What are the essential trace elements (or essential elements)

#1

I was caught out a bit recently finding that Molybdenum is a key element of 4 important human enzymes and it is relatively easy to not have sufficient. Interestingly it is often not included in combination pills. Also I like to get dosing right so a separate Mo supplement can be useful.

Still I thought I would so some reading up on what are the essential minerals. It turns out that there are lots of different views on this. There is some accepted commonality, but there are lots of disagreements. I thought it would be a useful discussion point on the less common ETEs. There is, for example, some chinese research which appears to suggest that Strontium helps with sleep.

Still here are two links:

One from a medical source:

Minerals are those elements on the earth and in foods that our bodies need to develop and function normally. Those essential for health include calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, chloride, magnesium, iron, zinc, iodine, chromium, copper, fluoride, molybdenum, manganese, and selenium.

and one from a media outlet

The minerals that are considered essential are broken into the electrolytes: calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, and magnesium and the microminerals: iron, and zinc. copper, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, iodine, selenium, sulphur, chloride, boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, arsenic, and chromium.

I picked those two sources as they contrast quite a bit.

I think these go without discussion:
calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, chloride, magnesium, iron, zinc, iodine,

This have acceptance as well
chromium, copper, molybdenum, manganese, and selenium.

Cobalt is essential, but people get it as part of cobalamin (Vitamin B12) where it tends to stay.

I think Boron is generally helpful, but not strictly essential.

Fluouride is a mineral that is debated. I live in an area with fluoridated water, but I recognise there is a debate about this.

Vanadium is another one where it is not entirely clear.

Strontium does not appear on either list, but there clearly seems to be some medical jusitification for a bit when it comes to bone strength (it seems to work in a similar way to calcium).

This has a bit of a garbled abstract, but I think it says Sr is good for old people’s sleep

When I first wrote this I forgot Lithium, I think this is a bit like Boron, not actually essential, but helpful. (in small quantities)

Nickel is one I have not seen before and Arsenic really does not strike me as something people want to supplement with.

Arsenic has some medical uses, but I don’t think a well person should try taking it

There are also people who think Nickel is good

any more for any more.

5 Likes
#2

Sulfur is the only other one i can think of.

I eat a lot of nuts because i love them, but i also think if them as a kind of mineral supplement. I think a bag of mixed nuts covers absolutely everything. But i may be wrong! Interested if any of if these minerals aren’t found in nuts.

Composition of Nuts and Their Potential Health Benefits-An Overview - PubMed.

2 Likes
#3

I am trying to get to the bottom of the issue as to what evidence there is on things like Strontium and Vanadium. Strontium seems to help with sleep according to one chinese paper (as well as Molybdenum). Vanadium is suggested to improve glucose handling. However, it also seems to have a lot more negatives than Strontium.

Things like Lead, Mercury and Cadmium are considered by all sources to be toxic. Oddly enough there is a debate about Arsenic and Nickel. However, I am not tempted by them myself.

This paper (in Polish)

Suggests in the conclusion (which I have had translated) that more research about arsenic is needed in humans. I personally would not see this as a priority for research.

I thought I would put some links through to papers that cover the same area that are free to air:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009279722003787?via%3Dihub

This gives quite a few reasons not to take Nickel.

This looks like a vote against Vanadium

This is more balanced on Vanadium

2 Likes
#4

This is an interesting paper with a vote for Nickel as an essential element

Nickel

It is well-accepted that nickel (Ni) is as an essential trace nutrient in plants, animals, and humans. However, less than 10% of nickel ingested with food and drinking water is absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract.[3] Although the biological function of nickel is still somewhat unclear in the human body, however, nickel is found in the body in highest concentrations in the nucleic acids, particularly RNA, and is thought to be somehow involved in protein structure or function. It has been speculated that nickel may play a role, as a cofactor, in the activation of certain enzymes related to the breakdown or utilization of glucose. Nickel may aid in prolactin production, and thus be involved in human breast milk production.[98,99,100,101] More research is needed to reveal the properties of this interesting mineral in the human body. Small quantities of nickel are essential for the body, but when the uptake is too high it can be toxic to human health. Studies have shown that humans may be exposed to nickel during breathing air, eating food, or smoking cigarettes and acute exposure of human body to nickel may cause several health problems such as liver, kidney, spleen, brain and tissue damage, vesicular eczema, lung, and nasal cancer.[100,102] In addition, acute toxicity can follow exposure to nickel carbonyl, a gas generated as part of the refining process for the metal.[103] Occupational exposure to nickel and its compounds can also cause allergic dermatitis known as “nickel allergy” in sensitized individuals. Dermatitis due to wearing nickel-plated objects such as jewelry is well-documented.[104,105] Nickel deficiency has not been shown to be a concern in humans; despite this, it may cause biochemical changes, such as reduced iron resorption that leads to anemia. It can disturb the incorporation of calcium into a skeleton and lead to parakeratosis-like damage, which finds expression in disturbed zinc metabolism. It has found that nickel deficiency particularly affects carbohydrate metabolism.[99]

2 Likes
#5

I am continuing to research Strontium and Vanadium. Strontium has seen bad reactions at the level of about 1 1/2 grams a day (that may not be elemental). It, however, may have some use in strengthening bones and teeth, but has been known to cause hair loss.

At the moment I have a carton of strontium which reminds me to keep researching, but if I take any it won’t be daily and probably at the moment I won’t take any.

1 Like
#6

I have some interesting information on Strontium. A key question is the extent to which Strontium is handled by the body in a different way to Calcium. The reason Strontium is thought to help with teeth and bones is that substantially the body handles it similarly. There are, of course, differences which is why some people have suffered from overdosing on Strontium. (with as little a dose as 1.5g per day)

Different foods have different ratios between Strontium and Calcium. Fish, for example, has about 0.6% whereas other foods tend to have about 0.03%. This means people often eat perhaps between 1 and 2 mg of Stable Strontium (84, 86, 87, and 88). Strontium 89 has a half life of 50.6 days and has been used to treat bone cancer. Strontium 90 has a half life of 28.9 years and is a byproduct of fission reactions.

This is why quite a bit of the metabolism of radioactive Strontium was studied in the 1950s and 60s.

#7

I just ordered boron again and am currently already supplementing lithium but for the other more esoteric stuff I just eat seafood and shellfish and hope these contain the necessary trace elements but not too much…

1 Like
#8

Reading up further on Strontium, however, it seems that it is potentially harmful to the kidneys and the heart. Hence I think the risk reward ratio is pretty strongly against Strontium.

#9

I have also been reading up further on Vanadium. It also appears to have quite a bit of toxicity, but seems to be an option for improving glucose handling in some circumstances. However, as even with Rapamycin I am not particularly worried about glucose and HbA1c I think I will give it a miss, but keep it as something to look at if I do need to control glucose a bit more.