This Ionic company is so ashamed of their product that have to make up names
for the real compounds in their product?
> > Since your headaches are one-sided, maybe the multies don't
> > provide the balance your body needs, and actually chemically
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
>
> Scott N
> Heather,
> Why I find it very interesting is the fact that I have mentioned that
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> This product just about shares both sides of the list and questions
> the claims of that theory.
Actually, the way I see it, only calcium and magnesium would
(barely) have any impact since the amounts of the other
ingredients are basically too low to have any effect at all.
Since magnesium is much higher than calcium given the usual
1:2 calcium-magnesium ratio, this formulation would favor
lessening a right-sided headache provided you are the appropriate
"A or B" headache type. But again, it is doubtful that even
calcium or magnesium at those levels would do anything.
I use nothing but that acu-cell method for headaches myself now,
and the first time in my life I am almost completely headache-free,
or I can at least get rid of one within a reasonable time period.
Tylenol or Aspirin-types of drugs give me more headaches or other
problems, and I just haven't found anything else that helps.
> I suspect, as mentioned in my other thread
> at sci-life-extension, that it is a grown allergic reaction to a
> filler/binder. Or possibly a deficiency in something that a multi
> alone is not correcting? Or some kind of conflicting dose ratio?
Swiss Herbal company sells two manganese tabs, one with herbal
fillers, and the other with plain fillers. I know 2 people who both
had originally taken the type with the herbal fillers and one got a
rash, and the other a headache with them, but neither had any
problems after switching to the tabs with the plain fillers, despite
both being sold by the same company.
> Actually, this headache incident with Multi's and the ensuing search
> for a reason has shaken up my whole belief in supplements even more.
> The above example is one reason. It seems more and more to me that
> this is such an inexact science with conflicting ideas of ideal
> supplementation and dose, that one might be better off not taking
> them?
The dictionary says that a supplement is "something added to
complete a thing, or supply a deficiency" - so when you take a multi,
you aren't really fulfilling that term because even though you may
improve one depleted situation, you are doing the same thing with
those nutrients that are not deficient, so they may actually become
too high.
In other words, if you take a GENERAL nutritional supplement,
you may ward off a true deficiency (rare in the Western world),
but if not, you are not likely to improve your health significantly
given the possibility that some of the things that are already high
will go even higher.
If you take a SPECIFIC supplement (matched to what you actually
need), then you obviously create the potential to both - improve your
health, and your longevity. Of course this will only happen if you
have any nutritional (genetic) weak spots that you can iron out with
a supplement, because if you are genetically fit, then a supplement
will be a waste of time. Those who "eat, drink, and be merry" and
live to a ripe old age without any regards to proper eating habits
prove that over and over again.
Heather