/zinc/Re: Looking at faces & feet

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>Definitely don't supplement zinc! Just eat a little more meat!

>Personally I eat oysters very often,

A little more meat isn't going to cut it for a lot of people. First, once

you're deficient in something, you often need a lot more of it for awhile

in order to build up your reserves, and from what I've read, zinc is

definitely in that category. Second, people with deficiencies,

particularly mineral deficiencies, tend to have impaired absorption, so

merely adding some food often will have little to no effect on the

problem. Digestive aids (like HCl and enzyme supplements) are often key

for those people. In some cases liberal consumption of oysters coupled

with digestive aids will be enough, but not everyone can find or afford

lots of oysters, particularly nowadays, so sometimes temporary

supplementation is the only way to go, in which case I'd recommend a lowish

dose of optizinc.

-

[Guest guest]

I appreciate everyone's responses to my question.

Now this question:

I am a lifelong milk drinker. But doesn't isn't calcium a zinc

antagonist? Perhaps I should avoid drinking milk with foods

containing zinc...until I see an improvement?

> > But seeing this discussion, especially the point where a zinc

> > deficiency can be long-lasting and even be passed to offspring,

> makes

> > me wonder whether I ought to think about supplementing zinc.

> >

> >

> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>

> Definitely don't supplement zinc! Just eat a little more meat!

> Personally I eat oysters very often, but any kind of meat is a good

> source of zinc, so it's definitely not a nutrient you need to

resort

> to pills for. It's near the top of the list of pro-carnivory

> arguments by the way; it's either difficult or impossible to get

> enough from non-carnivorous diets.

>

> Mike

> SE Pennsylvania

>

> The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/27/04 5:51:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Phytic acid in whole grains binding with

> calcium to prevent zinc uptake could be the calcium-zinc relationship you're

> thinking of.

Why would phytate binding with calcium have any effect on zinc uptake?

Phytate makes an insoluble salt with zinc, which I'd think would be the primary

mechanism by which it inhibits zinc absorption.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> I am a lifelong milk drinker. But doesn't isn't calcium a zinc

> antagonist? Perhaps I should avoid drinking milk with foods

> containing zinc...until I see an improvement?

>

>

Cadmium is the zinc antagonist. Phytic acid in whole grains binding with

calcium to prevent zinc uptake could be the calcium-zinc relationship you're

thinking of.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 3/27/04 5:51:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> wanitawa@... writes:

>

> > Phytic acid in whole grains binding with

> > calcium to prevent zinc uptake could be the calcium-zinc relationship

you're

> > thinking of.

>

> Why would phytate binding with calcium have any effect on zinc uptake?

> Phytate makes an insoluble salt with zinc, which I'd think would be the

primary

> mechanism by which it inhibits zinc absorption.

>

> Chris

My reference says under calcium " Phytic acid, found in wheat, is known to

block absorption of calcium, too. " Under zinc " A person who consumes large

amounts of various whole grains may run the risk of phytic acid binding with

a high intake of calcium to prevent the uptake of zinc. " Doesn't work both

ways. Wheather the phytate is inhibiting zinc absorption or the phytate is

binding with the calcium, blocking calcium absorption and preventing zinc

uptake.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Wanita,

>My reference says under calcium " Phytic acid, found in wheat, is known to

> block absorption of calcium, too. "

What is the " too " referring to?

>Under zinc " A person who consumes large

> amounts of various whole grains may run the risk of phytic acid binding

> with

> a high intake of calcium to prevent the uptake of zinc. "

What's the reference? That doesn't even seem like a logical sentence. Not

only because phytic acid doesn't bind with any mineral-- phytate does-- but how

can phytate bind to a " high intake " of calcium, rather than the calcium

itself? Further, it seems to indicate that zinc uptake is blocked to the extent

calcium intake is high, which seems illogical, since less Ca intake would mean

more excess phytate to bind with zinc. And if they don't explain why calcium

blockage would prevent zinc uptake, it's a rather useless reference, it would

seem.

> Doesn't work both

> ways.

Which are the two ways to which you refer? Phytate certainly DOES bind to

zinc, so if it's true that formation of calcium phytate somehow blocks zinc

uptake, than it DOES prevent zinc uptake in two different (both) ways. I really

don't see why that would be true though, unless calcium is somehow necessary

for zinc absorption, of which I'm not aware.

> Wheather the phytate is inhibiting zinc absorption or the phytate is

> binding with the calcium, blocking calcium absorption and preventing zinc

> uptake.

The former is undoubtedly true; the latter might be true, but I'd want some

explanation of why it would be so before I'd believe it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> >My reference says under calcium " Phytic acid, found in wheat, is known to

> > block absorption of calcium, too. "

>

> What is the " too " referring to?

Too is in addition to other calcium antagonists.

>

> >Under zinc " A person who consumes large

> > amounts of various whole grains may run the risk of phytic acid binding

> > with

> > a high intake of calcium to prevent the uptake of zinc. "

>

> What's the reference? That doesn't even seem like a logical sentence.

Not

> only because phytic acid doesn't bind with any mineral-- phytate does--

but how

> can phytate bind to a " high intake " of calcium, rather than the calcium

> itself? Further, it seems to indicate that zinc uptake is blocked to the

extent

> calcium intake is high, which seems illogical, since less Ca intake would

mean

> more excess phytate to bind with zinc. And if they don't explain why

calcium

> blockage would prevent zinc uptake, it's a rather useless reference, it

would

> seem.

My reference is the American Book of Nutrition and Medical Astrology, 1982.

All nutritional research was done in the technical libraries of two

universities.

> Which are the two ways to which you refer? Phytate certainly DOES bind to

> zinc, so if it's true that formation of calcium phytate somehow blocks

zinc

> uptake, than it DOES prevent zinc uptake in two different (both) ways. I

really

> don't see why that would be true though, unless calcium is somehow

necessary

> for zinc absorption, of which I'm not aware.

Both ways I meant you have below. Under zinc allies is primary vitamin A.

Also zinc is more effective

when taken with calcium, copper and phosphorus.

>

> > Wheather the phytate is inhibiting zinc absorption or the phytate is

> > binding with the calcium, blocking calcium absorption and preventing

zinc

> > uptake.

>

> The former is undoubtedly true; the latter might be true, but I'd want

some

> explanation of why it would be so before I'd believe it.

Don't personally see it as overly important wheather phytate works by just

inhibiting zinc absorption as you have been taught or wheather phytate binds

to calcium, blocking calcium absorption and preventing zinc uptake as I've

posted. Neither is healthful, the latter even less. Phytate issue to both.

Someone asked a question. Hadn't looked at that book in years. Makes sense

with my calcium, zinc and grain issues which are also fast oxidizer issues.

Thankful whoever asked the original question brought it up as this is

something I've been working with. Looking into question explained why

increasing my vitamin D & calcium supplement taken along with zinc over the

last few weeks and no grains works better than half the D & calcium.

Wanita