Re: + Mg, - Cu, + life

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Well I don't understand this study, for a number of reasons.

First, the abstract talks about quartiles, but the table appears to

show tertiles (low medium high).

Second, the conclusions I would draw from the table are quite

different from the conclusions in the abstract. Is there more

information in the full text that causes the conclusions in the

abstract to be believable, and the data in the table to be misleading?

The conclusions it seems logical to draw from the table are that the

MEDIUM level for copper and zinc is the best; while for magnesium the

high level is the best but only somewhat better than the medium

level. So the medium level seems to be a pretty good bet overall.

And such a conclusion would not be startling. In general, metals of

all kinds are either dangerous in any quantity, or essential in very

small quantities and dangerous in amounts beyond that. All three of

these elements are known to be essential nutrients - including

copper. But not desirable, presumably, in large quantities -

including magnesium. A few years ago I read a study that found that

copper DEFICIENCY was associated with colon cancer.

Presumably I am missing something here, that perhaps is in the full

text. But from the information I currently have the general lesson

seems to me to be, don't overdo metals of any kind, even those that

are recognized as essential nutrients in small quantities. But make

sure you get the small amount you need.

Correction welcome. As always.

Rodney.

>

>

>

> http://tinyurl.com/s8tbq introduces well the pdf-available paper:

>

> Leone N, Courbon D, Ducimetiere P, Zureik M.

> Zinc, copper, and magnesium and risks for all-cause, cancer, and

cardiovascular

> mortality.

> Epidemiology. 2006 May;17(3):308-14.

> PMID: 16570028 http://tinyurl.com/nff7a

>

> TABLE 2. Relative Risks of Death From All Causes, Cancer, and

Cardiovascular Disease

> According to the Levels of Serum Minerals

> ======================================================

> No.---Cause of Death

> ---All causes---Cancer---Cardiovascular Disease

> ---No. of Deaths RR* (95% CI)---No. of Deaths RR* (95% CI)---

No. of

> Deaths RR* (95% CI)

> ======================================================

> Zinc

> Low 1011 100 1.0¶ 54 1.0¶ 16 1.0¶

> Medium 1912 140 0.7 (0.5-0.9) 67 0.6 (0.4-0.9) 26 0.8 (0.4-1.6)

> High 1112 99 0.8 (0.6-1.1) 55 0.8 (0.6-1.3) 14 0.7 (0.3-1.5)

> Copper

> Low 1005 71 1.0¶ 38 1.0¶ 12 1.0¶

> Medium 2015 149 1.0 (0.7-1.3) 75 0.9 (0.6-1.4) 24 0.9 (0.4-1.8)

> High 1015 119 1.5 (1.1-2.1) 63 1.4 (0.9-2.2) 20 1.3 (0.6-2.8)

> Magnesium

> Low 1059 118 1.0¶ 63 1.0¶ 21 1.0¶

> Medium 2188 168 0.7 (0.6-0.9) 88 0.7 (0.5-1.0) 25 0.5 (0.3-1.0)

> High 788 53 0.6 (0.4-0.8) 25 0.5 (0.3-0.8) 10 0.6 (0.2-1.2)

> ======================================================

> *Relative risks for zinc, copper, and magnesium, included

simultaneously, were

> adjusted using 's proportional hazards model for age, body mass

index, smoking

> status (never, former, or current), alcohol consumption (</=20, 21-

40, >40 mL/d),

> physical activity (sedentary life, moderate, vigorous exercise),

hypertension

> (yes/no), serum LDL and HDL cholesterol concentration,

triglycerides, diabetes

> (yes/no), and cardiovascular disease history (yes/no).

> ¶Reference category

>

> -- Al Pater, alpater@...

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Further to this issue, I have now seen the full text of this paper

(thanks due once again to the usual source!)

I am now a little more confused! Here is an excerpt:

" Additionally, subjects with a combination of low zinc and high

copper values had synergistically increased all-cause (2.6; 1.4-5.0)

and cancer (2.7; 1.0-7.3) mortality risks. Similarly, combined low

zinc and high magnesium values were associated with decreased all-

cause (0.2; 0.1-0.5) and cancer (0.2; 0.1-0.8) mortality risks. "

LOL

Is the above what they meant to say? Because if the paper actually

means what it says then we are not only damned if we do, we are also

damned if we don't.

Unless I need a new pair of reading glasses, as it stands it seems to

be telling us we need ***HIGH*** zinc (combined with low copper) to

avoid substantially elevated risks of cancer and all-cause

mortality. And at the same time we need ***LOW*** zinc (combined

with high magnesium) to enjoy a truly huge - 80% - reduction in risk

of cancer and all-cause mortality.

I wonder how they are expecting us to achieve this? Perhaps in

translation from french to english (the study appears to have been

done at the Pasteur Institute in Lille, France) an error crept in?

Or should we recommend that when writing future papers the author

might consider reducing his champagne intake and increase his

consumption of café au lait? Or are the results just a figment of

too much statistical data manipulation, or too small a sample? Or,

of course, have I missed something?

Rodney.

> >

> >

> >

> > http://tinyurl.com/s8tbq introduces well the pdf-available paper:

> >

> > Leone N, Courbon D, Ducimetiere P, Zureik M.

> > Zinc, copper, and magnesium and risks for all-cause, cancer, and

> cardiovascular

> > mortality.

> > Epidemiology. 2006 May;17(3):308-14.

> > PMID: 16570028 http://tinyurl.com/nff7a

> >

> > TABLE 2. Relative Risks of Death From All Causes, Cancer, and

> Cardiovascular Disease

> > According to the Levels of Serum Minerals

> > ======================================================

> > No.---Cause of Death

> > ---All causes---Cancer---Cardiovascular Disease

> > ---No. of Deaths RR* (95% CI)---No. of Deaths RR* (95% CI)--

-

> No. of

> > Deaths RR* (95% CI)

> > ======================================================

> > Zinc

> > Low 1011 100 1.0¶ 54 1.0¶ 16 1.0¶

> > Medium 1912 140 0.7 (0.5-0.9) 67 0.6 (0.4-0.9) 26 0.8 (0.4-1.6)

> > High 1112 99 0.8 (0.6-1.1) 55 0.8 (0.6-1.3) 14 0.7 (0.3-1.5)

> > Copper

> > Low 1005 71 1.0¶ 38 1.0¶ 12 1.0¶

> > Medium 2015 149 1.0 (0.7-1.3) 75 0.9 (0.6-1.4) 24 0.9 (0.4-1.8)

> > High 1015 119 1.5 (1.1-2.1) 63 1.4 (0.9-2.2) 20 1.3 (0.6-2.8)

> > Magnesium

> > Low 1059 118 1.0¶ 63 1.0¶ 21 1.0¶

> > Medium 2188 168 0.7 (0.6-0.9) 88 0.7 (0.5-1.0) 25 0.5 (0.3-1.0)

> > High 788 53 0.6 (0.4-0.8) 25 0.5 (0.3-0.8) 10 0.6 (0.2-1.2)

> > ======================================================

> > *Relative risks for zinc, copper, and magnesium, included

> simultaneously, were

> > adjusted using 's proportional hazards model for age, body

mass

> index, smoking

> > status (never, former, or current), alcohol consumption (</=20,

21-

> 40, >40 mL/d),

> > physical activity (sedentary life, moderate, vigorous exercise),

> hypertension

> > (yes/no), serum LDL and HDL cholesterol concentration,

> triglycerides, diabetes

> > (yes/no), and cardiovascular disease history (yes/no).

> > ¶Reference category

> >

> > -- Al Pater, alpater@

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >

[Guest guest]

>

> " Additionally, subjects with a combination of low zinc and high

> copper values had synergistically increased all-cause (2.6; 1.4-5.0)

> and cancer (2.7; 1.0-7.3) mortality risks. Similarly, combined low

> zinc and high magnesium values were associated with decreased all-

> cause (0.2; 0.1-0.5) and cancer (0.2; 0.1-0.8) mortality risks. "

>

>

> Unless I need a new pair of reading glasses, as it stands it seems to

> be telling us we need ***HIGH*** zinc (combined with low copper) to

> avoid substantially elevated risks of cancer and all-cause

> mortality. And at the same time we need ***LOW*** zinc (combined

> with high magnesium) to enjoy a truly huge - 80% - reduction in risk

> of cancer and all-cause mortality.

>

Rodney,

You may be jumping to an unwarranted conclusion by interpreting that

you need " ***HIGH*** zinc combined with low copper " to avoid elevated

cancer risk.

Since in both cases the zinc is LOW, the only difference may be due to

the levels of copper and magnesium. In other words, supplement

magnesium, don't supplement copper, and keep zinc low.

IMO

Tony

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

Perhaps I should have elaborated a little further than I had.

Table 3 of the paper, which I did not specifically reference in my

post, shows in addition that the combination of low (first quartile)

zinc with high (fourth quartile) copper (supposedly?) greatly

increases cancer risk (RR = 2.7). But with high (fourth quartile)

zinc the amount of copper, high or low, doesn't make much difference

(RR = 1.0). So the increased risk in this case could be interpreted

as being the result of the low zinc rather than the high copper. Or

that fourth quartile zinc protects against the effects of fourth

quartile copper.

When the elements were taken individually a medium level of copper

was found to be better than either a high or low level. Copper is an

essential nutrient so there is a limit on how low one should go.

However, first quartile zinc is one component contributing, according

to these data, to the 80% reduction in RR when combined with fourth

quartile magnesium!

Hmmmmmmmm. I don't think I am going to change my micronutrient

intake in response to this study.

Rodney.

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@>

wrote:

> >

> > " Additionally, subjects with a combination of low zinc and high

> > copper values had synergistically increased all-cause (2.6; 1.4-

5.0)

> > and cancer (2.7; 1.0-7.3) mortality risks. Similarly, combined

low

> > zinc and high magnesium values were associated with decreased all-

> > cause (0.2; 0.1-0.5) and cancer (0.2; 0.1-0.8) mortality risks. "

> >

> >

> > Unless I need a new pair of reading glasses, as it stands it

seems to

> > be telling us we need ***HIGH*** zinc (combined with low copper)

to

> > avoid substantially elevated risks of cancer and all-cause

> > mortality. And at the same time we need ***LOW*** zinc (combined

> > with high magnesium) to enjoy a truly huge - 80% - reduction in

risk

> > of cancer and all-cause mortality.

> >

>

> Rodney,

>

> You may be jumping to an unwarranted conclusion by interpreting that

> you need " ***HIGH*** zinc combined with low copper " to avoid

elevated

> cancer risk.

>

> Since in both cases the zinc is LOW, the only difference may be due

to

> the levels of copper and magnesium. In other words, supplement

> magnesium, don't supplement copper, and keep zinc low.

>

> IMO

> Tony

>