Has anyone tried angstrom minerals? david wolf has some packages with up to 20 different angstrom minerals. I am very interested in trying them. The expense makes me hesitate, along with the unknown of the usefulness of these minerals. I generally believe in whole foods, and raw foods, but david wolf seems to think that one may not always get what one needs from food alone.

So, i am curious to know what experience any of you have had with angstrom sized minerals. (a bit different from ionic, and collodial minderals)

They are optional. I like them. I think they are good to take on occasion, but you won't need them EVERY DAY if you are high raw.

Some of them would be good to take because they are either not found in plants or are found but not in very high amounts, like cobalt, gold, silver, chromium, germanium, iodine, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and vanadium. You might consider taking these a few times per year.

But the other minerals you probably won't need to take. I'm sure you're getting plenty of you are eating high raw.

IMO you can get everything your body needs from plants and if the plant hasn't organized the minerals into the plant structure then the body won't be able to use it.

Tiger,
I was anticipating that one would not have to use these on going...that would get outrageously expensive, getting the program once is enough to make me really stop and think about it. I was thinking that maybe I could take the program once a year, that is take them once a week until they are used up, and then not again until next year, something like that.

ez rider,
So it has to be part of a plant structure? the claim is made that the minerals can go directly into the cell nucelous, but what it does when it get there? who is to say. I really do believe that foods in the u.s. are generally very deficient in vitamins and minerals, even organic foods. So somewhere, somehow, one has to find a way to get these elements via supplements, or some specially grown and processed foods which are guarenteed to have these elements. Few products however make such a guarentee.

Quote

Posted by: Mislu (IP Logged)
Date: April 04, 2008 11:41PM

So it has to be part of a plant structure?

The plant organizes the minerals into its cell structure so that the body "recognizes" the nutrients and absorbs them. The plants act as a go between the soil and the animal. If this weren't so you could scoop up a handful of dirt and eat it for your minerals but this has been tried in times of famine and the people starved.

If plants are too deficient in vitamins and minerals, they *can't grow*. You can't grow many plants in nutrient-deficient soil. When they grow fine, it's because they *do* have everything they need. We can get almost all the vitamins and minerals we need from plants (vit D and B-12 are the obvious exceptions); the problem with people is that they aren't eating enough whole plant foods, not that our supply is deficient.

There is no solid, consistent study or proof showing these are needed---yet such a study would be easy to do. I think it is a scam.

Mislu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tiger,
> I was anticipating that one would not have to use
> these on going...that would get outrageously
> expensive, getting the program once is enough to
> make me really stop and think about it. I was
> thinking that maybe I could take the program once
> a year, that is take them once a week until they
> are used up, and then not again until next year,
> something like that.

Right. If a high percentage of your diet is high raw, then you won't need some of the angstrom minerals. But like I said, there is a lot of benefit from angstrom minerals that are not usually found in plants, like the non-typical ones I mentioned.

If you decide to take them, and I encourage people to, you won't need them every day. Maybe take a bottle of each one perhaps 3-4 times per year. This would be a general suggestion for everyone.

However, if you have some kind of health ailment that requires these non-typical minerals, then that changes the equation and you'd need a lot more.

But as a general rule, raw foodists won't need some of the minerals, other than the ones I listed since they are either not normally found in food or are found in very low quantities.

On another note, I would research who the manufacturer is for the angstrom minerals that DW or NFL are selling. If it's the company in Idaho, you're fine. If it's another company, then I'd stay away from them since they don't produce the minerals the same way.

rost0037 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If plants are too deficient in vitamins and
> minerals, they *can't grow*. You can't grow many
> plants in nutrient-deficient soil. When they grow
> fine, it's because they *do* have everything they
> need. We can get almost all the vitamins and
> minerals we need from plants (vit D and B-12 are
> the obvious exceptions); the problem with people
> is that they aren't eating enough whole plant
> foods, not that our supply is deficient.


You are correct in stating that plants must have certain minerals or else they can't grow or survive. Plants need the following minerals in order to grow; they are called "Macronutrients":

Calcium
Magnesium
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Sulfur
(a lack of any of these nutrients and the plant will either not grow at all, or it will be deformed, or susceptible to disease and won't survive)
------------------

The minerals in this next list are known as "Micronutrients," and provide a lot of extra benefits to the plant, but they won't always be found in plant tissues. They provide some nice supplemental benefit to plants but they are not absolutely required by a plant in order to grow:

Boron
Copper
Chloride
Iron
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Zinc

(To make things more complicated, the list of "Essential" minerals for plants and the list of "Essential" and "Beneficial" minerals for people are not always the same, and it depends on how they are defined. But that's an entirely different discussion.)

Rost0037,

"If plants are too deficient in vitamins and minerals, they *can't grow*. You can't grow many plants in nutrient-deficient soil. If plants are too deficient in vitamins and minerals, they *can't grow*. You can't grow many plants in nutrient-deficient soil. When they grow fine, it's because they *do* have everything they need. We can get almost all the vitamins and minerals we need from plants (vit D and B-12 are the obvious exceptions); the problem with people is that they aren't eating enough whole plant foods, not that our supply is deficient.

There is no solid, consistent study or proof showing these are needed---yet such a study would be easy to do. I think it is a scam."


Modern agricultural methods produce large quanties of food, not because they are getting everything needed for human health, but because they are being over stimulated by artificial fertilizers. For the most part its 4 elements. N,P,K plus lime. In addition PLANTS may do fine on different ratio of minerals and nutrients for ITS needs, not ours.

Some minerals may be abscent or low, as far as our needs are concerned. A great example is ZINC. I am aware of many studies on zinc deficiencies in various countries. They are eating normal food, grown in soil that is low in zinc. Developemental problems are corrected when they recieved zinc supplementation. But it was found that they recovered faster with far fewer side effects when the zinc was added to soil to which plants were growing in.

I am not so sure about what you mean by nutrient deficient soils. There really is no ultimate soil condition, or balance of minerals which will work for all plants. Blueberries love acid soils, often boggy, peaty and some varieties like it rather water logged. Teff likes high temps, can tolerate very dry conditions, and I believe even alkaline soils. Crab grass loves very compacted depleted soils, and from what I understand a number of herbs love these sorts of conditions. Its hard for me to believe that a plant growing in 'crab grass' soil is going to have adaquate minerals by supplementing with just n,p,k. If it normally would not grow in crabgrass soils.

Tiger,

Thank you for your input. I decided I would NOT get the angstrom minerals. Mostly because of the expense, but also because of the unknowns in consuming them. Although they are micro particles they are still elemental forms of minerals, I just didn't feel comfortable with the ideal of way smaller than dust particles of metals etc..floating in my blood and cells. More than likely they would immediately react with something in the cells. One would hope that its reacting to produce something good, but one doesn't know, as its not the way it appears in food as far as I know.

I totally agree with you about the minerals in plants. Major agricultural suppliers typically just add N,P,K, plus lime. That pretty much covers your list. Lime can be mg or ca, or both. Sulfur is often part of chemical nitrogen fertilizers. So as far as a producer is concerned they did their job. They produced their crop and brought it to market. They have bills to pay. For the most part they aren't concerned about a full spectrum of minerals, or even adding a few of the micro minerals, unless it specifically affects production. Soil chemistry can also be pretty strange. I heard of ag scientists having a problem with boron deficiency, where it actually got worse after the addition of boron. Plants have relied upon the release of nutrients from dead things for millions of years, so why does anyone think anything else will be sustainable?

Its also entirely possible to be deficient in minerals even with a totally organic source of fertilization, but I think its probably going to be less of a problem, especially if the land is not intensely farmed, allowed to rest and regenerate.

I got 'centrum' and am making solutions to feed to berry bushes and other plants in my yard. I hope that they like this. This winter I added some to my salmonberries and they seem to have liked it, so I decided to try it on more.

I concede that soils may still be low in some nutrients--selenium is another one.

But I have to quibble over a definition:
Calcium
Magnesium
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Sulfur

are NOT macronutrients. Macronutrients are carbohydrate, proteins (amino acids), and lipids--that is, calorie-containing molecules. The above listed are not macronutrients by definition. You can find this in any intro nutrition text.

They ARE required in higher amounts than the other micronutrients listed, so I do agree with the difference you are referring to. I still feel that taking supplements may lead to inbalances--what if you are not low in a certain nutrient, but take it, for instance. What if it is not the right amount? Better to support permaculture products and that sort of thing when possible.

Quote

Posted by: Mislu (IP Logged)
Date: April 09, 2008 10:10PM

Although they are micro particles they are still elemental forms of minerals.

When I looked into this that is what I found also and until more is know about the absorption of non-plant elements I also am going to pass.

Rost0037,

"Macronutrients" was originally posted by tiger. A better term may have been macro-minerals, and microminerals, or trace minerals. From the point of few of a Plant, minerals are nutrients. I found the discussion 'fruitful' even if its not fully specific and technically correct. The concept of catagories of minerals based on relative amounts needed is correct at the heart of the matter.

So please don't use this as a point to side track the discussion, so we don't miss something important in reguards to minerals in the soil which hopefully ultimately reach us in the correct form, and in optimal amounts. Not excessive, and not deficient. There is chemical intelligence in plants which I don't believe we know how to duplicate, so we should appreciate that, and never take it for granted. Our goal as a species should be to enhance our planet in every way, which means helping plants help us, and helping plants help and feed everything, provide beauty, and other necessities, recreation, relaxation, clothing etc...

Sorry, wasn't trying to sidetrack. Since I work in the field I find the distinction important. But I love those last sentences you wrote... beautiful.

Roost37,
Which field do you work in? Were the concepts correct? or are we both missing something?