and that you understand and accept what has been said.
 
But you haven't produced any evidence that you know what you are talking
about on this subject.
 
>This is not always easy.
>Let me say again that I accept the information was given in good will, and
>that for all I know magnesium may be important.
 
Here he admits he doesn't know what he talking about.
 
> It is unlikely that anyone
>on a normal diet (even GF) will require Magnesium supplementation, however.
 
But the fellow posting the question has been GF for only five days. His diet
may now be normal, but his intestine could not possibly have fully healed in
that time. I also think he should be taking other supplements for a while,
but that wasn't the topic.
 
I am not aware of any downside in taking magnesium at the 400 mg level.
Toxicity doesn't come into play until something like 3,000 mg.
 
>Developmental Biology Unit,
>Department of Physiology,
>University of Otago Medical School,
 
Oh I see you are at medical school. They do teach doctors that they know
everything and are not to be questioned.
 
Don Wiss.