Optimal Micronutrient Ratios - Soylent Discourse

12/12/13
Optimal Micronutrient Ratios - Soylent Discourse
DIY Soylent Optimal Micronutrient Ratios
type your search terms here
You have no notifications right now.
DIY Soylent Optimal Micronutrient Ratios

You have selected 0 posts. select all cancel selecting
160 of 160
Sintax
select +replies select
22 31 Aug Hello everyone, So I'm sure most of you know that each vitamin and mineral can influence each other and compete for absorption. The generally accepted solution to this complexity seems to be a bit of a trial and error, with blood tests used to detect any serious problem before damage done. One common line of logic is that, in the worst case, we're still better off than the standard unhealthy diet of a college student, etc. I agree with that in principle, and for the most part we still have to wait for research to find all the answers to these issues. But there are some things that we apparently do know about now, and it would be a pitty not to apply that knowledge to get a more optimal set of DRIs and ULs. I've seen some of these mentioned here on the forums and I'd like to propose we dump everything we know in one place (Unless it's already being done somewhere I couldn't find) For now, we've found this (will be updated as information is gathered): Mineral ratios Calcium : Phosphorus ratio = at least 1:320 (2.5:135 for blood content, not diet) Calcium : Magnesium ratio = from 1:115 to 2:18 Potassium : Sodium ratio = at least 2:113
discourse.soylent.me/t/optimal-micronutrient-ratios/5049/162 1/68
12/12/13
Iron : Copper ratio = from 10:1 to 17:15 Zinc : Copper ratio = from 10:1 to 15:1 Iron : Zinc ratio = no more than 2:11 (lower limit N/A?) Phytic Acid molar ratios PA : Zn = no more than 15:12 Acids -6 : -38 = from 1:1 to 2.3:111 ???-6 shouldn't exceed 4% of calories??? (debate in progress) Other Any significant presence of phytic acid (molar ratio greater than 0.6:1 wrt to Iron) will inhibit Iron absorption by 60-80%. There is likely no mitigating this. These are the implications: Phosphorus (OUT OF DATE. Based on erroneous Ca: P ratio) The DRI of 700mg seems to be a good starting point for all that follows UL should be dropped from 4000mg to 1900mg because anything more than 1900 would push your recommended minimum calcium past its upper limit. This makes the acceptable phosphorus window rather narrow. I'm finding that the closer to 700 it is, the easier everything else is to balance. So phosphorus is rather important to regulate accurately. Calcium DRI should be 1.3x Phosphorus, with a strong preference to push it to 2.5x Magnesium DRI should be 0.5x Calcium UL should be 1x Calcium Potassium DRI should be 2x Sodium (no UL) Zinc DRI should be 10x Copper UL should be 15x Copper Iron If there is any phytic acid (>10s of mg /day), the initial USDA DRI should be raised to 24mg for men, 36mg for women 3xDRI for men (only 2x for women to keep safely under the UL) based on USDA recommendations for vegetarians3 (page 332) Also, increase Vitamin C to at least 100mg / meal1. (300mg) This part may be critical for women during menstruation. DRI should be at least 10x Copper UL should be the lowest of: 17x Copper 2x Zinc (should always be higher if Zinc recommendations are followed) Phytic Acid UL should be ((Zn[mg] / 1000) / 65.4) x 15 x 660 (preferably significantly lower) Omega-3 Fatty acids DRI should be Omega-6 total / 2.3 UL should be 1x Omega-6 Omega-6 One recommendation is for an UL of ((Calorie budget * 0.04) / 9) Likely most useful if the ratio to Omega-3 cannot be met I'm making my spreadsheet's DRIs and ULs dynamically adjust with cross references. I will continue to post here as I find out more, and hopefully we'll end up with a far more accurate set of RDAs.
1Reply
12 people liked this.
Created 31 Aug Last post

12/12/13
27 Nov Posts 160 Views 2.5K Users 23 Likes 86 Links 104 40 23 14 40 23 14 12 12 11 8 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 1

12/12/13
1 1 1 1 1 1 35 examiner.com/article/balancing-the-ratio-of-calcium-to-phosphorous-your-body-a-n 27 naturalnews.com/025820_sodium_potassium_health.html 23 makesoylent.com/recipes/ians-recipe 20 nutritionj.com/content/12/1/90 15 wellnesstimes.com/articles/understanding-calcium-magnesium-ratio show all 104 links... There are 160 replies. Save reading time by displaying only the most relevant replies?
Summarize This Topic
Phytic acid: not enough of it to be an issue?8
djskinner
1 31 Aug This post covers Na:K ratios in some detail: Potassium RDA and Sodium overconsumption I had a thought. Is it possible that the Potassium RDA has been artificially inflated to compensate for the fact that most people's salt intake is too high? The theory here would be that Sodium and Potassium need to be balanced, and if you can't stop people taking too much Sodium, maybe you can at least give them more Potassium to match. I looked into it and apparently the recommendation is that you get at least twice as much P as S (currently searching for a proper source for this), and still 15 posts, last post 1 day ago, created 1 day ago, 71 views
1Reply
1 person liked this. Potassium RDA and Sodium overconsumption3
Sintax
1 31 Aug
12/12/13
Cool! We can add that. I found this14 which backs that up. Also, the 4:1 calcium:magnesium ratio appears to be a bit outdated. The current consensus appears to be somewhere between 1:13 and 2:1. I'll update the main post with this info. That makes the whole balancing act rather challenging when you consider the upper limit of magnesium from supplementation is 350mg. Add to that the fact that most magnesium rich foods appear to also be phosphorus rich, which raises the required magnesium further to keep the ratio. However, it seems1 that if you're splitting the magnesium up throughout the day and not getting a big concentrated dose all at once, then there's no problem... one of us may have to end up testing that, but it makes sense logically if magnesium "from food" is safe; we may be able to consider soylent food for that purpose.
Chris_Tanti
31 Aug Why not consider intaking these minerals at different times of the day (or alternate days) so that they do not interfere with each others' absorption? I had a mild issue of hypocalcaemia earlier this summer and I attributed it to regular intake of magnesium.
1Reply
Chris_Tanti
31 Aug Calcium absorption is also inhibited by fibre, phytates, oxalates and unabsorbed fatty acids. It's enhanced by Vitamin D, sugars and protein. Magnesium absorption is enhanced by carbohydrates (+ vitamin D) and inhibited by the same stuff that inhibits Calcium. So one could couple carbs with magnesium in the morning and calcium with protein in the evening etc
1Reply
1 person liked this. in reply to Chris_Tanti
Sintax
31 Aug Yeah, that is a supposed benefit of getting food from various sources, and perhaps it is an inevitable requirement that will become obvious once the soylent testers hit 1 year or 2 years or more. But I think it's worth trying to shoot for a simple one-stop-shop solution. Of course, if something like hypocalcaemia or some other problem like that pops up, doctors will recommend specific deviations from normal ratios of minerals to compensate; and I'm sure they'd recommend exactly what you are in that case. Hopefully someday we can rely on a soylent machine to mix the exact ratios that we personally need based on our genetics, age, weight, health, activities, time of day, etc.
12/12/13
in reply to
Chris_Tanti
Sintax
31 Aug @Chris_Tanti said: Calcium absorption is also inhibited by fibre, phytates, oxalates and unabsorbed fatty acids. It's enhanced by Vitamin D, sugars and protein. Magnesium absorption is enhanced by carbohydrates (+ vitamin D) and inhibited by the same stuff that inhibits Calcium. That's great! Do you have any numbers?
Sintax
1 31 Aug Zinc Copper Iron and Manganese2 appear to form another set of interdependent minerals1. The only numbers I can find are that the zinc-copper ratio should be between 10:1 to 15:1. From reading these, I get the impression there may be some breathing room depending on the levels of Iron and Manganese and whether or not you're close to the UL for Zinc of 40g. We need numbers for the rest if they exist. How could there not be one resource with all of this information yet?
jrowe47
31 Aug This could be a reason why whole foods are good for you because they physically separate the nutrients, so deletorious reactions simply don't happen.
1Reply
1 person liked this.
kthprog
31 Aug
12/12/13
Thank a lot! I'm going to re-post my picture here showing all nutrient interactions, too, if you don't mind.
kthprog
31 Aug In the newer DRIs the RDA for phosphorus was in fact dropped to 700mg.
kthprog
31 Aug Also, calcium, magnesium and other bulk minerals share a common metabolic pathway for uptake. So the solution of taking micros at different times is valid.
in reply to
jrowe47
kthprog
31 Aug My whole foods recipe only meets 2/4 of these recommendations, but I'd never thought of the physical separation side of it.
kthprog
31 Aug
discourse.soylent.me/t/optimal-micronutrient-ratios/5049/162
7/68
12/12/13
11izk3d.jpg1024x768 Can you figure out the interactions for the rest of these? A - indicates that the nutrient on the non-pointy side of the arrow negatively affects absorption of the nutrient on the point side of the arrow and a + represents a positive effect on uptake. EFAs are essential fatty acids. Keep in mind that these effects are probably there to maintain homeostasis, so whether or not we really need to adjust our intake to match I'm not sure. I forgot to put a + or - on the zinc -> copper one so I'm not sure what the effect is there. 2 people liked this.
Sintax
1 Sep Wow, that's incredibly thorough. Thanks! This will help direct the search for hard numbers a great deal. The zinc-copper interaction is mutually deleterious. If the ratio is higher than 15:1 in favor of zinc, then copper will be inhibited. If it's significantly less than 8:1, then copper will inhibit zinc. The only reliable source I can find states the optimal ratio is 10:1, but I've seen anecdotal claims that that is incorrect and 8:1 is actually optimal. The involvement of Iron and Manganese makes things a bit messy too... Iron will deplete zinc1 past a ratio of 2:1 in favor of Iron. I haven't found numbers on the Iron-copper relationship or the Manganese-anything relationship yet. ...the solution of taking micros at different times is valid. Absolutely. I hope I didn't give the impression I was dismissing @Chris_Tanti's point on that. What I want to know is that if we do take everything at once, what ratios would make the staggering unnecessary in general for any healthy person. Or is that even possible, considering everyone has different specific needs. An alternative to this approach would be to define a set of 3 nutrient sub-DRIs. A breakfast-lunch-dinner profile that gives you what you need in waves that have minimal negative interactions and maximum positive interactions. But that would require 3 different recipes, which I'm personally not as motivated to push for. This could be a reason why whole foods are good for you because they physically separate the nutrients, so deletorious reactions simply don't happen. Are there vitamin/mineral combinations that actually react with each other, even outside the GI tract? As I understand the problem, at least for what I've seen so far, it's not that they necessarily directly react with each other, but that the absorption occurs with the same resources in the GI tract. So whether they're physically separated or not, if they arrive together, they still compete. Hence the importance of staggering, or getting the right ratios if
12/12/13
they arrive together. 2 people liked this.
kthprog
1 Sep Yep, the problem at least with the minerals, is that they all share a common metabolic pathway for absorption. I really can't wait to see what the results of this are though. If we start with a well-established RDA like (1200mg) calcium, and build our way through the interactions to find the best ratios, we may even get a more accurate RDA for each nutrient. When I have some time in the future I'm going to create something like I have above for every common metabolic pathway in the human system. I want to create a mathematical model for 'perfect' health. 1 person liked this.
Sintax
1 Sep A quick note when researching for ratio information. There is a difference between the ideal ratios for ingestion vs the ideal ratios to be measured from parts of the body (such as hair samples4), to diagnose health issues. The body needs a 2:1 potassium:sodium ratio in our diet, but the way the body processes these minerals are different, so healthy individuals will have the inverse ratio in their hair. Try not to get them mixed up. I've almost posted bad information a couple times. The link above is easy to confuse as a treasure trove of good data. 1 person liked this.
ianproth
1 Sep I'm not sure I you already thought of this, but wouldn't the ration be messed up anyway as you are consuming it throughout the day and not in on big serving? Or is the ratio important before consumption, like just after you make it.
Sintax
12/12/13
1 Sep Thinking about ratios instead of absolute amounts is important precisely because with soylent we drink a little bit at a time throughout the day. We're only eating one thing and there is no variation between what we eat in the morning and evening. With a varied diet, it's possible to get a bunch of copper at once with no zinc, and then a bunch of zinc at once with no copper later on. In that case, there would be much less competition for GI resources, and the ratio would be less important. With a highly varied diet, a lot of potential problems of deleterious interactions get masked by the fact that the body is resilient and gets more efficient at absorbing minerals as any deficiency kicks in. As long as you mix your soylent homogenously, and assuming you actually crush up your supplements and put it into the drink itself, then however much you drink - a little bit at a time throughout the day, 3 big helpings, or all of it at once - for minerals, the ratios might even be more important than the DRIs.
in reply to
djskinner
chimonger
2 Sep NO. Potassium actually is highly necessary; most folks fail to intake enough. HOWever, it can be over-done. The amounts or RDA's of nutrients are not adequately tested. Humans are laregely deficient in all minerals, particularly magnesium, which is best tested using a red blood cell assay--testing serum magnesium is wrong. Testing in vivo levels differs from testing cadaver levels, which many levels are based on. Live levels vary depending on what "compartment" levels are tested in. Potassium can be used to compensate, to some extent, for excess salt intake. Kelp or sea veggies can provide about all a person's mineral needs, but few other foods can do that. Too much potassium can cause signs and symptoms similar to those in peple who are deficient. Good hydraton and proper nutrient intake proportions, can help many serious health conditions--like using special diets like the "LCHF" or "ketogenic" diet....Soylent is NOT that. CONSIDER: There are pretty firm Minimum RDA's for protein and for good fats. There are NO minimum RDA's for carbs. That is because your body can burn fats to provide energy, that makes energy producton more stable. It burns and stores carbs rabidly, as these are so easily burned and stored. It is preferred NOT to burn proteins to make energy to run the body. Using a diet that is high protein, and low fat, is likely the cause of so many being deficient in Vitamin D, and developing so many new cases of IBS, Chron's, etc., as well as many other ills--including the sweeping numbers of mental and emotional imbalance issues. We are designed to need to consume good fats, in quantity...Carbs are only needed if one is burning LOTS of calories fast, such as in high-intensity sports--even those carbs are not necessarily needed, if the person gets lots of good fats, instead...the body will burn them preferentially. And we really need minerals--not just some, but MANY.
2Replies
kthprog
2 Sep
12/12/13
Did you just join recently? I've only seen two of your posts so far and I've really liked both of them.
in reply to
chimonger
Sintax
2 Sep I don't understand your point. A lot of that was off topic, but you did touch on some relevant optimum ratio topics, so I hope you don't mind answering some questions I have about those: NO. Potassium actually is highly necessary Are you recommending a ratio higher than 2:1? If so, do you have any numbers or sources? All of the sources linked to the 2:1 suggestion have it as a bare minimum, with recommendations ranging from 7:1 to 13:1 to 16:1. Too much potassium can cause signs and symptoms similar to those in peple who are deficient. Are you recommending an upper level for Potassium? Do you have any numbers or sources? The amounts or RDA's of nutrients are not adequately tested. ... And we really need minerals--not just some, but MANY. Are you recommending higher DRIs than the official FDA recommendation? Do you have any numbers or sources? Good hydraton and proper nutrient intake proportions, can help many serious health conditions--like using special diets like the "LCHF" or "ketogenic" diet....Soylent is NOT that. Are you saying good hydration and proper nutrient intake proportions are not appropriate for soylent?
Sintax
2 Sep Grapeseed oil: Huge amounts of Omega 6? Nutrition As far as I understand, Rob is using grapeseed oil for his Soylent. That stuff is 70% omega-6. How is is he ever going to balance that with omega-3? Am I missing something? 12 posts, last post 20 hours ago, created 23 hours ago, 66 views
Wow, the acids need a balance too? Crazy. This3 is the best source I can find so far. It seems to imply an ideal ratio of 1:1 but only gives hard numbers for down to a 2.5:1 ratio
Grapeseed oil: Huge amounts of Omega 6?2
11/68
12/12/13
Mqrius
2 Sep Yeah they do! I actually thought that was common knowledge, but it seems not. As for ratios: Wikipedia suggests that the research isn't unanimous, suggesting different o6:o3 ratios from 4:1 to 1:4, while most people are way off with normal food, getting between 10:1 and 30:1. Then there's another complication, because o3 from flax seed oil and other plant sources is in the ALA form. Your body converts this into the essential EPA and DHA at a very low efficiency (~5%), so it's better to take EPA and DHA directly. You can get this from fish oil, like rob does, or you can grab a vegan version, sourced from algae: http://opti3omega.com/5 Now, what I don't know, is whether the ratios mentioned on wikipedia and in papers is actually referring to the ALA form, or the active forms. That's pretty relevant, since it gives a 20-fold difference in intake. 1 person liked this.
richardtkemp
2 Sep Mqrius said: I don't know, is whether the ratios mentioned on wikipedia and in papers is actually referring to the ALA form, or the active forms. I think it must be ALA, simply because how on earth would you get enough EPA/DHA to keep up with a typical omega6 intake? The way I approach it is to get as much EPA/DHA as is reasonably possible, then the rest via ALA up to a ratio somewhere around 1:1
2Replies
Mqrius
2 Sep Well, with the typical western intake, you wouldn't keep up. But with soylent, it's easy. I take 70 grams of olive oil, and 2 pills of EPA/DHA pills. Gets me around 4:1 ratio.
Food stamp friendly Soylent
richardtkemp
2 Sep
12/12/13
I'm struggling to find proper sources (in human studies at least), but several places on the web state that Phosphorous should not exceed 1.5x Calcium intake, lower is preferable. Otherwise, Calcium may be leached from the bones. Info here1, but the sources cited there don't contain the relevant info.
1Reply
in reply to
richardtkemp
Sintax
3 Sep Ok, I've got some good news4 on the ALA business: MEETING DIETARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR n3 FATTY ACIDS ... "The recommended ratio of n6 to n3 fatty acids is 2.3:1 and has been made to maximize the conversion of ALA to DHA" Specifically, they say that on a ratio of o6:o3 of 7.5:1 your conversion of ALA to DHA is 40% higher than on a ratio of 15:1. So getting that lower ratio makes the conversion more efficient, getting you even more DHA to your system. This is hard evidence that @richardtkemp's strategy is probably the best idea. Considering that, I suggest that we set the o6:o3 ratio recommendation to a range of 2.3:1 to 1:1, regardless of the source of the o3. Special thanks to @Mqrius for pointing me in the right direction on the ALA conversion issue. 2 people liked this. in reply to richardtkemp
Sintax
1 3 Sep That would be consistent with our current recommendation of the inverse ratio. My setup right now has the calcium minimum tied to the current phosphorus level to prevent this. If we can get a hard source on that, then we can basically just announce that using the current official upper limit of 4000mg for phosphorus could be outright dangerous. If anyone sees a soylent recipe with that ratio, give them a warning and a link. (My first soyent recipe had a 1:1.5 Ca : P ratio!)
richardtkemp
3 Sep
12/12/13
Phosphorus=P, Potassium=K. Did you mean P in your last line?
Sintax
3 Sep lol, oops. yes - thank you!
Sintax
4 Sep I found Iron : Copper3 ...ratios of iron to copper exceeding 20:1, which is higher than the recommended ratios of 1017:1
1Reply
Sintax
4 Sep Ca : Zn link debunked1 ...calcium does not impair zinc absorption, regardless of whether dietary phytate is low or high I've seen lots of conjecture, but no proof (in humans), so we don't have to worry about the effect of this high calcium recommendation on zinc.
in reply to
Sintax
Defender
5 Sep The full quote from that article is "More than 80% of the infant formulas examined had ratios of iron to copper exceeding 20:1, which is higher than the recommended ratios of 1017:1."
12/12/13
I read that as the ratio for infants.
in reply to
Defender
Sintax
5 Sep Ah, fair point, I probably should have addressed this when I posted that. Do you have any specific concerns about using that ratio range? If you can find a particular reason we shouldn't use it, I will remove it from our list. I don't think it's an issue, though. In short, it's the best we've got for now and I think it's a pretty sensible recommendation, because it is common knowledge that too much Iron will deplete Copper, and visa versa. Long answer: The article is using examples for "dietary supplements, infant formulas, and ready-to-eat breakfast cereals" to make the case that proper ratios are not being met to keep copper intake in line, as a general point about the food industry. That particular example is talking about infants, yes, and unfortunately that's the only point in the paper that the ideal Fe:Cu ratio is mentioned. As I understand it, the absolute amounts are the only thing that are significantly different between humans' nutritional needs at different stages of life. Since ratios are about preventing deleterious interactions between minerals - regardless of the absolute amount - then the only way the ratios would need to be different is if the fundamental biochemical processes in our GI tract change significantly as we age, or between sexes, etc. I haven't read anything in any of my searching for ratio information that makes a distinction between the needs of a male vs female, infant vs child vs adult vs elderly, pregnant vs lactating or anything else. In fact, many try to claim animal tests as sufficient evidence! I was actually pretty happy about this one because it's for humans. I've found a lot of info on the ratios we're missing, but only for animals. (The Calcium:Zinc connection, for example, appears to be a rat problem, not human) On the other hand, neither have I found any explicit assertion that the recommended ratios do not change. In fact, we all know that everybody's body is a bit different and what we need nutritionally does change with health, age and activity. So considering that we each have this unique nutritional need "fingerprint", and that there is still a ton that we don't know, this could very well be an inaccurate ratio. But if it's safe for babies, I'm not worried about using it.
in reply to
Sintax
Defender
6 Sep Well, I'm on board with this paper researching the interaction between Cu and Fe, since independently looking at RDAs won't take this specific interaction into account. But looking at what we have for RDAs (though there isn't an official value for Copper), we can see: Nonetheless, a cursory search for each one separately yields: Iron - http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/vitamins/iron.html1 Copper - http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-information/DR6022731 (no official RDA) For "babies", a ratio of 10:1 - 17:1 could very well fall within the listed values for both minerals. However for Adults, men are looking at 3:1 - 5:1, females at 6:1 - 12:1. Now, I can't 100% trust these sources (especially the mayo clinic's numbers), but it's interesting to note.
12/12/13
For what it's worth, my (adult male) soylent recipe has a 10:1 ratio, so I'm hoping that's acceptable. Haven't made it yet, though; partly because of things like this very thread.
3Replies
UK Ketogenic Soylent recipe1
ianproth
6 Sep Exactly the reason I haven't made mine yet, those dang seeds of doubt....
1Reply
in reply to
Defender
Defender
6 Sep Hey, look at that. USDA does have Fe and Cu recommendations: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/Essential_Guide/DRIEssentialGuideNutReq.pdf4 Copper
T A B L E1D i e t a r yR e f e r e n c eI n t a k e sf o rC o p p e rb y L i f eS t a g eG r o u p D R Iv a l u e s( u g / d a y ) E A R R D A A I m a l e sf e m a l e sm a l e sf e m a l e s L i f es t a g eg r o u p 0t h r o u g h6m o 2 0 0 7t h r o u g h1 2m o 2 2 0 1t h r o u g h3y 2 6 0 2 6 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 4t h r o u g h8y 3 4 0 3 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 9t h r o u g h1 3y 5 4 0 5 4 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 1 4t h r o u g h1 8y 6 8 5 6 8 5 8 9 0 8 9 0 1 9t h r o u g h3 0y 7 0 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 3 1t h r o u g h5 0y 7 0 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 5 1t h r o u g h7 0y 7 0 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 7 0 +y 7 0 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0
U L
N D N D 1 , 0 0 0 3 , 0 0 0 5 , 0 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 0
Iron
T A B L E1D i e t a r yR e f e r e n c eI n t a k e sf o rI r o nb y L i f eS t a g eG r o u p D R Iv a l u e s( m g / d a y ) E A R R D A m a l e sf e m a l e s m a l e sf e m a l e s L i f es t a g eg r o u p 0t h r o u g h6m o 7t h r o u g h1 2m o 6 . 9 6 . 9 1 1 1 1 1t h r o u g h3y 3 . 0 3 . 0 7 7 4t h r o u g h8y 4 . 1 4 . 1 1 0 1 0 9t h r o u g h1 3y 5 . 9 5 . 7 8 8 1 4t h r o u g h1 8y 7 . 7 7 . 9 1 1 1 5
A I
U L
0 . 2 7
4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 5
16/68
12/12/13
1 9t h r o u g h3 0y 3 1t h r o u g h5 0y 5 1t h r o u g h7 0y 7 0 +y 6 . 0 6 . 0 6 . 0 6 . 0 8 . 1 8 . 1 5 . 0 5 . 0 8 8 8 8

1 8 1 8 8 8 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5
So it appears that the USDA, in regards solely to the total RDA for each mineral (separately), would end up having ratios (MALES): ~1:1 for 0-6 months (Adequate Intake only) 50:1 for 6-12 months (RDA and AI) 20.5:1 for 1-3 years 22:1 for 4-8 years 11:1 for 9-13 years 12:1 for 14-18 years 9:1 for 19-70+ years (FEMALES) 17:1 for 14-18 years 20:1 for 19- 50 years 9:1 for 51-70+ years So... conclusions? 1) With slightly more certainty, it looks like 10:1 - 17:1 (as listed already) is what the USDA would like us to have. I withdraw any previous objections I had to this recommendation. 2) Don't use the same soylent formula for a grown adult as for children under 9 years old. But I'm hoping this was already understood. 2 people liked this.
Sintax
6 Sep Wow, nice work. That's really interesting to see the DRI ratios. I've been using this4 as my resource for DRIs. Particularly the top link. These are pretty complete lists, so it makes for a nice one-stop-shop. Some handy definitions: Estimated Average Requirements (EAR) Estimated to be sufficient for at least 50% of the population Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) Estimated to be sufficient for at least 97% of the population Adequate Intakes (AI) Believed to be sufficient, but not enough testing to conclude what % of the population As far as I understand, the numbers for each vitamin and mineral are determined independently, and don't necessarily take interactions into account. For example, the upper limit of copper is 10mg (10,000g), because that's when you get copper poisoning. But if you had 9,000mg of copper every day over a long period of time, I can't imagine not ending up with zinc and iron deficiencies. (Also, there's at best a ~3% chance for each vitamin and mineral that the number may not be enough for you personally! ^_^ but I digress) Anyway, although your ratio calculations made me more confident in the Fe:Cu connection, I don't think that looking at just the DRIs is enough to tell us exactly what the optimal ratios should be. Especially for the ones that we don't have explicit ratio sources on yet. The 10-17:1 ratio for Fe:Cu is for infants, but according to the DRIs for infants, you found 1:1 OR 50:1. For women, you found 20:1, but women also need 18mg of Fe vs 8 for men, so maybe women need to increase their Cu too, to prevent Fe from depleting it? Maybe their DRI is 18mg precisely because Cu depletion of Fe was a factor in their tests that they didn't account for? It's difficult for us to know. Anyway, the research is still ongoing - the Ca : P ratio seems to have been discovered recently. I'm sure more will be discovered in years to come that will help people become even more healthy and avoid diseases. But you shouldn't wait!
12/12/13
Wrt to guys' concerns: Defender said: Haven't made it yet, though; partly because of things like this very thread. ianproth said: Exactly the reason I haven't made mine yet, those dang seeds of doubt.... My soylent recipe... the one for the breakfast I'm drinking right now as I write this... doesn't meet any of the ratio requirements yet. I've got way too much phosphorus, not enough calcium, not nearly enough magnesium and a metric crap-ton of zinc. But it meets all the DRIs, and that's better than anything I have time to cook with groceries. What I think we're zeroing in on is a more strict, narrow range of DRIs that is even healthier than what the USDA suggests, but it'll never be perfect. If you're nervous, plan to have 1 or 2 meals/day instead of jumping right into all 3.
2Replies
ianproth
6 Sep Sintax said: My soylent recipe... the one for the breakfast I'm drinking right now as I write this... doesn't meet any of the ratio requirements yet. I've got way too much phosphorus, not enough calcium, not nearly enough magnesium and a metric crap-ton of zinc. But it meets all the DRIs, and that's better than anything I have time to cook with groceries. What I think we're zeroing in on is a more strict, narrow range of DRIs that is even healthier than what the USDA suggests, but it'll never be perfect. If you're nervous, plan to have 1 or 2 meals/day instead of jumping right into all 3. My recipe23 right now takes into account all of the ratios mentioned to the best that I could get them without majorly changing it around.
1Reply
Sintax
6 Sep The nutrient profile looks great. This14 is the one I'm planning to upgrade to. I can't find anything more on the ratios we're missing, so I think I'll go ahead and order what I don't have already and try it soon. Many of the ingredients are Japan-specific, so I think the spreadsheet itself is probably more valuable to everyone. I have the cells cross referenced to dynamically raise the target of a nutrient or lower the upper limits based on the ratio list. It also keeps track of the current ratios. If anyone is interested in a blank copy for their own use, let me know.
18/68
12/12/13
KennyBruse
7 Sep This is the best thread on the forum. Thank you to all contributors.
Mqrius
1 7 Sep Here's an interesting thing about the Zinc:Copper ratio: http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/zinc/#safety The major consequence of long-term consumption of excessive zinc is copper deficiency. Total zinc intakes of 60 mg/day (50 mg supplemental and 10 mg dietary zinc) have been found to result in signs of copper deficiency. Copper deficiency has also been reported following chronic use of excessive amounts of zinc-containing denture creams (>2 tubes per week containing 17-34 mg/g of zinc; (100)). In order to prevent copper deficiency, the U.S. Food and Nutrition Board set the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for adults at 40 mg/day, including dietary and supplemental zinc (5). The reference goes to http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309072794 Edit: This one is the same, but more readable as a PDF: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI//DRI_Vitamin_A/442-501_150.pdf So that means you would probably be fine with taking more than the UL of Zinc, as long as you have enough Copper to compensate, no? It's interesting to be aware of these leniencies; most of the stuff we found in this thread have made the accepted ranges more restricted, but this increases it a little I'm now less worried about increasing my Zinc to match up my 300% iron and copper ratios.
Mqrius
7 Sep I'm battling the proper ratios into my recipe right now. I think I've mostly got it down -- I'm only slightly worried that my magnesium is at ~1000 mg, but if I get diarrhea, I guess I'll notice. Here's what I got:
12/12/13
Phosphorous: 846 mg -- can't bring this down, it's included in the macronutrients I take. Calcium: 1866 mg -- Mostly supplement Magnesium: 1021 mg -- Mostly supplement Potassium: 5.24 g -- Mostly coming from 20g potassium gluconate, and some from Lays classic potato chips (it's a good source of potassium actually, and tasty! And you can keep the salt out of your drink.) Sodium: 1.52 g -- Soy protein, Losalt, potato chips The next ones are all around 300% RDA Iron: 27 mg -- Soy protein, multivit Copper: 2.67 mg -- Multivit, macros Zinc: 37 mg -- Multivit, macros, supplement Fatty acids: Canola oil, flax seed oil, omega3 supplements This gives the ratios:
R a t i o s C a l c i u m : P h o s p h o r u s C a l c i u m : M a g n e s i u m P o t a s s i u m : S o d i u m I r o n : C o p p e r Z i n c : C o p p e r I r o n : Z i n c O m e g a 6 : O m e g a 3 m i n 2 . 5 i s h 1 . 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 m a x 2 . 5 i s h 2 9 , 9 9 9 1 7 1 5 2 2 . 3 A c c e p t e d T R U E T R U E T R U E F A L S E T R U E T R U E T R U E A c t u a l 2 . 2 1 1 . 8 3 3 . 4 6 9 . 9 8 ( C l o s ee n o u g h: P ) 1 3 . 9 0 0 . 7 2 1 . 6 0
Interestingly, most things I needed to supplement to reach proper ratios (calcium, magnesium, zinc) I found combined in one supplement in a local store (HEMA)3. It's meant to take 3 per day, but I'll have to be taking 6. I think I'll split it into two batches. Edit: Linkey to my recipe that tends to be in flux: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc? key=0Aginfn56EnJmdGtwOUt5NGZzQmxfb2NKLUpGNEcydEE#gid=08 3 people liked this. DIY Recipe (Vegan), requesting second opinions!1
alfredbester
7 Sep Disclaimer: I don't know much about nutrition, biology, or chemistry and am learning as I can. I think you can't discuss calcium, iron, and in particular zinc ratios to other micronutrients without talking about phytic acid. If you search around the forum, there are a few discussion about it. Phytic acid binds to those minerals and forms an insoluble precipitate that is poorly absorbed. Since phytic acid doesn't affect bioavailability of micronutrients equally, I think it should be taken into account when discussing ratios. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytic_acid#Food_science4 I don't claim to have a lot of answers here, but I wanted to bring it up for discussion in relevance to this great ratio discussion. As an example, @Sintax posted a recipe and it estimates it contains 2.23 g of phytic acid a day. That is well above anything I've read to be an estimated acceptable amount. Wouldn't this have a strong effect on the e.g. zinc:copper ratio? Is that ratio taking into account some average daily intake of phytic acid already? From limited data, this is far above average. (Data is somewhere in that article linked to on nih.gov I think) Like others, I haven't found a lot of data. I think it's safe to say it's generally agreed that you should have some phytic acid in your diet but not too much. It's not like cholesterol which isn't needed in your diet. It does have a role in your body's processes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36115503 (Can anyone find the full text for free?) http://www.westonaprice.org/food-features/living-with-phytic-acid1 (This guy thinks anything under 0.8 g a day is probably okay for most) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytase (It looks like it's added to animal feed and it interacts with phytic acid. I don't understand much beyond that.)
12/12/13
1Reply
jrowe47
7 Sep A Monte Carlo simulation of the system would be appropriate to solve for the various ratios. Normally, foods aren't suitable to this solution because too many variables aren't known. In this case, most variables are known, so once modeled, you can sample wide ranges of variables to approximate the best solution. I'd like to point out, however, that the things that can't be modeled are still pretty important - individual genetics and physiology determine the amounts of stomach acids, enzymes, and other digestive catalysts. Gut bacteria also play an important role that can cause the simulation to vary widely from one person to the next. These factors mean that 100% perfect nutrition for all individuals is not possible with a single formulation. 100% perfect nutrition for an individual would require taking into account all those dynamic variables. The best, and only plausible solution, would be to test the outcome and adjust accordingly. Digestive processes, after a certain point, should be left as a black box, because of the intrusive and general pain in the ass nature of the tests required. The cool thing is, though, all of the calculations being done to solve up to the point of intrusive testing are fill-in-the-blank type formulas. Great work so far in the thread! 1 person liked this.
Sintax
8 Sep So this thread by @nwthomas is a great place to start if you're worried about the phytic acid problem. My take on it is that there just isn't enough real verified information to make any conclusions one way or the other. The conversation is made quite difficult by the cacophony of unscientific vegetarian/vegan/paleo anecdotal claims from people who ran into this problem long before us. People get understandably nervous about the idea that something in their food is leeching nutrients, when they've gone to so much unconventional trouble to eat healthily. Most of what I've read has been from people who are nervous and don't have any real data to base anything on, so they just talk about mitigation techniques without looking at whether mitigation is necessary nor not. Unfortunately, that's probably going to have to be our solution as well, although we do know some things. Zinc, for example, is supposedly the most phytophillic (if that's not a word, it should be ^_^) nutrient. According to the USDA (page 407), you can maintain moderate bioavailability with a molar ratio of phytic acid to zinc of 5:1 to 15:1. More than 15:1 and you end up with problems, but even then only when you're close to the required minimum. Since Zinc is both the most sensitive to phytic acid and has the 2nd lowest DRI, above Copper, I figure keeping the ratio below 15:1, which isn't very hard at all, should be good enough. [(PA grams / 660) / (Zn grams / 65.4)]. I use rye because it has the highest amount of phytase among grains, which supposedly neutralizes phytic acid, but I can't find good numbers on that reaction either. alfredbester said: I think you can't discuss calcium, iron, and in particular zinc ratios to other micronutrients without talking about phytic acid. I wish we could, but I don't know how we can talk about it, honestly. There is no data to suggest how much of one mineral over another is neutralized by PA. That paper also states: "To date, a useful algorithm for establishing dietary zinc requirements based on the presence of other nutrients and food components has not been established, and much information is still needed to develop one that can predict zinc bioavailability"
12/12/13
Certainly even at a ratio of 5:1, there's some leeching happening, but how much? If we assume it leeches from all nutrients equally, then it won't effect the ratios. We know it doesn't necessarily do that, but we don't have any numbers, so what else can we do? This goes back to just being confident that we're more healthy than we would be otherwise anyway and just accepting that until there's hard data to act on. 1 person liked this. Phytic acid: not enough of it to be an issue?1
alfredbester
8 Sep Thanks for the nice response! As probably mentioned, in the end you can always get blood tests to see where you're at. 1 person liked this. Soylent Macronutrient Overview
Sintax
8 Sep I may have spoken too soon, actually. Zn may not be an issue, but Fe is worth a second look. Lets move the phytic acid discussion here, though.
Phytic acid: not enough of it to be an issue?
richardtkemp
8 Sep Excerpt from "The Perfect Health Diet": Peroxidizability is zero for saturated fats and almost zero for monounsaturated fats, but high among polyunsaturated fats. Lipid peroxidation is extremely dangerous, for two reasons: It is a cascading process; as in an avalanche, peroxidation of one PUFA leads to peroxidation of many more. Peroxidation of PUFA generates highly toxic compounds, such as aldehydes, which mutate DNA, oxidize LDL, and turn proteins into advanced lipoxidation end products (ALEs). Due to the abundance of PUFA in the body, their extreme fragility, and the highly toxic nature of their peroxidation products, PUFA peroxidation is a central factor affecting health and longevity. Peroxidative damage to mitochondria causes serious health problems: Damage to mitochondria in skeletal musclethe chief disposal organ for excess omega-6 fatsleads to rapid fatigue and decreased physical endurance. These in turn lead to reduced physical activity and contribute to obesity.
12/12/13
Damage to liver mitochondria leads to liver disease. Peroxidative damage to LDL particles creates oxidized LDL, a major factor in atherosclerosis. The rate of lipid peroxidation appears to be a dominant factor controlling longevity in animals. The more PUFA animals have in their membranes, the shorter their life span. Here is how the peroxidation index of membranes relates to life span across a number of animal species: [[ graph ]] The lower the peroxidation index, the longer the maximum life span. If PUFA are so dangerous, why do our bodies keep them around? There are two main reasons: Some biological processes function best in flexible PUFA-rich membranes. Saturated fats, which lack carbon double bonds, are rigid, which is why beef fat (which is full of saturated fat) is white and solid at room temperature. PUFA bend and twist at their double bonds and are liquid, flexible, and slippery. (Next time you have fresh salmon, get some of the oil on your hands and feel how slippery it is.) Neurons and retinal cells, in particular, need PUFA-rich membranes. Cold-water fish such as salmon and arctic char have a lot of PUFA in order to maintain flexible membranes at cold body temperatures. The body uses the fragility of highly unsaturated fatty acids (HUFA)PUFA with four or more double bondsto sense when something is awry. For instance, infections and immune activity generate oxidative stress, and the body uses oxidated HUFA to sense and regulate the local level of oxidative stress. Oxidation of omega-6 HUFA detects infections and stimulates an inflammatory immune response; oxidation of omega-3 HUFA detects excessive inflammation and tamps it down. The body carefully regulates the amount of HUFA in membranes to preserve the integrity of this signaling. SCIENCE OF THE PHD (Perfect Health Diet) Life Span Extension with a PUFA-Restricted Diet No other factor accounts for variations in life span as well as the rate of lipid peroxidation. A study of the reasons why rats live at most five years, while pigeons live up to thirty-five years, concluded: The only substantial and consistent difference that we have observed between rats and pigeons is their membrane fatty acid composition, with rats having membranes that are more susceptible to damage. Diet can modify the peroxidation index. In mice, calorie restriction extends life span and lowers the peroxidation index. The reduction in peroxidation index and the increase in life span exactly track the interspecies relationship. This is exciting, because it suggests that dietary interventions that reduce polyunsaturated fat content of membranes can extend human life span. The Peak Health Range for Omega-6 Fats As we did with carbs, well let biology guide us to the optimal intake. Youll recall that when carb intake is too low, the body manufactures glucose from protein; when carb intake is too high, the body converts carbs to fat. The neutral carb intake, where the body neither manufactures nor destroys glucose, is the optimal carb intake. Something similar happens with PUFA. Omega-6 and omega-3 fats cannot be manufactured, but the body can regulate PUFA abundance in tissue by controlling whether they are burned for energy and can regulate HUFA levels in membranes by controlling whether PUFA are lengthened and desaturated into HUFA. Omega-6 Benefits End: The Bottom of the Peak Health Range On omega-6-deficient diets, omega-6 fats are conserved and rarely oxidized for energy. Reduced oxidation of omega-6 fats indicates that dietary omega-6 intake is too low. Another sign of PUFA deficiency is a failure of the body to achieve optimal levels of HUFA in membranes. This failure to achieve optimal HUFA levels causes dysregulation of immune function and generates the clinical symptoms of omega-6 or omega-3 deficiency. When dietary PUFA intake increases from zero, PUFA are rapidly converted to membrane HUFA until the membrane HUFA levels reach their optimum. From that point, membrane HUFA levels plateau; cells resist adding more HUFA to their membranes. Additional dietary PUFA are burned for energy. Only a small amount of dietary PUFA is necessary to prevent a deficiency: Judged by the dietary omega-6 intake at which tissue levels of arachidonic acid (an omega-6 HUFA) plateau, omega-6 deficiencies are eliminated by 1 to 2 percent of calories as omega-6 fats if the diet has no omega-3 fats and by just 0.3 percent of calories as omega-6 fats if the diet has over 1 percent omega-3 fats. Thus, a little omega-3 fat in the diet reduces the requirement for omega-6 fat. Omega-3 fat deficiency can be relieved, bringing DHA in the liver to normal levels, by eating as little as 0.2 percent of calories as omega-3 fats. Thus, the peak health range for PUFA can be entered by consuming as little as 1 percent of energy as PUFA (0.5 percent each of omega-6 and omega-3). Even on unbalanced diets, 2 percent of energy as PUFA will achieve optimal membrane HUFA levels. Omega-6 fats constitute 2 percent or more of most natural foods, so on plant-and-animal-food diets it is impossible to become deficient in omega-6 fats, unless some medical condition such as cystic fibrosis prevents fat digestion. Absolute omega-3 deficiencies are also rare.
12/12/13
Although deficiency of omega-6 fats in general is almost impossible, it is possible to achieve a deficiency of omega-6 HUFA, such as arachidonic acid, under oxidative stress. High levels of immune activity generate oxidative stress, and if the diet is deficient in antioxidants, depletion of AA may follow, generating classic omega-6 deficiency symptoms such as eczema. Omega-6 Toxicity: The Upper End of the Peak Health Range As omega-6 intake increases above optimal levels, the body begins to preferentially oxidize omega-6 fats ahead of other fats. This is an effort to dispose of excess omega-6. On nearly all modern diets, omega-6 fats are preferentially oxidized. An ingested omega-6 fatty acid is three times more likely to be burned for energy than an ingested saturated fatty acid. Moreover, omega-6 fats are not completely oxidized to carbon dioxide and water; rather, most omega-6 fats are partially oxidized and then reassembled into cholesterol and saturated fat. This increases the number of omega-6 fats that can be disposed within the limits to mitochondrial energy production and transforms the dangerous and useless omega-6 fatty acids into safer and more useful cholesterol and saturated fatty acids. The crossover pointthe natural intake level at which omega-6 fats are equally likely as saturated and monounsaturated fats to be burned for energyis not known, but it probably occurs with not more than 3 percent of energy as PUFA. Looking instead at HUFA levels in tissue, intake of 1 to 4 percent of calories as omega-6 fats enables the body to optimize HUFA ratios. However, when omega-6 intake exceeds 4 percent of energy, tissue levels of omega-6 DGLA and omega-3 EPA are suppressed. DGLA is a long-chain omega-6 fat, but one that moderates the inflammatory effects of AA. Due to this effect, omega-6 consumption above 4 percent of energy increases AA-to-DGLA and AA-to-EPA ratios with inflammatory effects. A number of toxicity effects appear with omega-6 intake above 4 percent of calories. This omega-6 intake has been shown to reduce EPA and DHA levels in pregnant mothers. In piglets, 1.2 percent omega-6 consumption with adequate omega-3 leads to healthy brain development, but increasing omega-6 intake to 10.7 percent of calories deprives brains of DHA and compromises neurodevelopment. Four percent of calories as omega-6 fats is the threshold of health impairment.Further problems appear when omega-6 fat intake reaches 6 percent of calories. At this intake level, oxidation cant remove the omega-6 fats fast enough, and they start to build up in the body, especially in adipose tissue. Accumulation of omega-6 fats in adipose tissue is observed in clinical trials. In the Finnish Mental Hospital Study, over four years on a diet rich in soybean oil, participants omega-6 fats rose from 10.2 percent of adipose tissue fats to 32.4 percent. In the Los Angeles Veterans Administration Study, on a diet that was 15 percent omega-6 by calories, participants adipose tissue omega-6 levels rose from 10 percent at the start of the study to 33.7 percent over a five-year period. A similar accumulation of omega-6 in adipose tissue has occurred in Americans over the last fifty years, according to data assembled by Stephan Guyenet of the University of Washington. Heres how it looks: [[ graph ]] The circles mark the percentage of body fat that is linoleic acid (the major omega-6 fat); the crosses mark the fraction of 18- to 29-year-olds who are obese. The obesity epidemic began at the same time, or a few years after, omega-6 fats began accumulating in Americans bodies. Americans currently obtain 9 percent of calories as omega-6 fats, their adipose fats are 23.4 percent omega-6, and fully a quarter of 18- to 29-year-olds are obese. Back in 1961, omega-6 fats made up 5.8 percent of the diet, adipose fats were about 9 percent omega-6, and obesity was rare. It appears that when dietary omega-6 intake exceeds 6 percent of energy, omega-6 fats start to accumulate in adipose tissue, and obesity often follows. Its a safe bet that 6 percent of energy as omega-6 fats is far above the peak health range. Health Effects of Omega-6 Toxicity Americans are now getting 9 percent of their energy as omega-6 fats, and toxicity begins at 4 percent of energy; so we ought to be able to see negative effects from this excess. And we do. As a result of their excessive intake of omega-6 fats, Americans are experiencing elevated rates of liver disease, atherosclerosis, obesity, allergies and asthma, mental illness, bowel disorders, and cancer, not to mention elevated mortality rates. Lets look at some of the evidence. Liver Disease Caused by High-PUFA Diets Polyunsaturated fatsboth omega-6 and omega-3readily produce liver disease when eaten in conjunction with fructose or alcohol, which increase oxidative stress in the liver. High PUFA intake (say, from soybean oil or corn oil) is a prerequisite for liver disease, while low-PUFA diets (say, with coconut oil or butter) prevent liver disease. Here is a sampling of studies in which PUFA destroyed and SaFA rescued the health of lab animals livers: Researchers induced fatty liver disease in mice by feeding diets deficient in key nutrients. One diet provided 34 percent of calories as corn oil, the other as coconut oil. (Corn oil is 57 percent omega-6 PUFA, while coconut oil is 2 percent omega-6 PUFA and 92 percent SaFA.) The mice fed corn oil had severe liver damage, but histological scores demonstrated significantly less steatosis, inflammation and necrosis in SaFA-fed mice of all mouse strains. Researchers induced liver disease by feeding mice a combination of alcohol and omega-3-rich fish oil. They then stopped the alcohol and split the mice into two groups, one fed fish oil plus glucose, the other SaFA-rich palm oil plus glucose. Livers of the fish oil group failed to recover, but the palm oil group showed near normalization. The researchers hailed SaFA as a novel treatment for liver disease. A study compared a high-carb corn oil diet (62 percent of calories as carbs, 21 percent as corn oil, 17 percent as protein) with low-carb coconut oil or butter diets (17 percent of calories as carbs, 71 percent as coconut oil or butter, 12 percent as protein). Mice eating the coconut oil and butter
12/12/13
diets maintained healthy livers despite nutrient deficiencies that normally induce liver disease, while mice on the high-carb corn oil diet developed severe disease. Scientists induced liver disease in mice by feeding alcohol plus corn oil. They then substituted a saturated fatrich mix based on beef tallow and coconut oil for 20 percent, 45 percent, and 67 percent of the corn oil. The more saturated fat, the healthier the liver. Mice fed 27.5 percent of calories as alcohol developed severe liver disease and metabolic syndrome when given a corn oil diet, but no disease at all when given a SaFA-rich cocoa butter diet. (the first line of this paper reads, the protective effect of dietary saturated fatty acids against the development of alcoholic liver disease has long been knownyet somehow this knowledge has eluded many nutritionists.) It goes on..... But I'm getting bored of copying this in. You could probably find a PDF of this somewhere online if you searched...
4Replies
1 person liked this. Canola Oil is Liquid Death Here's my three source recipe :) Canola Oil as Fat Source
Sintax
9 Sep O_O ...wow. It's not a ratio, but it's good to know. So, -6 UL = (calorie budget * 0.04) / 9 Sound good?
richardtkemp
9 Sep Sintax said: -6 UL = (calorie budget * 0.04) / 9 Yeah, that's what I'm going with. It's really low though..
Mqrius
2 9 Sep
12/12/13
richardtkemp said: Saturated fats, which lack carbon double bonds, are rigid, which is why beef fat (which is full of saturated fat) is white and solid at room temperature. PUFA bend and twist at their double bonds and are liquid, flexible, and slippery. Errr, single bonds are very flexible, whereas double bonds not at all. The solidity at room temperature has to do with the melting temperature, and has nothing to do with the "rigidness" of a single molecule. richardtkemp said: A number of toxicity effects appear with omega-6 intake above 4 percent of calories. This omega-6 intake has been shown to reduce EPA and DHA levels in pregnant mothers. In piglets, 1.2 percent omega-6 consumption with adequate omega-3 leads to healthy brain development, but increasing omega-6 intake to 10.7 percent of calories deprives brains of DHA and compromises neurodevelopment. Omega 6 competes with Omega 3 for conversion into useful forms. If there's too much Omega 6, then Omega 3 in the form of ALA can't be converted to EPA and DHA, leading to the effects he described. However, if you have EPA+DHA supplements in your food, plus enough Omega 3 to keep the O6 : O3 ratio correct, this competition is not an issue. Using 40 grams of Canola Oil and 20 grams of Flax Seed Oil, plus an EPA+DHA supplement, gets you a 1:1 ratio of O6 : O3. richardtkemp said: However, when omega-6 intake exceeds 4 percent of energy, tissue levels of omega-6 DGLA and omega-3 EPA are suppressed. As described above, taking direct EPA means there will be enough EPA. This is more of an issue of Ratio than of absolute Omega 6 amounts. As for the DGLA, I don't know about that one. DGLA is made from GLA, which is made from Omega 6. If what he says is true, then this is still an issue. richardtkemp said: The circles mark the percentage of body fat that is linoleic acid (the major omega-6 fat); the crosses mark the fraction of 18- to 29year-olds who are obese. The obesity epidemic began at the same time, or a few years after, omega-6 fats began accumulating in Americans bodies. Correlation vs Causation error. When you eat healthy, you don't get obese. Healthy means you don't eat too much in general, and specifically not too much fat. Just because obese people have a lot of omega 6 in their body fat doesn't prove that omega 6 causes obesity. It's more likely that people have started to eat badly due to culture which results in a) obesity, and b) a bad omega 6 to omega 3 ratio. richardtkemp said: Researchers induced fatty liver disease in mice by feeding diets deficient in key nutrients. One diet provided 34 percent of calories as corn oil, the other as coconut oil. (Corn oil is 57 percent omega-6 PUFA, while coconut oil is 2 percent omega-6 PUFA and 92 percent SaFA.) The mice fed corn oil had severe liver damage, but histological scores demonstrated significantly less steatosis, inflammation and necrosis in SaFA-fed mice of all mouse strains. There's too many other factors which haven't been mentioned here. Deficient in which key nutrients? Where those maybe supplied by coconut oil but not by corn oil? Or perhaps omega 6 is only bad if you get no saturated fat at all. I strongly suggest not to accept his conclusion until you see the paper itself in a peer-reviewed journal, and check what the researchers themselves concluded. I'm bothered that he simply says "research has shown". Does he list his sources in the book? The conclusions he draws are sometimes too simplistic - they remind me of news media looking at a research paper, skimming it, and then writing a headline that claims something that's not at all said in the paper. I do believe he is actually trying to be rigorous, but I feel he tends to fall for confirmation bias. All in all, I have to conclude these points: The points brought up by the book are serious, and are worth considering The points brought up can't be taken at face value. There's a different guideline for PUFAs that cites its sources better, which puts the limit on 10%. Note that eskimos on a low carb diet probably got a huge amount of PUFAs, but fish oil is 20% omega 3 and only 1% omega 6. Most of his arguments are against omega 6, so this might still make sense. I'll see if I can reduce my Omega 6 intake. I don't feel bringing it down would hurt , so it's a form of Pascal's wager.
12/12/13
3Replies
spryte
9 Sep This article6 might be of some interest to the discussion of omega 6/omega 3.
1Reply
1 person liked this. in reply to Mqrius
richardtkemp
9 Sep Plenty of excellent points, I also was a bit suspicious about some of the arguments made. There are actually plenty of sources cited, I will aim to post them up this evening. 1 person liked this.
Mqrius
1 9 Sep Cool, I'm glad we're doing a discussion and not a debate (got slightly worried ^_^) For people browsing through this thread, note also the post I made here, which summarizes the final report of the expert panel of Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) It seems to be fairly well-researched and referenced, but for this particular question they don't have a lot of research to go on. Mqrius said: I'm currently using canola oil, flax seed oil and EPA+DHA supplements, and I'm getting roughly 11% of my energy from PUFAs ( http://discourse.soylent.me/t/diy-recipe-vegan-requesting-second-opinions/4700/27 ) If you're going Ketonic then it's probably unavoidable. But a ketonic diet is disregarding a number of guidelines anyway, so maybe it would be fine. It depends on the reason why getting energy from PUFA is bad. I've got a somewhat more reliable link stating a maximum of 10% of the energ
1Reply
Grapeseed oil: Huge amounts of Omega 6? in reply to spryte

27/68
12/12/13
Mqrius
9 Sep
Oh man, I bet GLA supplements are going to be hard to come by body synthesize this one!
I would add some if I could find some, but I guess I'll have to let my
spryte
9 Sep There are actually several GLA supplements on the market. I'm having a very difficult time though in determining just how much is necessary. So much of the research being done has been focused on diets that are already ridiculously high in Omega 6, so there's very little info on a baseline. I'm still pretty confused about the whole issue, so it's difficult to say where to set limits. All the supplements contain LA, GLA and...I forget the name, but Omega 9? I think I'm going with a 1:1 ratio for omega 6/3 between the omega 6 found in my buckwheat, a GLA supplement and fish oil. I was interested in the GLA specifically because I'm trying to make my recipe as anti-inflammatory as possible to help me heal from some health issues. This3 was the cheapest supplement I have found to date with the highest mg of GLA.
Mqrius
9 Sep Oh I see! (The last one you mentioned, omega 9, is oleic acid.) I do kind of think that getting a GLA supplement is not really necessary if you get proper amounts of Omega 3 and 6 though... Eh, I'll think about it
(Also, I don't like that one because it has gelatin
Teseracto
9 Sep
12/12/13
richardtkemp said: Excerpt from "The Perfect Health Diet": (...) My impression is that the author is being too simplistic: too much omega-6 in isolation is bad, ditto for omega-3. These are the effects of high omega-6/adequate omega-3 diets. They are because of the high amount of omega-6, or of the unbalanced ratio? He says later: The Peak Health Range for Omega-3 Fats It is diffcult to identify the omega-3 intake at which toxicity begins, because high omega-3 intake is a partial antidote to omega-6 toxicity. Most people consume far too much omega-6. For them, a high omega-3 intake may be toxic and yet beneficial because it relieves omega-6 toxicity. It this case the omega-3 continues to be toxic? Maybe omega-6 mitigates the omega-3 toxicity in a similar way omega-3 mitigates the omega-6 toxicity. Considering the importance of their ratio this might be the case. Regarding the studies on mice, the ones fed high-PUFA diets have a very unbalanced O-6/O-3 ratios. Four of them use corn oil (high in omega-6), and the other fish oil (high in omega-3). Maybe this unbalance is the cause of liver damage (or lack of recovery), and not the high PUFA fats by themselves. Or most probably, the combination of both. Mqrius said: Note that eskimos on a low carb diet probably got a huge amount of PUFAs, but fish oil is 20% omega 3, and only 1% omega 6. Most of his arguments are against omega 6, so this might still make sense. He says similar things about omega-3 a little later in the book, so the eskimos should be suffering of PUFA toxicity too. However, probably most of the research on PUFA's toxicity assumes a high-carb modern diet. A very low-carb ketogenic diet burns primarily fats, and seems plausible that this fact allows a more easy disposal of the excessive amount of PUFAs. Just an hypothesis.
1Reply
Mqrius
9 Sep I agree with most of what you said. I just want to note that it's not impossible that adding so-called "toxic levels" of omega-3 would improve someone's health by restoring the balance, while still doing damage in other areas.
Teseracto
9 Sep Of course, high amounts of omega 6 and 3 surely is not the healthiest. But the recommended 4% max of calories from omega 6 assumes a too high ratio. If they are balanced the safe limit could be higher. How much? I dont know. Same can be applied to omega 3.
12/12/13
alfredbester
9 Sep Teseracto said: But the recommended 4% max of calories from omega 6 assumes a too high ratio. Why do you say that? It's does not seem too crazy to me. With a 2000 kcal diet, 4% is 80 kcal, which is roughly 8.9g/day 6 assuming the average 9kcal/gram fat calorie estimation. Max safe 3 a day is possibly maybe ( that's 6.9g/day 6. It's a supposed upper safe limit anyways. ) 3g3. That's a ~2.97 6:3 ratio at worst . Force the ratio to 2.3 and
I'm looking at getting near those ranges erring on the lower side for me using a combination of olive, macadamia, and krill oil. Macadamia oil is expensive compared to most other oils, but it has an interesting profile, especially if you want to follow the "limit saturated fats" route and keep 6 down. I'm still figuring it out for me. I'm going to health me up so super hard... I hope. http://www.nutritiongeeks.com/macadamia-nut-oil-now-16/macadamia-nut-oil-now.html2 http://www.brenntagspecialties.com/en/downloads/Products/Personal_care/Textron/PDS_MACADAMIA_NUT_OIL_ORGANIC_TX008172.pdf1 (Second one doesn't explicitly say it's food grade, but I've found solid nutrition data hard to find for this oil.) 1 person liked this. Macadamia Nut Oil
Teseracto
9 Sep alfredbester said: Why do you say that? Well, the analisis focuses on the consumtion of high amounts of omega-6, not stating the amount of omega-3. However one of the effects is the lowered concentrations of EPA and DHA, which implies a relatively low amount of omega-3 to omega-6. 1 person liked this.
Sintax
9 Sep First of all, we probably ought to try to scrounge up the pdf or a corroborating source. This study does appear to have ignored that balancing Omega 6 with 3 may reduce or eliminate any DHA-related problems. However, the following seemed like new problems not mentioned before:
12/12/13
richardtkemp said: Polyunsaturated fatsboth omega-6 and omega-3readily produce liver disease when eaten in conjunction with fructose or alcohol, which increase oxidative stress in the liver. richardtkemp said: Further problems appear when omega-6 fat intake reaches 6 percent of calories. At this intake level, oxidation cant remove the omega-6 fats fast enough, and they start to build up in the body, especially in adipose tissue. ... and obesity often follows. Its a safe bet that 6 percent of energy as omega-6 fats is far above the peak health range. Now, language like "It's a safe bet" doesn't exactly give me great confidence in the source. @Mqrius pointed out the correlation causation issue with obesity (plus, if we're regulating calories, body fat will decrease anyway). However, I believe our goal is to err on the side of caution. They found health issues with high omega-6; that they didn't factor in the o6:o3 ratio means we don't know how the results would have been different with higher o3. It's no problem for me personally, because I'm already sitting at 2.5% of energy from Omega-6. If anyone is already drinking DIY soylent with >6% of calories from Omega-6, it may be worth thinking about ways to reduce it, or helping to find more information on the subject. But the problems are supposedly long term, so it's nothing to fret over. Mqrius said: Cool, I'm glad we're doing a discussion and not a debate (got slightly worried ^_^) Nothing wrong with a debate!! ^_^ May the debate rage on until someone finds a source unto which no hole can be found to poke!
1Reply
Mqrius
2 9 Sep I searched a bit, but couldn't find any bad effects of a high omega-9 intake -- but that's not a thing that happens very often, so there's little info in general. I checked my recipe, and if I want to stay under 4% calorie intake from PUFAs, I'll have to make sure I get practically no O6 at all from my oils. I'm getting some 5 grams from macro sources (and from the lays classic I'd like to keep in there. Sunflower oil, unfortunately.). Using 32 grams of Macadamia oil and 5 grams of flax seed oil gets me 4.43% calorie intake from PUFAs, and a decent 1.6:1 ratio of o6 to o3. Note that the model I currently assign the highest probability to is (although I'm still pretty uncertain): If you don't watch your o6:o3 ratio, don't go higher than 4% in PUFA. If you watch your ratio and take EPA+DHA, you can go higher, say 8% or so. If you also take GLA, you can probably push into the 10s without health problems. Does anyone know a good, cheap macadamia oil source? Cheapest I've found is 10 for 500 mL. There's also the problem that many sources are for cosmetics, and I don't know if they're food-grade. Edit: Like this one: 12.7 per Litre if you buy a gallon (~4 Litre), but it's a "carrier oil", meant for diluting "essential massage oils" and such. http://www.ebay.com/itm/100-Pure-Carrier-Oils-Cold-Pressed-FREE-SHIPPING-/220882518691? pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&var=&hash=item336d9fc2a3 It's also in the US anyway. Oh good, Macadamia oil apparently has a shelf life of 3 years, unrefrigerated1. May depend on the manufacturer though. Sintax said:
31/68
12/12/13
Nothing wrong with a debate!! ^_^ May the debate rage on until someone finds a source unto which no hole can be found to poke! This6 link (paragraph 3) explains why I much, much prefer a discussion over a debate. We're trying to find out the truth here, not trying to win. It works much better if we can consider and agree with some of the other's points without that feeling like losing. Anyway, here's an interesting tidbit: In extremely large doses, omega-3s can increase the amount of time it takes for blood to clot a potential danger for people taking blood-thinners or those with clotting problems. Otherwise, it's hard to reach an upper limit, Calder says. People in arthritis studies take 3.5 grams of omega-3s, or nine standard fish oil pills, every day for up to a year without any problems. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/26/health/la-he-omega-3s-how-much-201004262 That's a lot of omega-3, apparently without any liver problems. The source is apparently Philip Calder, a researcher at the university of South Hampton. "His research focuses on understanding the influence of dietary fatty acids on aspects on cell function and human health, in particular in relation to cardiovascular disease, inflammation and immunity." We should write him, ask for an opinion. I'm serious. 2 people liked this.
Sintax
9 Sep Mqrius said: We should write him, ask for an opinion. I'm serious. http://www.southampton.ac.uk/medicine/about/staff/pcc.page#contact1 Only one of us should. Who would like to?
Mqrius
9 Sep We can write an email together here in the thread, and when we agree, one of us sends it? I should go to sleep now though, so I'll be out for a few hours. 1 person liked this.
Mqrius
32/68
12/12/13
8 10 Sep Allrightey, first off, on the topic of Macadamia Oil: I contacted a few bulk suppliers yesterday, and they've told me that while their product is often used in cosmetics, it's perfectly suited for eating too. I think that will go for any pure Macadamia Oil, unless specifically stated otherwise (such as for this seller1). That's good news! That means Macadamia Oil can be had for as low as 16 per Litre, provided you buy at least 5 Litres. 15 if you buy 25 Litres. Even less if you're in the US. This2 is the cheapest I found, although this2 Dutch one gets close. As for shelf life, I've gotten estimates ranging from 6 months to 3 years. Supposedly it keeps well even after opening, but do put it in the fridge. Edit: Does anyone have the micros for Macadamia? Anyway, the email. Here's a mockup: (Bold is edited after review) Subject: What is the optimal fatty acid intake when creating full nutrition substitute? Dear Philip Cader, We are a group of people working on creating a full nutrition substitute for personal use. We are attempting to combine a variety of ingredients, making sure these ingredients add up to exactly what the body needs to live. This results in a shake that's both very convenient and much, much healthier than any other convenience food, and is intended to be consumed all day instead of regular food. A commercial product like this known as "Soylent" is being developed in the US by Rob Rhinehart. We intend to mimic Rob's product in a DIY, non-commercial open-source way, for our own consumption. While most dietary guidelines are clear, the fatty acid intake data we have been able to find is a large mixture of misinformation, conflicting information, and lack of information. Some obvious info seems a given, such as avoiding trans-fat. We've also been able to pin down some subtler details, such as "if you have little Omega 3 in your food, you'll probably want it in the form of EPA & DHA from fish oil or algae extract, since ALA and Omega 6 compete for the use of a conversion enzyme. Nevertheless, you want at least some ALA, since it's also the precursor for other necessary molecules besides EPA & DHA." The direct topic we're struggling with concerns PUFA intake upper limits. The ATP 3 report from the expert panel of Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults suggest a maximum of 10% of the daily calorie intake should be from PUFAs, but provides little argument for this beyond a lack of research. Meanwhile, other information from the book "The Perfect Health Diet" suggests that any PUFA intake above 4% of the daily energy requirement can result in various problems such as liver issues or obesity. It's unclear if these issues are from a high amount of PUFAs, or simply from a bad Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio. The info from that book is less reliable, since the author seems to fall for some biases and simply because it's not peer reviewed. Nevertheless, he raises a number of interesting points, and does reference a large number of scientific sources. The problem is that it's very difficult to stay under 4% while maintaining an adequate fat intake, somewhat avoiding saturated, and keeping a good Omega 6 : Omega 3 balance of around 1:1. As a form of Pascal's Wager ("Can't hurt to bring the PUFA intake down to 4%"), we are currently looking into Macadamia Oil since that is mainly made up of Omega 9 which doesn't seem to have any upper limit or bad effects. Adding in some Flax oil for ALA and a supplement for EPA & DHA gets us pretty close, but at quite a high price. We're hoping you can provide us with your expert opinion on these matters. For more context, you may view our discussions to date at http://discourse.soylent.me/t/optimal-micronutrient-ratios/5049/52 - though it is probably easier for you to address any queries you may have straight to me than to read through that. To summarize, the overarching question we're trying to answer is: What is the optimal fatty acid intake for all daily nutrition combined? Some sub-questions we have in relation to that are: What is the upper limit for PUFA intake when proper Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratios are adhered? Should this upper limit also be adhered in a low-carb/high-fat diet? If a proper ALA to Omega 6 ratio is adhered, is it still necessary to take EPA+DHA supplements? Thank you and best regards, Marius, on behalf of the DIY Soylent movement. Note: We realize that you are not a physician and that any reply you give us is simply the best of your knowledge, but
12/12/13
should not be considered medical advice. (Many of us actually do take regular blood tests just in case.) People taking into account your reply should not hold you liable in case anything untoward happens. How's that?
3Replies
richardtkemp
10 Sep I think you just leapt straight to 95% complete in one go... only thing I would add is emphasis on the fact that this is non-commercial and opensource. Also, there are a large number of sources cited in the Perfect Health Diet book. I hesitate to post a link, but there is a pdf available online.
Mqrius
1 10 Sep Edited some stuff, bolded stuff is edited. I find it hard to convey the distinction between Rob's Soylent and what we're doing. Heh, I think I'll like the macadamia oil taste It's described as soft and buttery!
Still need to figure out the micros in there though.
in reply to
Mqrius
grantadevine
10 Sep If you want to be more definitive in the distinction between Rob's Soylent and our own I'd include that the DIY Soylent is intended to mimic Rob's intentions. It adds a layer that implies you're not associated with the official product, or else you wouldn't need to mimic his product. I would probably restate the question clearly at the end of the email where you link to the forum thread too, just so he has a solid question to answer because except for the subject line in the header I don't actually see a question for him. I've got to say though, you guys are doing a fantastic job at this. I'm impressed that people would invest this much thought and initiative into investigating micronutrient interactions. Good work 1 person liked this.
12/12/13
Mqrius
10 Sep Added in your suggestions in bold. I also added a disclaimer for his side, just in case. 2 people liked this.
richardtkemp
10 Sep He will just get lost if you send him here - in any case this discussion is not strictly limited to the question you're asking of him. How about something like, "For more context, you may view our discussions to date at http://discourse.soylent.me/t/optimal-micronutrient-ratios/5049/52 - though it is probably easier for you to address any queries you may have straight to me than to read through that." 1 person liked this.
Mqrius
10 Sep Added in your suggestion! Any further input? If not, I'll send it out in a few hours!
grantadevine
2 10 Sep Can you capitalise the W in Pascal's Wager? I know it's pedantic but it bugs me D:
1Reply
35/68
12/12/13
Teseracto
10 Sep We should ask too if there is any evidence that the upper limit for PUFA vary with the macronutrient breakdown, in special for low-carb/high fat diets, as these have more issues keeping PUFA low. Typical high-carb recipes are fine for omega-6 using olive oil. Another point is the conversion of ALA to EPA/DHA in relation to the O6/O3 ratio. Its usually said that the ratio of conversion is low, but possibly this is assuming a high O6/O3 ratio, typical in western diets. Bottom line: how necessary is the consumtion of EPA/DHA? I raise the point because of an argument against fish oil supplements in "The Perfect Health Diet" that argues that the oil is easily oxidized due to the storage conditions. These often have vitamin D as an antioxidant, but anyway seems worrying.
2Replies
Mqrius
10 Sep Teseracto said: Another point is the conversion of ALA to EPA/DHA in relation to the O6/O3 ratio. Its usually said that the ratio of conversion is low, but possibly this is assuming a high O6/O3 ratio, typical in western diets. Bottom line: how necessary is the consumtion of EPA/DHA? We have some information on that ourself, see the link in @Sintax' post: http://discourse.soylent.me/t/optimal-micronutrient-ratios/5049/28 Kinetic studies conducted in vivo (41) have shown that 15% of dietary ALA is converted to the long chain n3 fatty acids [which include 5 fatty acids of which 3 predominate: 20:5, 22:5, and 22:6 at typical intakes of both linoleic acid (15 g/d; 5% of energy) and ALA (2 g/d; 0.6% of energy)]. Quantitatively, this conversion results in 300 mg of n3 long-chain fatty acids being derived via conversion from ALA. When dietary linoleic acid is increased to 30 g/d, conversion of ALA to the long-chain n3 fatty acids is reduced by 40% (41). Thus, the conditions that favor maximal conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA are critically dependent on the amount of linoleic acid in the diet. As for specific amounts: Although the United States has not established official dietary recommendations for n3 fatty acid intake, Canada (32) and the United Kingdom (33) have. Canada recommends a total n3 fatty acid intake of 1.21.6 g/d, which is similar to the recommendation made by nutrition scientists in the United States but does not distinguish between individual n3 fatty acids. The United Kingdom does distinguish between n3 fatty acids and recommends that 1% of energy be from ALA and 0.5% be from EPA and DHA combined. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, which includes the United Kingdom, recommends that the combined intake of EPA and DHA be 0.2 g/d (34). Australia has recommended that there be moderate increases in sources of n3 fatty acids from plant foods (ALA) and fish (EPA and DHA) (35). Lastly, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Advance Workshop on n3 and n6 Fatty Acids recommended that the combined intake of EPA and DHA be 0.27% of energy or 0.8 g/d (33). By the way, that paper recommends an intake of 7% energy from PUFAs, with an upper limit of 10%. They seem to base it off of the current situation though, if I'm not mistaken. Added in your suggestions. grantadevine said: Can you capitalise the W in Pascal's Wager?I know it's pedantic but it bugs me D:
12/12/13
Sure 2 people liked this.
Mqrius
1 10 Sep Sending out the mail in an hour! Let me know if you have comments before that Edit: Sent!
alfredbester
10 Sep Mqrius said: Edit: Does anyone have the micros for Macadamia? The closest, which isn't close, I've found is the information for raw macadamia nuts and dry roasted macadamia nuts1 from the USDA nutrient database. It differs very significantly from the NOW Foods brand of oil1. Presumably a lot of stuff is not pressed out of the nut. If we eventually can't find more complete nutrition data, maybe we can estimate it by looking to see if there's a pattern for which micronutrients are left in other nut oils when they are pressed out of the nut. Then we could extrapolate from raw macadamia nuts... presuming nuts are extracted raw. Macadamia nut oil should have some Vitamin E, at least. Something interesting I found, is if you average the various fatty acid ranges of the Textron brand of macadamia oil, which are probably found here, it matches the NOW brand. let us know if we ask nicely. We should probably continue this in a new Macadamia Nut Oil thread... Teseracto said: I raise the point because of an argument against fish oil supplements in "The Perfect Health Diet" that argues that the oil is easily oxidized due to the storage conditions. These often have vitamin D as an antioxidant, but anyway seems worrying. You could look into the more expensive Krill oil. It's supposedly more bioavailable so you have to use less, and has some other compounds in it that may be appealing. It supposedly has a better shelf life than regular fish oil. How much? I don't know. It really should depend on the specific brand and their quality control, and like you mentioned, how it has been stored over its life.
1Reply
I believe there's a good chance that NOW's supplier is Textron. So, maybe Textron has more information and they'd
Mqrius
12/12/13
10 Sep alfredbester said: The closest, which isn't close, I've found is the information for raw macadamia nuts and dry roasted macadamia nuts from the USDA nutrient database.
I've already sent out ~6 inquiries to random macadamia oil manufacturers I found online (useless) info on fatty acid contents. I don't think I contacted Textron or NOW foods, so feel free to shoot them an email.
Only one responded so far, with a link to the
But yeah, if my scatter-shot doesn't work and Textron also doesn't, we'll have to make due by extrapolating from common patterns, as you suggested.
Sintax
10 Sep I don't mean to be rude but the macadamia nut oil conversation seems to be a bit off topic. I think that deserves its own thread. Staying on topic helps keep each thread a useful reference to those looking for that respective information (ie benefits/details of an ingredient, or optimal ratios/safer DRIs for non-varied diets.)
1Reply
spryte
10 Sep On the topic of ratios and interactions (is that the same thing? There's another thread for interactions and I'm not sure if this should go there?) I don't have any useful links, it was just stuff I was looking at this afternoon, but there seems to be a definite interaction between Calcium, K2, D3 and magnesium, with optimal ratios in there somewhere. (Keeping in mind that the D3 UL is still way below where a lot of people (Vitamin D Council, among others) think they should be.) Just in case someone would like to look into it.
2Replies
kthprog
10 Sep They are but interactions isn't an accurate description.

12/12/13
Sintax
10 Sep spryte said: There's another thread for interactions and I'm not sure if this should go there? Try to find some hard data, based on experiments with humans, that can be used to quantify those interactions to help us make decisions on how to actually change a recipe . That would be useful. This is a chart of all the interactions, just between minerals.
MineralWheel1.jpg1202x1145 304 KB /(0_o)\ By itself, seeing this doesn't really help us figure out what to actually DO about anything. For human nutrition research, it can help identify where a new experiment may be needed. For us, all it can do is help us narrow the search for experiments which have already been done. spryte said: there seems to be a definite interaction between Calcium, K2, D3 and magnesium, with optimal ratios in there somewhere We've already established that Ca:Mg should be between 1:1 and 2:1. If you know of how vitamin K and D might affect this balance and have any sources on that, it would be very awesome, as we still don't have any vitamins accounted for yet! ^_^ But spending 5 minutes with my good buddy google gives me 2 sources from the same website by the same Dr. Mercola: Bad source:
12/12/13
Doesn't really say anything useful other than "you need vitamin K". Which isn't relevant to us, because we're already aiming to get the DRIs for each nutrient every day anyway. Better source: Addresses our specific concern by stating "the ideal or optimal ratios between vitamin D and vitamin K2 have yet to be elucidated... the jury is still out" The rest is just a doctor's personal recommendation to people who are on traditional diets, so... however valuable a professional's subjective opinion may be, it's just not relevant.
2Replies
kthprog
10 Sep All that really tells us is, our bodies are really good at keeping homeostasis, and/or nutrients sometimes take on the function of other nutrients. Good. Luck. lol.
in reply to
Sintax
spryte
1 10 Sep I will try to come up with some more useful information, but at the moment, I'm swamped with work/schoolwork. I just thought I'd toss it in here to see if anyone else was interested in looking into it. I know this was one of the articles that I was reading earlier. Again, by Mercola, and not a reference in site (so very aggravating). Well, there are a couple of references, but those are about how K2 works, not in relation to Calcium. He keeps quoting Dr. Kate Rheaume-Bleue, a naturopathic physician (I'm not even sure what that means) who wrote a book called "Vitamin K2 and the Calcium Paradox: How a Little Known Vitamin Could Save Your Life" - I'd like to hope that she included references, but who knows. There's this1, which support something I read earlier about the fact that in cases of osteoporosis, and other bone issues (teeth degeneration), it's not about more calcium, but about the D3 and K2 getting calcium to where it needs to go, and keeping it there. 1 person liked this.
Sintax
40/68
12/12/13
10 Sep So, there have been discussions about the difference between Vitamins K1 vs K2, and whether or not you need both. I've been under the assumption that since our bodies can make K2 from K1, then K1 is all you need (hence there being only 1 in the official USDA DRI list). However, I did just find this: While K2 may be more important in bone mineralization than K1, the amount of K2 absorbed from the gut provides only a fraction of the total daily requirement. So that may mean we need to add K2 as a separate vitamin to our list - like the B vitamins. But I'm not 100% convinced just yet.
The Elusive Vitamin K is all over my yard -- who knew?
kthprog
10 Sep From what I understand, K2 is synthesized by bacteria in our gut, but it's possible that very little is synthesized. I also think someone told me that K1 and K2 have the same effect, K1 just has a stronger effect (i.e. biologically active) so you only need K1.
in reply to
Sintax
alfredbester
11 Sep Not rude at all. I totally agree. I got over the laziness that was preventing me from doing it before and made a new thread. All macadamia discussion should move there, please. This is the last post about them here! New thread: Macadamia Nut Oil4 Nutrition This is a continuation of an off-topic discussion in the lovely Optimal Micronutrient Ratios discussion thread. Macadamia nut oil is interesting because it has a unique fat makeup of roughly 81% monounsaturated, 3% polyunsaturated in a 2 6 to 1 3 ratio, and 16% saturated fats. It has a smooth buttery slightly nutty flavor. (I'll let you know after I taste it.) It is very shelf stable due to its low amounts of polyunsaturated fats. The price is probably the worst part. It is the most expensiv 1 posts, last post 1 minute ago, created 1 minute ago, 3 views
Macadamia Nut Oil4
alfredbester
12/12/13
11 Sep Regarding phytic acid, has anyone linked to this yet? http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/gras_notices/grn000381.pdf8
qm3ster
16 Sep The link above does not seem particularly convincing in terms of true nutrition, more like a piece of bureaucratic ignorance about the acid not immediately killing people. I feel like we need to look for the answers elsewhere. However, forgive the off topic, but since phytic acid is being discussed here too, maybe we should look at it in an alternative way?8
Phytic acid - manna of the gods?8 Official Soylent Shipping Update
John427
7 Oct Did we ever get a response to the email on PUFAs mentioned above? 1 person liked this.
Mqrius
7 Oct Nope Feel free to send a similar mail to other PUFA researchers if you find them!
1Reply
Sintax
12/12/13
7 Oct The difficulty in meeting the high magnesium recommendations is being discussed here. My gut tells me that the P:Ca:Mg ratio may be different than 1:2.5:2.5 if all three are taken into account. I can't find anything on it, though T-T
High Magnesium Supplementation Experiments
kthprog
8 Oct All minerals share the same uptake pathway in the intestines so that could be an issue as well. In the presence of any other mineral, other minerals are not absorbed as well.
jrowe47
8 Oct Something critical to remember is that uptake is not uniform, even on average. The micros are spread throughout the food in varying concentrations and contact the intestinal walls in varying surface areas. If you take a vitamin pill, it's going to have a completely different uptake profile than vitamins in food.
1Reply
goukix0x
8 Oct Mqrius said: Nope Feel free to send a similar mail to other PUFA researchers if you find them! I'd send an email to paul jaminet author of the perfect health diet. He has over a 100 studies referenced for the conclusions in his book (which I own) He's also the go to source of information in the "paleo" community, 99% of the bloggers in that field just source their information from him. Doubt he'll respond to an email however, he's probably going to think getting 100% of our nutrients from powder is blasphemy.
43/68
12/12/13
Mqrius
8 Oct Eh, personally I prefer people that do actual science the problem is that there's so much research, that if you cherry-pick you can find papers for mostly any claim you want to make. It's best to go with review papers only. Books and bloggers aren't peer-reviewed, either. 2 people liked this.
goukix0x
8 Oct Books and bloggers? come on now, the guy has a phd in physics from berkely. His wife who coauthored the book has a phd in molecular biology from harvard. There are quite literally at least 3 citations on every page. I think you're being a little bit bias due to the fact they're stating information contrary to your current beliefs.
1Reply
in reply to
jrowe47
Sintax
8 Oct Yeah, I've been assuming that everything we're discovering about ratios would be relevant to soylent recipes that have all of the micros uniformly distributed throughout the mix. I'm crushing up all my vitamins and mixing them in as powders. I think it's the best we can do to assume that makes the surface contact with the intestinal walls uniform with the content of the recipe.
in reply to
goukix0x
Mqrius
9 Oct I haven't actually read what he has to say in the book, so this is my baseline skepticism vs books and blogs you're looking at. In fact, I don't want to read it, since I'm just as susceptible to confirmation bias as the next guy, and as the authors of books. For the same reason, I tend to avoid advertisements.
12/12/13
"Between hindsight bias, fake causality, positive bias, anchoring/priming, et cetera et cetera, and above all the dreaded confirmation bias, once an idea gets into your head, it's probably going to stay there." ~ Eliezer Yudkowsky If he (or his wife) indeed has good credentials, then perhaps they have also written a paper in a peer-reviewed journal including the same information as in the book? That's something I'd be willing to read. 1 person liked this.
Sintax
1 9 Oct I've been back on the phosphorus trail, looking into what the ratio of Ca: P needs to be before it starts to get bad for bone health. Searching for a 1.3:1 ratio (which is what I have now) found me this article which links obesity to a low Ca: P ratio too!: a Ca : P ratio of 1.3:1.0 is suggested for maintaining bone health I don't think our current source for the 2.5:1 is bad, necessarily, but it isn't exactly solid either. So far we've only had 1 number, so I think we can suggest a range instead. "Ca : P = at least 1:1, preferably 2.5:1" Any second opinions? 1 person liked this.
kthprog
9 Oct Was it causal or just a link, though? Two things being related doesn't mean that one caused the other, or vice versa. It only means that they tend to present together. i.e. fat people might just happen to have a low Ca: P ratio, even though correcting that ratio would in no way provide a benefit to their weight.
Sintax
9 Oct Reading the abstract would give you a good sense of what they found. It's basically further evidence that higher P than Ca is linked to more health problems. More would need to be done to pinpoint what's exactly going on and how it relates to obesity. The important point is that in their literature review they established that a good healthy ratio is 1.3:1. We've found other sources that say the optimal ratio 2.5:1. I think this is good news for those of us who are having trouble keeping phosphorus down, but I don't want to change the main post if
12/12/13
anyone is skeptical.
goukix0x
9 Oct Eventually we're going to need a spread sheet with all the up to date information. When this is eventually figured out, it needs to be read by everyone. Has anyone done any work on antagonistic combinations yet? http://caltonnutrition.com/q-and-a.aspx#213 This multivitamin breaks down it's doses into AM and PM and claims superiority due to the fact it separates vitamins competing for uptake. It doesn't have the ratios we're looking for however so it's of little value to us. However it would be valuable to figure out which vitamins they separate.
2Replies
mrob
9 Oct Wouldn't this be less of an issue if you're getting the vitamins throughout the day? To my understanding most people crush their mutli into their main mix, which would reduce the competition for absorption between certain chemicals if they're physically spread out.
goukix0x
9 Oct Yes it will be less of an issue, however knowing exactly which vitamins are interacting with each other is still very valuable information. Especially when you consider that's going to be the source of our health.
Mqrius
9 Oct OTOH, we won't be exactly sure for each individual so you're going to need to do a blood test anyway. So if we just get "close-ish", then the blood test can fine-tune it for you personally.
12/12/13
goukix0x
1 9 Oct Mqrius said: OTOH, we won't be exactly sure for each individual so you're going to need to do a blood test anyway. So if we just get "close-ish", then the blood test can fine-tune it for you personally. This isn't relevant. We're not talking about the amount of vitamins. We are talking about the uptake mechanisms in the human body, which are the same across all humans. Some vitamins compete with each other for the same uptake source, cancelling each other out. Regardless of the amount of vitamins taken. Knowing when to take your vitamins, is roughly as important as how many to take. I am gathering sources now, and will post them when I have them together. "While micronutrients can facilitate absorption of each other, they can also compete with one another for absorption and utilization. Out of 34 key micronutrients, 30 have at least one competing nutrient and 17 have at least three competing nutrients. Iron alone competes with 10 other micronutrients for absorption at key receptor sites throughout the body." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11509108
2Replies
Mqrius
9 Oct goukix0x said: Some vitamins compete with each other for the same uptake source, cancelling each other out. Couldn't you "solve" that by taking more of both? Not sure, but I'd expect so. But yeah, I agree that it's valuable to know; the better the baseline, the less you'll have to change.
goukix0x
9 Oct It's possible. This is very new ground, previously there was a limitation to exactly how many vitamins we could take in due to the fact we had to get them from "food". There was a really interesting quote, about how the ADA tried to create a "perfect" diet. Sufficient in all the micronutrients. Apparently they failed.
12/12/13
There have been nutrient deficiencies found in pretty much every diet. Including Paleo, Vegan, Raw foodist etc etc. I think we actually have a chance to put something together which meets all the requirements, and for cheap.
John427
9 Oct It would probably be optimal to take all micros separately via separate pills/powders. Unfortunately, this isn't really feasible for most of us.
goukix0x
9 Oct That's what i plan on doing. Multivitamins in general are a bad idea.
John427
9 Oct I am going to try this with my new and improved recipe. Here is my supplement assortmentVitamin A Complex Vitamin B Complex Vitamin C and Iron Vitamin D Vitamin E and Selenium Vitamin K-2 (K-1 from other ingredients) Choline Bitartrate Potassium Chloride Sodium Chloride Calcium from other ingredients Magnesium Supplement MSM Zinc Supplement Manganese from other ingredients Chelated Copper Chromium Picolinate Iodine from Kelp Chelated Molybdenum Now I have to figure out how to space these out over a day.
12/12/13
It is more expensive than a regular multi, but overall it does affect my cost that much. Protein is the real killer.
Sintax
9 Oct As I understand it, the ratios are only important precisely because different vitamins and minerals compete for absorption. You could get all your recommended levels, but if you take them at once and they hinder absorption, you may still end up with a deficiency. I don't know for sure, and have no sources or anything, but logically it would seem to me that it wouldn't help to just increase everything, because they're competing for resources in your GI tract. If you have a bad copper:zinc ratio, just increasing both wouldn't allow the resources in your GI tract to work harder, so too much zinc would still prevent you from absorbing copper and all the extra would just pass through to the toilet. goukix0x said: This multivitamin breaks down it's doses into AM and PM and claims superiority due to the fact it separates vitamins competing for uptake. It doesn't have the ratios we're looking for however so it's of little value to us. That's really interesting. I didn't know there was a product out there that tried to do this. I am convinced that if you do something like this, you might not not need to worry about the ratios . In that case, I imagine you'd have a morning soylent, afternoon soylent and dinner soylent. Each optimised for maximum positive and minimum negative interactions. You'd probably need less of each than even the USDA recommendations because you'd be absorbing more efficiently. I think that would be much more difficult to figure out and execute, though.
2Replies
goukix0x
9 Oct I'm maybe just going to get that product to keep things simple. Though I plan to take TWO packets a day just to be sure. Which comes out to 200% of the RDA, this should be fine considering vitamin a in high doses is pretty safe as long as vitamin d and k are high as well.
1Reply
richardtkemp
10 Oct Sintax said: I am convinced that if you do something like (taking compeing minerals separately), you might not not need to worry about the ratios. I don't think it's correct to say uptake is the only way in which minerals intake ratio is relevant at all! It's perfectly possible that two minerals are taken
12/12/13
up by separate channels, thus don't interfere with one another's uptake, yet there is an optimal range for their ratio in the body. What you're suggesting is essentially that if we supplied our minerals via saline drip directly into the blood, then it wouldn't matter a jot what ratio we provided them in. You must see that this is obviously wrong... Not to suggest that taking minerals separately isn't advantageous - it may well be. goukix0x said: vitamin a in high doses is pretty safe Um, it really isn't, not necessarily. You need to check what form of Vitamin A it is. "preformed" VitA is very dangerous as your body will store it, and it is very possible to have too much. "unpreformed" (I think thats the term..) VitA is fine, your body will convert it to the active kind as and when it needs it. Be careful! I'm not sure taking 200% of the RDA "just to be sure" is very sensible at all. For many things, I'd rather be at 50% of RDA than 200%.
2Replies
Sintax
10 Oct richardtkemp said: I don't think it's correct to say uptake is the only way in which minerals intake ratio is relevant at all! Well, first and foremost, I'm being straightforward about the fact that I don't have any evidence or sources for this "hypothesis" of mine. I suppose you're right, for some of the ratios - since they're not all based on the same underlying process. My statements have all been under the (erroneous) assumption that (all of) the ratios are about GI tract resource competition. eg: Now that I think about it, the P:Ca:Mg ratio is all about what you should have in your body post-absorption; as you said, direct-to-the-veins would preferably be in that ratio too. As far as I know from the sources we've gathered, these ratios aren't about deleterious interactions. So I'll concede that point. What I am trying to argue is for the ratios like Cu:Zn:Fe, which are based on deleterious interactions and GI tract resource competition. From everything I've read, at least, all of the ratios involving those minerals are set such that as long as you don't exceed the safe ratios, you'll absorb enough, and as long as you absorb enough you're fine, regardless of the ratios absorbed. I haven't read anything that says you need a certain Zn:Cu ratio in the blood or anything post-absorption. I think it's just a matter of logic that, in the latter case, if you had a Zn-rich breakfast, an Fe-rich lunch, and a Cu-rich dinner soylent recipe, then the Zn:Fe:Cu ratio wouldn't be important. Or if you had a phytic acid rich breakfast, there wouldn't be a problem with your Zn and Fe at dinner with no phytic acid. Although if I'm missing something please continue to poke holes ^_^ 2 people liked this.
goukix0x
10 Oct richardtkemp said: Um, it really isn't, not necessarily. You need to check what form of Vitamin A it is. "preformed" VitA is very dangerous as your body
12/12/13
will store it, and it is very possible to have too much. "unpreformed" (I think thats the term..) VitA is fine, your body will convert it to the active kind as and when it needs it. Be careful! I'm not sure taking 200% of the RDA "just to be sure" is very sensible at all. For many things, I'd rather be at 50% of RDA than 200%. There's no danger in 200% of the RDA of vitamin A. 10000 would be 200% of the RDA which they deemed to be near toxic in the case of deficiency of K and D. 10000 is an optimal amount in a situation where you are not deficient in vitamin D and K. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19022954?dopt=AbstractPlus http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17145139?dopt=AbstractPlus westonaprice.org 1
Is Vitamin D Safe? Still Depends on Vitamins A and K! Testimonials and a Human Study | Weston A Price Blogs - Weston A Price Foundation
The Weston A. Price Foundation for Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts. http://archotol.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=568658
1Reply
richardtkemp
1 10 Oct Thanks both of you for patching up the holes in my response. I was in a bit of a rush and just felt the need to make a counterpoint against a few important things before they were read and 'learned' by others. Yes, 200% VitA RDA is still reasonably safe, but I stand by "vitamin a in high doses is pretty safe" being a pretty outlandishly dangerous statement. @Sintax, you've contributed massively to the knowledge amassed in this thread and we're all grateful. I'm just slightly wary about blurring the line between things you've read and can cite evidence of, versus your own personal hypotheses/theories/deductions.
1Reply
goukix0x
2 10 Oct Yeah I agree. Taken out of context it's quite a dangerous statement. In regards to optimal dosing, I don't think it's possible to get an optimal dose in a multivitamin. The one i mentioned previously currently uses the worst form of folate (Folic Acid) Bad form of Calcium (Carbonate) etc So our best bet is to get the interactions down and buy each vitamin individually.
51/68
12/12/13
jrowe47
10 Oct goukix0x said: We are talking about the uptake mechanisms in the human body, which are the same across all humans Not true... each individuals metabolism differs slightly, as does their need for different micros. The enzymes, hormones, and other chemicals you produce in conjunction with gut flora mean that you can never create a "perfect" one size fits all diet. Or even micro profile. It's a nonlinear system... tiny variations in the metabolic pathways can lead to big differences in actual uptake. Empirical testing and adjusting is the only way an individual would be able to create a perfect diet. 1 person liked this.
goukix0x
10 Oct The differences in regards to nutrient competition are statistically non significant. It's basic X competes with Y for A. You keep bringing up the uptake issue then mentioning ratios, you cannot properly keep track of ratios if you have vitamins cancelling each other out. As to the mention of gut flora, that's way to complex of an area to manage on an individual scale with current technology. The only thing we can hope to do, is improve the "health" of the gut flora and make sure we are getting an adequate supply of the essential nutrients via dosage and avoidance of competition. As to empirical testing, the blood tests we have now take too long to get results, we can get "near" perfect which is what i was implying.
1Reply
goukix0x
3 10 Oct http://www.plosone.org/article/info%253Adoi%252F10.1371%252Fjournal.pone.00150464 This is a very interesting study in regards to health of the gut flora TL;DR 33 grams of resistant starch a day changed the ratio of good/bad bacteria. For the better.' Needs to be noted that if you have small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, this is not something you should partake in until you get that sorted. http://journals.lww.com/co-gastroenterology/Abstract/2013/03000/Resistant_starch___a_promising_dietary_agent_for.15.aspx
12/12/13
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Gut-bacteria-are-closely-linked-to-immune-functions-review-suggests?nocount http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Prebiotic-fibre-could-induce-profound-metabolic-changes?nocount Another interesting meta analysis on resistant starch. http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Resistant-starch-may-aid-in-IBD-and-cancer-resistance-Study1 1 person liked this.
Sintax
10 Oct richardtkemp said: I'm just slightly wary about blurring the line between things you've read and can cite evidence of, versus your own personal hypotheses/theories/deductions. Yeah, skepticism is a great thing. Thank you for pointing it out; it helped me refine my understanding of the issue. I'm getting increasingly confused about where this conversation is going and what people are trying to argue for or against. I'm pretty sure we're talking about how antagonistic interactions relate to the optimal ratios, right? In the interest of clearing it up, I hope you don't mind if I recap what I understand everyone is saying. Please correct me if I get something wrong: @goukix0x suggests staggering to reduce antagonistic interactions Found a product but it doesn't follow the ratios we've found @mrob suggests that crushing up and mixing vitamins homogeneously to consume slowly throughout the day reduces antagonistic interactions @Mqrius suggests that increasing total dose uniformly might mitigate antagonistic interactions I am trying to argue that the only way to reduce antagonistic interaction is to separate the antagonizing nutrients physically so that they are not both in the same place at the same time. (ie agreeing with goukix0x) Suggest that ratios may not be important if you can do that (ie disagreeing with goukix0x) But I was a little off point; essentially, I'm trying to argue that for soylent, keeping good ratios is probably the best we can do. I'm assuming we are already mixing the vitamins homogeneously, actually... at least that's what I've been doing. I agree with mrob that it's probably a good idea, but I don't think it's the antagonistic interactions that it helps with, since everything still arrives in the same place at the same time. From what I can tell, following what we have here is one strategy. Creating 3 different recipes with 3 different profiles to have at different times would be another. I think that would defeat the purpose by being too logistically difficult to manage (ie: probably not worth the trouble). I also don't think we know enough to actually design those 3 different recipes with the maximum beneficial and minimum antagonistic interactions. 1 person liked this.
richardtkemp
10 Oct Here here.

12/12/13
Getting the right ratios in one single every-meal soylent is something we can achieve. Staggering nutrients across several meals is a project for when we have automatic soylent dispensers. 1 person liked this.
Sintax
1 10 Oct goukix0x said: You keep bringing up the uptake issue then mentioning ratios, you cannot properly keep track of ratios if you have vitamins cancelling each other out. First off, I don't think there's any sense in discussing ratios of nutrients that we absorb. The only way to know how much we're absorbing is to do daily chemical analysis of our stools. Maybe someday in a jetsons-style future scenario our toilets will do this for us. ^_^ (Hopefully by then we'd have soylent machines connected to our toilets that give us custom nutrient blends too) Until then, I hope we're all on the same page that the ratios we're discussing here are the ideal ratios for ingestion. Ratios found in blood, ratios in our hair or total ratios absorbed are meaningless wrt to determining how much of what to put in our soylent. All the ratios we've found so far take interactions into account (especially the Zn:Fe:Cu triangle) and are meant to guide content of soylent recipes. So I wouldn't worry about the deleterious interactions for anything that we already have a ratio for. If you are worried about a particular deleterious interaction we don't have a ratio for yet, blow the conch to summon us and lead the charge to seek out all relevant earthly knowledge!! goukix0x said: The differences in regards to nutrient competition are statistically non significant. Is that so? Do you have a source? I am highly skeptical of that claim. It seems rather important to me to keep in mind that there is variation, which is why anecdotes don't cut it and experiments done on statistically significant test groups do. This is from an earlier conversation in this thread. Unfortunately, the USDA website is down right now from the government shutdown, so you'll have to take my word on the source for now: Sintax said: I've been using this as my resource for DRIs. Particularly the top link. These are pretty complete lists, so it makes for a nice one-stopshop.Some handy definitions: Estimated Average Requirements (EAR)Estimated to be sufficient for at least 50% of the population Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA)Estimated to be sufficient for at least 97% of the population Adequate Intakes (AI)Believed to be sufficient, but not enough testing to conclude what % of the population What that means is, if you're getting 100% of the RDAs for every nutrient (not every nutrient even has an RDA, btw), there is a 3% chance for EACH ONE that you personally need more. Take a look at the differences in the EAR and RDA levels after congress gets its budget passed; keep in mind that for the EARs there's a 50% chance they're enough for you. Now, you may be right, but if there's THAT much variation in what our bodies use, I wouldn't make any bets that there isn't variation in how our "uptake mechanisms" (something with very vague meaning that is being thrown around) work too. That's why we need to base everything on experimental results of a statistically significant sized test group.
54/68
12/12/13
goukix0x
11 Oct I think you're misunderstanding what i mean when I say ratios. I'm talking about known toxicity ranges and staying below said toxicity ranges. As to the mention of managing uptake regulation, it's as simple as taking some vitamins in the beginning meals and others at the later meals. There is no reason why we can't do this now. No one is debating about individual differentials. Obviously people are going to be getting slightly different amounts of vitamins. What i'm saying is talking about that is pointless with what we have available. Until we can individually test blood samples to see what vitamins are circulating on a daily basis, we're doing nothing but theory crafting. The things we can do now which are EASY, are learning which vitamins interact favorably and negatively and taking them throughout the day accordingly.
Sintax
11 Oct Ok, so we're on the same page about the theory-crafting part. None of these ratios are pulled from holistic hippie drum circle peyote visions. ^_^ Being aware of variations is actually quite pointFULL because it means we should be using real thorough studies of actual experimental results. (Otherwise anyone one of us could buy a home stool sampling kit, get a couple data points and then we could all use the same results.) That's all I was arguing for - it seems we agreed all along. In any case, clearly I have misunderstood; I still don't understand what you're arguing for exactly. If you want to start up a search for how to create separate nutrient profiles to take at different times of the day, I would be very interested in what is found, and would try to help. In the meantime this thread is about how to make a homogenous mix that still gives you all you need despite the deleterious interactions. That's the point. Are you saying what we've found here isn't good enough? (I'm not trying to be territorial, I am just interpreting everything said here as being relevant to the thread's topic, which I think may be the cause of the misunderstanding) 1 person liked this.
goukix0x
2 11 Oct I'm currently sourcing together all the information in regards to interactions. When I have it I will post it. In regards to what my goal is. It's the same as everyone here "Optimal Micronutrient Ratios" You can't have "Optimal" anything unless you take into consideration all known interactions. There is no "territory" this is information which needs to be available for everyone.
55/68
12/12/13
Sintax
1 29 Oct Ca inhibition of Fe is an issue that has just been brought to my attention. I haven't found any hard numbers yet, but I did find 2 sources which indicate that it is not the ratio of Ca:Fe, but the total amount of calcium. Source 1 : No inhibiting effect on iron absorption was seen when adding 3 mg calcium to 0.01 mg iron (molar ratio Ca/Fe = 420). Previous studies showing a marked inhibition by calcium had a lower molar ratio, but greater amounts of calcium were given. This suggests that a minimal concentration of calcium is needed to achieve an effect. Source 2: ...the effect being dependent on the amount of Ca administered rather than the Ca:Fe molar ratio... There are some numbers in there on what that "amount" is, but none of it seems clear to me other than to say that it happens. There is a lot of talk about other confounding factors, and it seems to depend on what type of calcium you eat. I'm not sure how seriously we should consider this without something more specific to go with.
jrowe47
29 Oct Given the uneven distribution in both time and solution, unless you're drinking pure solutions of your iron and calcium supplement, there's not going to be a good (read possible) way to predict the actual inhibition for a given diet. The only plausible way of measuring this would be blood tests after eating a normalized diet. So you could test the effect for yourself for Soylent, if Soylent were your only source of nutrition, and get a pretty solid number. I would bet that if enough people did these tests, a formula based on other physical indicators could be worked out to predict your personal metabolism's effect on iron absorption in the presence of calcium. But that would only be consistently relevant to Soylent - other foods will have other chemicals that trigger other enzymes and digestive processes which can impact nutrient intake in unexpected ways. This is quite literally a chaotic system, in which the concept of the Butterfly Effect is very present. A tiny variation in diet input can cause unexpectedly large variations in the output. Those butterflies in your tummy might be a little more real than previously thought.
1Reply
Tronce
1
12/12/13
1 Nov To add something (maybe) new about Omega 6 AI and UL, i found this : ISSFAL - Adequate Intakes - Omega 6 - Omega 33 Yeah, it's a pretty old work but maybe it worth something.
John427
4 Nov Of course, it probably best to have a high iron low calcium meal and vice versa . If one were to insist on a homogenous mixture, this Fe/Ca issue might simply be resolved by using a high amount of iron (~25-30mg) and correcting zinc, copper and manganese amounts to ensure proper ratios. I don't think we need to worry about inhibiting the calcium absorption because the amount of iron in comparison is negligible. I don't think that reducing the amount of calcium is a reasonable solution because of the calcium to phosphorus ratio. Such an interesting balancing act...
drknexus
29d Sintax said: Calcium : Phosphorus ratio = from 1:3 to 2.5:1 Has anyone done much additional research on these ratios? The first one seems like it is making a conclusion based on the ratio that might really be more about the habitual dietary patterns of individuals in the study (those who eat dairy carry less fat centrally than those who done). The second one doesn't seems to be citing a ratio in the body (i.e. blood levels) not nutritional ratios.
1Reply
jrowe47
29d Research of this sort tends to peter out once the researchers encounter the inevitable fact that every individual and diet is unique. They can measure ratios for control subjects and fine tune things on a case by case basis, but you can't make generalized assertions about nutrient ratios. The generalized ranges end up being too large for useful diet planning. For example, gut flora, height, weight, salivary production, and genetics play a factor in calcium metabolism - if you empirically measure someone's diet via bloodwork, you could approximate their calcium uptake rates for different food combos. If you did that for 1000 people, you could generalize a predictive formula for individuals, but only by requiring empirical measurements be plugged in. Useful, but without broad application. There are too many unknowns unique to each person, resulting in a literally chaotic system. Life is funny like that.
12/12/13
1 person liked this. in reply to drknexus
Sintax
27d That's crazy that it took this long for anyone to catch that. The first time I read, I must have just skimmed, because I thought it was a diet recommendation. I think the 2.5:1 ratio should be removed entirely from our list. Any objections?
drknexus
27d I think it needs some thought. At the very least, the citation should be deleted. As jrow47 pointed out, as chaotic systems, it is going to be very difficult to get a solid number. A good place to start is probably the DRI_Ca : DRI_P, that is 1:1. If higher Ca absorption is desired, a ratio of up to 2:11 may make sense. Sure, we want more Calcium it can improve bone health (citation needed but ubiquitous). But... what about too much? Well one practical bounding considerations seem to be that high levels of supplemented Ca almost certainly can contribute to kidney stone formation. However, apparently many food sources of Calcium may not be risk. Although the source there appears relatively authoritative, it doesn't cite any primary source material. The primary source material from pre-2012 certain shows an active debate about the role of oxelates in kidney stone formation. I can't tell what won the debate on oxelates... or if the debate is ongoing. The issue is apparently complex and may vary by individual. If oxelates are good, then greens seem to be a good source of Ca. If oxelates are bad, then milk seems to be a good source of Ca. At the very least, we know that low Ca may take a while to detect as your body will happily steal it from your bone... but high Ca probably will throw red flags sooner. On the other end, Phosphorus is a good thing to have around, but too much may be decidedly bad if there is (very) high Phosphorus and low Calcium. I misplaced the article that linked soda, presumably through high P, being linked to fracture rates in young girls and boys... then again maybe the kids who like to drink soda climb more trees. A ratio of 2:3, when there was 2000mg of Calcium on board seemd to be okay. To be nice to the kidneys, it might make sense to use the 70+ age UTL for Phosphorus as an internal guide (3000mg). So where does that leave us. For bone density, using the UTL guideline for P above and the LPI reference, Ca : P ratios should probably not fall too much below 2 : 3. Given the citation you had a ratio as low as 1 : 2 may be tolerable, but probably is not ideal. It is a horrible source, but it makes an impassioned argument for a 1 : 1 ratio... so I'm leaning towards setting a 1:1 ratio with at least 1000mg of Ca as a lower bound. On the upper end, we know that up to 2 : 1 may make some sense for bone health, but it is unclear how high we can push that ratio until we risk putting kidneys under more strain that we'd prefer. Here, for the time being, I'm going to guess that an upper bound of 2:1 makes sense but probably guide the other upper bounds in consideration with the demands of other Calcium/Mineral ratios that need to be considered.
drknexus
12/12/13
27d jrowe47 said: This is quite literally a chaotic system, in which the concept of the Butterfly Effect is very present. A tiny variation in diet input can cause unexpectedly large variations in the output. I generally like the points you are making in this regard, but I wonder if you are overstating things slightly. It is true that individual differences will make it impossible to create true "one-size fits all" guidelines. It is also true that the nature of chaotic systems is that tiny variations in input can cause cause remarkably large, even qualitatively different, variations in output. That being said, especially for a homogenized food product, like a soylent, where there isn't going to be differences in the co-administration of nutrients, I don't think the variations will be horribly large. If for no other reason, the human body is a remarkably complex organism that existed prior to agriculture in many different surface biome on the planet. We can survive with all kinds of nutritional excesses and shortages. It seems like maybe you have a background in biology, so maybe you know better than I... and perhaps can point to systems that are particularly delicate that need special attention? From an interested amateur standpoint is seems like the existing regulatory mechanisms and negative feedback loops lend themselves to a stable system, not run-away processes. When loops get broken, e.g. kidney failure, liver disease, etc... then things do start to go off the rails very quickly. It seems to me that the biggest potential danger of a soylent is the monotony of the input. That is, if there is something that is an insult to the system, e.g. too much calcium... it is just going to lean on the associated compensatory mechanisms until they break. For example, if we somehow neglected to have any Vitamin C in our soylent, it would take about 60 to 90 days before you would almost certainly notice something amiss... and that is with a water soluble vitamin. In short, it seems that most of those mechanisms do such a good job that you won't know anything is wrong until they do break. On the plus side, many of these mechanisms are resilient and will bounce back from an acute insult. For my part, I'm most worried about kidneys as they seem to be one of the filtering/feedback loop controlling subsystems that doesn't heal back as good as new.
jrowe47
26d I did what Rob did, basically, with the added advantage of standing on his shoulders, and the wealth from this forum and community. I did a 2 month OCD brain binge on everything nutrition - my background is more in math. There isn't any one system that can't be figured out, however the cumulative range with even minor variations takes us to numbers like those for calcium earlier in this thread... 1:3 to 2.5:1 . And to complicate matters, you can't analyze any particular nutrient in isolation, it's part of a much larger dynamic group. And I agree - for a uniform source of nutrition like Soylent, there's going to be a pretty manageable set of numbers... as long as you don't introduce other food into the equations. Which a vast majority of us will do. The amount of variation between individuals in a large population will be significant. Think of it this way. We already know that for certain lifestyles (athletes, bodybuilders, etc) they will need to significantly alter their macro intake. For certain genetic profiles, health conditions, illnesses, biological quirks, and so forth, you'll have to alter the micros. Fortunately, a vast majority of us can filter out excess water solubles with no issues at all, so the idea is to have just a bit more than necessary of those, and enough fat soluble for consistent good health. Some people will have to supplement. Others will have to cut back, or supplement uptake inhibitors in order to maintain optimal health. Most people will do just fine on Soylent. The point I'm trying to make with references to chaos theory and the like is that it's not possible to take the aggregate population's numbers and apply them to an individual to determine optimal nutrition. No study is going to give you a formula to plug in known variables for an unknown individual and determine uptake ratios. For the individual (any individual) empirical testing will be the only way to determine your ideal nutritional profile. And that will change based on what you do from day to day, how your body changes, grows older, and so forth. What's exciting to me is that Soylent users can produce broadly useful empirical data that can be analyzed and correlated to make optimizing nutrition easier. If you consistently monitor your blood profiles (or if we get smart toilets that do a chemical profile on waste) then you'll have some powerful
12/12/13
baseline information for diagnosis of diseases and organ status, etc. It seems to me that a blood sugar monitor type device. but one that analyzed for a complete metabolic panel, would be the holy grail of nutrition. The idea presented in this thread, that we can somehow calculate ratios of different micronutrients, is flawed. Math says you can't predict without knowing the state of the system beforehand.
2Replies
drknexus
26d jrowe47 said: What's exciting to me is that Soylent users can produce broadly useful empirical data that can be analyzed and correlated to make optimizing nutrition easier. If you consistently monitor your blood profiles (or if we get smart toilets that do a chemical profile on waste) then you'll have some powerful baseline information for diagnosis of diseases and organ status, etc. I'm kind of new to the community; Are there good tools available for this sort of thing? Are there any DIY/soylent users leveraging anything like 23andme?
Sintax
26d jrowe47 said: The idea presented in this thread, that we can somehow calculate ratios of different micronutrients, is flawed. Certainly we're still in the dark about a lot of things. The idea of this thread, though, (at least for me) is that some of these things ARE known already. Nutrition researches have found these numbers, not us. The Ca : P source we had was flawed, so it was removed. If any of the other sources turn out to be flawed, we will remove them until we're left with the current state of what's known about this sort of thing - then we can wait for more research to come out of Rosa Labs.
jrowe47
26d I say this knowing full well how frustrating it is to see an apparently simple, quantifiable part of a system and have it lure you into thinking that the system itself, even decomposed into many such simple parts, can be accurately quantified. Think of it as trying to predict the weather without sampling from the system to start with (another awesomely chaotic system.) It's not a matter of refining what we know and don't, it's a matter of the way the already known systems interact. You can't predict what
12/12/13
micronutrients will do in terms of uptake and inhibition, because there are too many interdependent variables. You can only predict accurately after the fact, based on the state of the system and its measured changes. It is fundamentally a chaotic system. This means that slight variations in one variable can produce drastic alterations in the predicted state, and when you combine 3 or more of these variations, the variations in themselves have repercussions, and so forth. It's a cascading chain of consequential perturbations in a 53+ dimensional field. It's not a matter of clever or persistent, its a matter of an incomputably large problem space. Without knowing the state of the system before, it's impossible to predict its future, and over a small period of time, the system becomes unpredictable again without regular empirical sampling. It is not possible to even approach an accurate number for optimal micronutrient ratios, except perhaps with nutrients that have extremely limited dependency on any others. Scientists don't have the numbers because the numbers are impossible to quantify beyond an individual scope. The formulas to predict optimal micronutrient ratios are dependent on knowing the state of the system before the prediction is made. Plus, you have to define optimality - we've been loosely treating optimal nutrition as 100% RDA of all nutrients with 100% uptake. It's not - the only thing we can say for certain is that these numbers are probably close, but individuals will vary.
Foomf
25d I have been trying my own DIY mix, on and off. I couldn't get the magnesium and sulphur components to work with the right ratios. However, I did discover something else. Epsom salts. I have resorted to my great-grandparents method of reducing the calluses that come with age, diabetes (type 2) and gout. And I decided to follow the advice my great grandparents were given, and soak my feet in water with added epsom salt several times a week. And it turns out that epsom salt - magnesium sulfate - can be absorbed more easily dermally than through the gut. So ... three times a week, for 30 minutes total. And I'll stop worrying about the sulfur and magnesium in the dietary side. Google gave me several links but this is the most complete summary: http://www.mdjunction.com/forums/lyme-disease-support-forums/medicine-treatments/379738-epsom-salts-facts-soaking-magnesium-deficiency3
2Replies
drknexus
23d I suspect the sulfur requirement to be ... problematic for many DIYers without resorting to a supplement source specifically for sulfur. The issue is that it very seldom shows up on nutritional labels. We do know that it is in (and can be absorbed from) proteins. As a proportion of molar mass Sulfur is 21% of Methioine and 26% of Cysteine (for example). However, knowing how much of each individual protein we get is ... difficult to say the least. The sulfur requirement came up in the DIY site probably because it was one of Rob's known issues during development... but I'm not sure whether it is one many DIYers will run into. I can't dig up his early recipe... but I wonder if he was just unknowingly shorting the sulfur containing essential amino acids and keeping with the USDA protein/carb balance.
in reply to
Foomf
61/68
12/12/13
drknexus
23d ...then we have other weird things in the DIY website, e.g. Molybdenum for which there has never been a documented deficiency in healthy people2. We also tend to ignore tap water, which (per the USDA SR25 database... yes I know I'm using the out of date one) contains about 20mg of Magnesium, 60mg of Calcium, and .2 mg of Copper on average for 2 liters of water (YMMV) and 36.576mg of other stuff (who knows?).
Tetsuo
1 23d Hello, I've been a lurker for some time and now i would like to add some of the things i found in my research. My first research subject is Calcium. Conclusion: Calcium in soylent should be in the form of Calcium Citrate and the dose should be between 1000mg and 1200mg and be combined with the optimal amount of magnesium for this dose. no more than 500mg may be taken during any meal. Calcium is linked to cardiovascular disease and all cause mortality in both low and high doses. To reduce the risk of this the daily calcium intake should be between 700mg and 1400mg sources: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3756477/ bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f228#ref-18 Calcium intake is linked to calcium based kidney stone formation in both low and high doses To reduce the risk of this the daily calcium intake should be between 1000mg and 1200mg. This happens to line up with the optimal point in one of the studies above source: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2997825/ The calcium used should be in the form of Calcium Citrate so it does not interfere with the acid levels of the stomach, this is especially important for individuals who have lower acid production for various reasons, there is also some indication that this form might also be more bioavailable. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_citrate en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium#Nutrition Calcium is said to cause gastrointestinal discomfort or gas in some individuals, especially in the form of carbonate. Combining magnesium with the calcium is said to prevent this, i could however not find the in what dosage it should be taken. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium#Nutrition Calcium should not be ingested in doses higher than 500mg per serving. When calcium intake exceeds 500mg the body is unable to absorb the excess. The soylent meal plan should take this into account. Source: ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Calcium-HealthProfessional/ I hope this is the right place for this, if it is not please let me know. I can only put 2 links in the post as a new user, so i removed all the www Also please let me know what you think about this: I'm researching dietary recomendations for various diseases. This puts nice upper and lower limits
12/12/13
on nutrient intakes and shows co-dependencies on other nutrients for the treatment/prevention of said disease. My question is: Is it better to make a report per nutrient like i did here or per disease?
3Replies
Sintax
23d I'll try to pour through your links, but it'll take some time. Looks like good stuff! Tetsuo said: I hope this is the right place for this, Considering that the data we've found here relates to how much magnesium you should take with the calcium, and that we've been ending up with higher than this targeted range of Ca, then this thread seems relevant enough to me. Tetsuo said: I can only put 2 links in the post as a new user You can go back and edit the post once you post a bit more.
drknexus
23d Tetsuo said: Calcium intake is linked to calcium based kidney stone formation in both low and high dosesTo reduce the risk of this the daily calcium intake should be between 1000mg and 1200mg. I urge you to look at my post above on the topic of Calcium. The connection between calcium intake and kidney stones is unclear, but appears to be of greater concern with supplemented calcium than calcium in foods. However, I generally appriciate your research approach and the quality of sources you cite. One unresolved issue is the issue of absorption that @jrowe47 has been pointing to as particularly unsolvable. Take for example your 500mg max dose suggestion. That suggestion rests on the aim of maximal absorption of calcium. If you have a soylent recipe that is riding high on Ca, perhaps your aim isn't high absorption.
1Reply
drknexus
63/68
12/12/13
23d Tetsuo said: Is it better to make a report per nutrient like i did here or per disease? I would suggest that both are important. However, unless the disease has a high prevalence in the population, I suspect that most would find by nutrient information more useful.
in reply to
drknexus
Tetsuo
1 23d There are a lot of factors surrounding kidney stone formation, calcium is just one of them. From the sources i read the correlations seems pretty strong for the 1000-1200mg safe range. The additional information on kidney stones i will add to their respective nutrients. But to name a few, vitamin c intake, water intake, oxelate intake, and more, are all factors in kidney stone formation. Add to this that calcium based ones is just 1 of many forms of stones. As for jrowe47's point, i do think the problem can be solved, but its not an easy problem to solve and there are almost no high quality studies on the subject. The basic idea is that you use a single source of nutrients(soylent) and then play with a single nutrient and monitor the effect on blood serum levels of all nutrients, all biomarkers and symptoms described by the user. Over time and with 1000's of participants you will start find these values. Its a lot of work and it needs to be double blinded which nutrient is being tested for interactions
drknexus
23d Tetsuo said: There are a lot of factors surrounding kidney stone formation, calcium is just one of them.From the sources i read the correlations seems pretty strong for the 1000-1200mg safe range. The additional information on kidney stones i will add to their respective nutrients. Sure, but 1000 to 1200 is a very limited range and is a guideline that provides only a slightly wider constraint than insisting that one hit the RDA on the nose. The range you provide makes sense if calcium is only from supplements. For food based sources mixed from milk and greens it seems excessively conservative to me, but to each their own.
Tetsuo
12/12/13
1 23d I believe the sources i gave talk about both intake from supplements and intake from food, e.g. total intake from either source. The point seems to be that less than 1000 from any source is bad for you, as is more than 1200. The fact that the RDA lines up to this value is happy coincidence (or the RDA is correct this time lol) All that said, yes i did focus on living from a soylent like food completely. I did find a suggestion that Calcium uptake requires at least 5ug of vitamin D per 1000mg of calcium. I have yet to find any sources or studies explaining this link. Currently working on magnesium, i have to clean it up before posting but it looks like magnesium (again from all sources) should be between 350 and 800, and zink messes with the absorption of it.
drknexus
23d Tetsuo said: I believe the sources i gave talk about both intake from supplements and intake from food, e.g. total intake from either source. I don't believe you are interpreting your sources carefully. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3756477/: In men supplemental calcium intake was associated with an elevated risk of CVD death (RR>1000 vs. 0 mg/day =1.20, 95% CI: 1.051.36), more specifically with heart disease death (RR=1.19, 95% CI: 1.031.37), but not significantly with cerebrovascular disease death (RR=1.14, 95% CI: 0.811.61). In women, supplemental calcium intake was not associated with CVD death (RR= 1.06, 95% CI: 0.96, 1.18), heart disease death (RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.931.18) or cerebrovascular disease death (RR=1.08, 95% CI: 0.871.33). Dietary calcium intake was not related to CVD death in either men or women.. Translation: Dietary calcium okay, supplemental bad. http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f228: Compared with intakes between 600 and 1000 mg/day, intakes above 1400 mg/day were associated with higher death rates from all causes (hazard ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.67), cardiovascular disease (1 49, 1.09 to 2.02), and ischaemic heart disease (2.14, 1.48 to 3.09) but not from stroke (0.73, 0.33 to 1.65).... After sensitivity analysis including marginal structural models, the higher death rate with low dietary calcium intake ( less than 600 mg/day) or with low and high total calcium intake was no longer apparent. Use of calcium tablets (6% users; 500 mg calcium per tablet) was not on average associated with all cause or cause specific mortality but among calcium tablet users with a dietary calcium intake above 1400 mg/day the hazard ratio for all cause mortality was 2.57 (95% confidence interval 1.19 to 5.55). Translation: High Ca looks bad, but after controlling for the use of supplements, there was no statistically significant effect of dietary Ca on death rate. Just taking a 500mg per day supplment was not a problem, but taking a 500mg supplement on top of dietary calcium of > 1400mg per day was bad. However, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2997825/, does not distinguish between the two sources of Calcium. Also see this citation.
Tetsuo
23d
12/12/13
We're reading the same documents differently. This is what i see when i read them "Taking a calcium supplement on top of your (western) diet will push you over the limit of 1200mg a day and will have a negative effect on your health" In all of the charts you can see that almost none of the food only participants exceed 900mg a day. If those other people eat roughly the same food their supplements will push them to the 1300-1900 range. I find this image (showing total calcium intake form all sources) most explenatory http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3756477/figure/F2/1 (Thank you for picking it apart, this is the only we we'll find flaws)
2Replies
Sintax
22d Looking at that graph makes it pretty clear to me that this is only relevant to men. I'm personally keeping my recipe unisex and going for extra calcium, with confirmation here that it's beneficial to women. The risk to men for having higher than 1200 (while still under the UL) doesn't seem to be too pronounced, though. As @spryte mentioned previously in this thread, it may relate to a balancing act with vitamin k2. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/11/3100.long1 It mentions there that those who have highest k2 intakes have 57% less chance of dieing from cardiovascular disease. I think that's what men suffer from with too high calcium, right? The function of vitamin k2 is to keep calcium from building up in the arteries. This is why the ratios are important. You can just crank up one mineral by itself and it can cause problems. But if you take into consideration the whole diet, it could be a different story. I've been going with 100mcg just because that's what the supplements come in. Perhaps if you push towards 2000mg of Ca, shooting for 200mcg of k2 would be a good idea, just to be safe. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any thorough study on k2, for how much you should be getting relative to Ca, Mg, D, etc. It hasn't even made it to the list of USDA vital nutrients yet, although I imagine that is inevitable.
drknexus
21d Tetsuo said: This is what i see when i read them "Taking a calcium supplement on top of your (western) diet will push you over the limit of 1200mg a day and will have a negative effect on your health" No worries. That is what this boards are for. However, I'm not on the same page with you yet. It seems like perhaps your interpretation is based on looking at the figure (that isn't adjusted for Ca source). Mine is based on reading the text and a bit of stats background. The top 20% of males in the study Q5 had a median intake of 1247mg Ca. The risk estimates for high Ca will be made independently (in the multivariate analysis) for those who are and are not taking Ca supplements. Your conclusion runs opposite to the text which also sites a number of other studies that reached the same conclusion:
12/12/13
Dietary calcium was not associated with CVD death in Dutch civil servants 12, US Health Professionals Follow-up Study 13, the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study 14, and the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study24. However, a study of postmenopausal women in Iowa found a 37% decrease in ischemic heart disease mortality with high dietary calcium intake among those who did not take supplements 10, a finding that we did not observe even after similar restriction was applied. In fact the next citation indicates that over 1600mg of dietary Ca might even be good in regards to cardiovascular disease in men. A study of Swedish men also reported with borderline significance that CVD mortality was 23% (RR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.58, 1.01) lower in the highest tertile of dietary calcium intake (>=1599 mg/d) vs. the lowest tertile (less than 1230 mg/d) 25. The dietary calcium intake in the Swedish cohort was substantially higher than that in the male participants of our study or other studies. It remains to be determined whether very high intake of dietary calcium may offer a protective effect. So, if you are concerned about restriction in range in this study (i.e. not enough taking over 1200mg dietary) then go take a gander at the Swedish study. As with all dietary stuff, it is going to have limitations. Who knows what the Sweeds are eating that pushes their Ca so high? @Sintax is right, the risk being discussed appears to be more pertinent for men than for women. I'll have to go back and read what @spryte wrote. Off the cuff, the importance of K2 is probably less about the K2 itself than it is about the vegetables that come with K2. If men are high in dietary K2 but high in Ca, guess what they are probably eating? Lots of milk and cheese. So it isn't that K2 keeps Ca from building up in the arteries per se... it is that it is a marker for other things going on. (See LPI for acknowledged effects of Vitamin K). All of that being said, I'm not proposing that the effects of Ca in Figure 2 are just a consequence of milk & cheese... after all the plots are controlled for a variety of other intakes. But, these issues, as @jrowe47 has been saying, are complex.
Tetsuo
17d Thanks for the clarification. I took some time to think through why i came to my conclusion and i will explain it below. I basically did a meta study, judging the quality of each study done and then distilling average conclusions., i will do this again but slightly more accurate: All of the studies i read where flawed from a scientific standpoint: Not double blinded, not using 3 groups(control, placebo, active), not using basian statistics, self selection for supplementary calcium users, etc... Due to these flaws I will only be looking at observed general trends throughout all studies. Trend A: Intake of calcium lower than 800mg/d appears linked to disease, i suggest starting a research study to find out why. Trend B: People who choose to take supplement calcium are the type of people who are also more at risk for cardiovascular diseases, i suggest starting a study to find out why these people are more at risk Trend C: Balancing risks a value of around 1100mg/d seems to be a safe bet. I suggest a study aimed at finding the optimal dose Trend D: It "seems" impossible to "overdose" on calcium when taken in the form of natural food, there is an unknown factor that causes the body to either deal differently with the absorbed calcium or not absorb it at all. I would highly recommend studying this link. The flaws are inherent in all nutrition based studies (and even most medical studies). I've also been thinking, if supplemental calcium is really so bad then that would make soylent dangerous and it should have shown up in all the people who are getting liquid food due to being in coma or having other reasons to get liquid food over long periods of time.
67/68
12/12/13
drknexus
15d There are actually techniques to do what you are talking about, meta-analysis. Although I like Bayesian statistics a failure to use them does not reflect a 'scientific flaw'. It is true that nutrition studies are hard to do (even) under ideal circumstances, if for no other reason people tend to see what they are eating. Double-blinds and the three groups you describe are a desired thing, but not an easy thing. Sure, further research is needed. I feel like the evidence for intake under 800 mg/d is acceptable as is. However, in regard to Trend B... maybe I missed some big things, but I see no reason why one should believe that the method of ill-health causation for taking Ca supplements is indirect through the type of person who takes those supplements versus the supplementation itself. In the studies I read through very basic control variables are in place to control for some of these type subject differences. The more direct explaination (Suplemental Ca -> disease) meets a more clear Occam's Razor criteria. I also agree that around 1000mg/d, regardless of source, appears to confer no concerning increase in risk of ill-health. Trend D was really my big point and I'm glad you are now on the same page. I'd be more cautious than you on that point, because there clearly is something to watch in regards to milk sources versus green sources as the evidence comes available. Soylent would only be 'dangerous' if a) calcium exceeded a safe level (e.g. above the UTL) and b) was from non-food sources. I suspect that medical food (like that being given to people in a coma) holds fairly closely to RDAs for inactive adults as such it wouldn't tend to meet criteria a). Too bad people in a coma have rights and we have ethics, otherwise all of your other research questions could be addressed, at least for people in comas.
Log In to Reply
Suggested Topics
Topic Question about Frothiness Category Posts Likes Views Activity DIY Soylent 4 2 196 14 Jun 16 Jun 13 1 2 1.5K 27 Jun 22d 170 21 Aug 22 Aug 380 142 23 Jun 28 Jun 12 Aug 12 Aug
Oat powder shouldnt raw starches be cooked before eating? DIY Soylent 40 Take a look at my macros? DIY Soylent 15 I know theres already a taste and flavorings thread, but Soylent Making Me Thirsty DIY Soylent 7 DIY Soylent 2
There are 32 new topics remaining, or browse other topics in DIY Soylent
Show all posts in this topic again.
share a link to this topic
68/68

Optimal Micronutrient Ratios - Soylent Discourse

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optimal Micronutrient Ratios - Soylent Discourse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/12/13