Talk:Magnesium deficiency

EDIT REQUEST

In the chapter titled "Incidence/prevalence" it is stated: "A less than recommended dietary intake does not necessarily imply magnesium deficiency in an individual" There is no citation to back this up and it does not make logical sense either as the RDA was set up specifically to help prevent deficiencies.

I request permission to remove this sentence.--197.79.0.1 (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody here is acknowledging my edit request. I am going ahead with the edit, please do not reverse it without explaining here first.--197.79.8.214 (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

On the Magnesium page, under "Biological roles", it states that "Human magnesium deficiency (including conditions that show few overt symptoms) is relatively rare" with a link to the following NIH page. There, a fair way down, under "Magnesium Deficiency", it states "Symptomatic magnesium deficiency due to low dietary intake in otherwise-healthy people is uncommon because the kidneys limit urinary excretion of this mineral" along with a footnote link to a cited source for that information. It sounds like higher intake means your body eliminates the excess, and lower intake means it hangs onto it, so you really need to have some issues before you have symptoms. That's what all the information I've seen on these pages implies. I'm sure someone with more knowledge than I have could find all the sources and put them together. 96.39.170.184 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC) C.S. Rowan

References

Very

Very nice job on the rewriting and fleshing out, Nescio. However, I think one thing might have got confused in the rewriting:

"Magnesium depletion" (ICD10 code E83.4) should be distinguished from hypomagnesemia

The original version read:

It {Magnesium deficiency} should be distinguished from hypomagnesemia or "magnesium depletion" (ICD10 code E83.4).

I think that "Magnesium depletion" is more similar in meaning to "hypomagnesemia" than to "Magnesium deficiency" (or at least that's the implication of the article in the external link). Maybe I'm wrong. But in any case, I think the article should make it clearer what "Magnesium depletion" refers to. --Arcadian 21:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hypomagnesemia only refers to bloodlevels. This is not the same as lack of magnesium for whatever reason (see hypomagnesemia). Deficiency and depletion in my opinion merely diferentiates between intake and loss. --Nomen Nescio 01:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources

With regard to the statement that most Americans are not getting enough magnesium, the source doesn't directly state that. I checked the map which came up, clicked on PA, and it said 31 percent of Americans get enough magnesium. If that's true, then almost 70 percent of Americans don't get enough magnesium. Are there more sources to clarify this? Is there at least a better source than the current one? Even though it seems credible, it's very hard to understand exactly what is being stated on that webpage. I'm going to tag this article accordingly.72.92.16.129 (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done a little browsing and have found this source which seems to clarify things a bit. It is a lot clearer to me than the current source, and I would like to correct the article's info based on this source, and delete the old source. I'm going to go ahead and make the changes, and remove one of the tags.72.92.16.129 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The source you found is a decent supplement, but that map is a nice link to include. Your recent source only says this about deficiency: "Data from the nationwide food consumption survey, the USDA-ARS Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII 1994-96), indicate that only about 24 percent of women between ages 40 and 69 were meeting the 1989 RDA for magnesium. The current RDA-DRI for magnesium is 40 mg higher than the 1989 RDA for that age group." The source says 32% of US citizens receive the RDA, which means that 68% do not receive it. It seems fairly straightforward, and the USDA is reliable for US statistics, although it is too bad we can't link to just the US number. The NHANES data are here. You should avoid POV words like "rare" if possible -- plus, your reasoning that magnesium deficiency is rare when it seems to be very common is inexplicable. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Magnesium deficiency seems to be rare insomuch that most people not getting the RDA of magnesium seem to have enough magnesium in their blood to not exhibit medical problems. This can happen if the RDA is overestimated, if the degree of deficiency based on RDA is small, or if nutrients are not correctly measured. RDA statistically represents the needs of 97.5% of the population, thus 97.5% of the population are non-deficient with less than the RDA, represented by a deviation from mean requirements; although Americans apparently get about 212mg on average of 420mg RDI. There's actually quite a lot of magnesium in things like fast food and sweets—the cookies from McDonalds have 40mg each—thanks in part to enriched flour, yet most nutritional catalogs don't count it; for example, various sources will list a McDonalds cheeseburger as having 0.0% Mg or 21mg (5.0%) Mg. Difficulty in measuring is the most-likely reason for a discrepancy, but that's OR. --John Moser (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is one of the sources a book by Gillian McKeith? Her scientific credentials were discredited some time ago - she purchased her doctorate - and wikipedia shouldn't be referencing such an unreliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.193.154 (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded the paragraph to show less "substantial bias"* towards the cyanobacteria hypothesis. McKeith is still a verifiable source, so we can include "she claims...", but as the paragraph states, her claims are not of much use.

*Substantial bias: a bias by the reader that because the article contains a lot of substance about a claim, it must have some worth. Also, McKeith's claim was first, exploiting the primacy effect. --Mark PEA (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Laxative

"Magnesium sulfate (Epsom salts) has been recommended as a magnesium source, but the sulfate content makes it more laxative than other soluble magnesium sources, so it must sometimes be limited in dose, due to this side effect."

This seems to imply that magnesium sulphate acts as a laxative because of the sulphate. If this were true than Magnesium Hydroxide (a notable laxative) would not be a laxative. If there is a citation that says specifically that in the case of epsom salts the laxative effect is due largely to the sulphate, then it could be put back in.Fireemblem555 (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is saying that magnesium sulphate produces a laxative effect at a lower dose than magnesium hydroxide. That would seem slightly counter-intuitive since a sulphate group has double the mass of a hydroxide group, but maybe the sulphate dissociates much easier than hydroxide? Still, this needs a reference. --Mark PEA (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It needs a reference, but is correct. Sulfate is not very well-absorbed, so acts as a laxitive on its own, for a double effect. Sodium sulfate is laxative. Other soluble magnesium salts have anions which are well-absorbed, so the magnesium ion is the predominant active laxitive in them. They can be compared to the relevent calcium or salts, which are actually consipating. SBHarris 00:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Magnesium inhibits release of neurogenic inflammatory cytokines such as Substance P

Magnesium's beneficial effects in inhibiting neurogenic release of inflammatory cytokines may help explain why magnesium deficiency is recognized to correlate with migraine and MCS by sufferers and treating physicians.

PMID 1384353

Weglicki WB, Phillips TM.

Pathobiology of magnesium deficiency: a cytokine/neurogenic inflammation hypothesis.

Am J Physiol. 1992 Sep;263(3 Pt 2):R734-7. Department of Medicine, George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20037.

During the progression of Mg deficiency in a rodent model, we have observed dramatic increases in serum levels of inflammatory cytokines [interleukin-1 (IL-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha)] after 3 wk on a Mg-deficient diet. Sequential analyses of these cytokine changes in the serum of rats revealed an initial rise at day 12, followed by a major elevation in all three cytokine levels by day 21. Of greater interest was an early peak in the serum level of the neuropeptide substance P after only 5 days on the diet. This "neuronal" tachykinin is thought to be released from neural tissues, and it is known to stimulate production of certain cytokines, including IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-alpha. In addition, there was a concomitant increase in histamine levels, which may have resulted from stimulation and degranulation of mast cells by substance P. Thus we hypothesize that the release of substance P may be the earliest pathophysiological event leading to stimulation of the inflammatory cytokines, which may then stimulate the free radical mechanisms of injury previously confirmed by our work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Skin absorption?

The makers of DermaMag claim people absorb magnesium from their proprietary skin lotion far more effectively than they absorb oral magnesium. Does skin absorb any magnesium? If so, how effectively? What forms are how absorbable? Verdant C (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's probably a bogus claim. I can find no backup for it (the solution in DermaMag is magnesium chloride). There is an experiment which seems to show magnesium absorption through the skin in humans by bathing in concentrated Epsom salt solution (magnesium sulfate) but it's not well done. In general, the evidence that much magnesium ion gets through the skin, is poor. In general, ions don't get through your skin well. If they did, soaking a day in seawater would certainly be fatal. SBHarris 07:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sea water does not contain much magnesium and makes the last point moot. However Dead Sea water is a different story and relatively contains a lot of magnesium chloride. See WP articles on same. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC) - - - - I agree.--197.79.0.1 (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

'Verdant C', when they said: "...people absorb magnesium from their proprietary skin lotion far more effectively than they absorb oral magnesium", they were probably referring to oral magnesium SUPPLEMENTS and not magnesium from food intake. Since the magnesium in food is combined with many other nutrients, you will probably find that absorption is better from food than from supplements. However magnesium chloride oils are absorbed through the skin quite effectively and work well for people with muscular aches and pains. There is some evidence that it can get directly into the bloodstream via the skin much QUICKER than any oral method. This is more often known to occur with nicotine patches on the skin and with morphine patches on the skin for pain relief. If it works with morphine and nicotine, then I am pretty sure it also works with magnesium.--197.79.0.1 (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You can be pretty sure, but you're wrong. Morphine and nicotine for such uses (lipid solubility) are uncharged alkaloids (they are always freebased for skin-use, so they ARE uncharged. When dissolved in water, morphine must be acidified so that it is charged). Uncharged freebased alkaloids get through skin okay, if put in lipid. There is no such thing as "magnesium chloride oil" for the two do not go together (think of oil and vinegar, except worse). Magnesium chloride dissolves in water, but cannot be dissolved willy-nilly in any type of lipid, for it must ionize on dissolving and it cannot ionize in lipids or hydrophobic liquids. Any company that claims it can get magnesium ion through your skin is pulling your leg. Do you not understand the idea of "nutritional scam artist"? Has the concept not so far crossed your awareness? Or perhaps you are participating in some multilevel marketing scam and so you WANT to believe this nonsense.

For the record, magnesium absorption from supplements is actually better than food, provided the supplements are of the soluble type, and not the oxide or hydroxide that rely on stomach acid to solubilize. SBHarris 20:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Magnesium bisglycinate

Information on this compound would be appreciated if anybody has information/links on the latest supplement being pushed. It's claim to fame is the least diarrhea, side effects and best bioavailability from oral supplementation. I understand the 'bis' indicates it is bonded to the magnesium twice but I am not a chemistry person. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See separate Wikipedia entry on "Magnesium glycinate."

"Bis" in this circumstance means that two amino acids - glycine - are bound to the magnesium. This is an example of the much larger class of chelated minerals, meaning minerals bound to amino acids, generally with claims for superior absorption and/or fewer adverse side effects. For magnesium bisglycinate, the theory is that if this compound is absorbed better than the other types of magnesium dietary supplements, then a smaller dose needed to have benefits, and lower likelihood of unabsorbed magnesium reaching the large intestine, where it draws water into the intestinal lumen, causing diarrhea. The known laxative effect of magnesium is the reason the UL (Tolerable Upper Intake Level) - when consumed as a supplement - is lower than the RDA.David notMD (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Citrate form has laxative effect, bisglycinate does not at the same dose. But bisglycinate does not absorb that well, taurate is better. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Dietary magnesium

Magnesium deficiency can't be treated by eating more foods containing magnesium? By the way, what are they? That's what i expected to read in the article. DyNama (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

it's the usual suspects Fish, Bran, Squash, Cocoa, seeds&nuts, just eat peanut butter or some other nutty butter (as you can buy stuff with lower saturated fats in them) Markthemac (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Food sources are listed to include fish, but not beef? 3oz raw Atlantic Salmon, 23mg Magnesium, 177kcal; 3oz raw 85% lean ground beef, 18mg Magnesium, 213kcal. Mg is a pretty abundant nutrient in general. —John Moser (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Hypomagnesemia

I'm proposing this merge because I think that these two articles would be better covered together, rather than separately. This is because:

• Causes, symptoms, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment are all the same

The only difference is that one is low levels in the acute setting and the other is low levels in a chronic setting. It would be better to cover these in the same article under a classification heading. If these are to be merged, I think that this article would be a more accurate title than hypomagnesemia, as it is technically true that a person chronically deficient in magnesium could have, in the acute setting, normal magnesium levels. Would value comments. LT95001 (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A merge could work, though there would be a risk of confusing the terminology 'hypomagnesaemia' and 'magnesium deficiency'. The specific definitions of each would need to be clearly communicated. Arripay (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, hypomagnesia should not redirect to hypomagnesemia but to magnesium deficiency (medicine), here. I will correct this so that hypomagnesia and hypomagnesemia won't be confused. Eklir (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure these are different things. The terms are more or less used interchangeably. Blood levels reflect body levels. Will look at the sources further but looking at merging. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a good source. "Magnesium deficiency is usually detected when hypomagnesemia becomes evidence".[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

U.S. RDA 320 mg/d for adult women and 420 mg/d for adult men

This article seems like an appropriate place to list the detailed RDA advice from various authorities in various countries.

It is a peculiar situation that most US and other modern westerners (at least) ingest much less Magnesium than recommended. Which raises an obvious serious issue of whether most of the population is actually at risk or suffering -- or if the level is set too high. Please add more details about the history of the RDA level-setting processes for dietary Magn, with appropriate sources.

In this case, it would be particularly apt to also include Estimated Average Requirements (EAR) numbers. The Dietary Reference Intake article currently says:

• Nutrient EAR RDA/AI UL Unit

Magnesium 330 400 350(ii) mg

(ii) The UL for magnesium represents extra intake from dietary supplements. High doses of magnesium from dietary supplements or medications often result in diarrhea that can be accompanied by nausea and abdominal cramping.[12] There is no evidence of adverse effects from the consumption of naturally occurring magnesium in foods.

-71.174.180.38 (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The magnesium values in the linked DRI table were wrong (330 and 400 is for men 19-30 but the DRI table claimed to be for a man age 44 years). Changed that. More broadly, The EAR and RDA for women ages 30 and up are 265 and 320 mg/day; for men 350 and 420 mg/day.David notMD (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)