Posted by Larry Hoover on November 27, 2003, at 10:17:10
In reply to I know the customer always looks irritated, posted by Jai on November 27, 2003, at 9:55:18
> > Oh, goodness. We are at risk of TMI here. (too much information)
> >
> my thoughts exactly> > The term is usually applied to certain types of mineral supplements, usually the more expensive ones, generally thought to provide a more bioavailable form of the mineral.
> >
> now that's the short answer and maybe enough for the customer....?You work in health food retail?
> > Minerals that you want to supplement are ions. For example, magnesium has twice lost electrons, and it is stable as the Mg++ ion. It will form salts with negatively charged ions, like chloride (Cl-), as an example. You'd need two chlorides to balance the charge on the magnesium, so mag chloride is MgCl2. Chloride likes to dissolve in water (consider sodium chloride), so mag chloride dissolves nicely.
> >
> > Chelates also dissolve readily. A chelate is even more loosely bound to e.g. magnesium than is the chloride ion. The word chelate comes from the Greek chela, or claw.
> The idea here is that a single molecule (the chelating substance) grips the mineral ion multiple times (like a pincer). The mineral ions can get out of the pincer easily, in the stomach's acid environment.> this is a great visual to remember !
The word came from the visual, actually.
> But don't you want the mineral intact within the ion's pincers to get through the stomach's acid to the intestines villi?
No. You want it free at some point. Dissolved. If it gets back in the pincers, uptake is reduced. It's a dynamic process, getting pinced and released, pinced and released.
> > What makes chelates unique is that you're really supplementing two (potentially) bio-active substances simultaneously. The mineral ion has physiological effects, but so do pure amino acids. There have been many discussions about the different mental effects of different magnesium chelates, such as mangesium taurate and magnesium glycinate. The differences arise from the chelating amino acids, taurine and glycine, not from the magnesium.
> So is the idea that the chelating amino acids: taurine and glycine etc are okay for the long term intestinal process?
Pure aminos have distinctive effects. They are not digested per se, and they are not likely to have digestive effects themselves because that is dose-related. You get very little in an amino chelate, as compared with say a purposeful dose of a pure amino.
> What's in the chelated amino acid package? is it a bundle of all the amino acids?
That's the hundred dollar question. If it (the label) doesn't say....it's anybody's guess.
My thinking is that the cheapest way to be able to make the label claim "amino acid chelate" is to use e.g. hydrolysed whey protein or soya protein. If that's the case, then you're going to get the effect of digested protein....a blend effect, not a pure effect.
> Then they seperated them out and individuated them and attached them to the mineral as an advanced move?
If it mentions a specific form, e.g. taurate, that is a specialized process, and you're going to pay extra for that. The attachment part automatically happens....the purification part is expensive.
> Because, as you said, this enhances the mineral experience. Why are the chelated amino acids easier on the digesting process in the long run.
They're more like food than other supplements are. Chemical salts are not normally part of the diet.
> Are my questions clear?
> JaiClear and reasonable.
> ps (nice to hear from you.)
:-)
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:283788
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20031122/msgs/284429.html