Hair mineral analysis test

G

Gertrudes

Guest
This has been on my mind for a while now.
2 months ago I did a hair mineral analysis test, I figured that if I wish to get my health on track, I'd best check my physical status as well. The results were enlightening.
Apparently, I have way too much calcium which, amongst other things is preventing optimum absorption of magnesium; excess strontium, and slow metabolism. Well, I thought slow metabolism would lead to a weight gain, nope, not necessarily.
In fact, I suspected I had thyroid problems after doing the ultra mind solution quizzes, but thought I would tend to hyper thyroid, both because of my physical composition and because my mother had hyper thyroid. But apparently I tend to low thyroid. That explains why I'm constantly feeling cold though....

Since I have done the test, I have spoken with a few people and received some discredit for these testing methods. Searching on the net, not surprisingly I found both the supporters, and the ones who discredit them, and I don't think I am doing a great job in discerning which opinion is the most valid as I feel rather confused.

I have, in the meantime, began to take the supplements they recommended me to take to help with my metabolism, and ability to absorb food. Yet, I am now unsure of how valid these tests are to measure mineral levels and levels of toxicity (which fortunately seemed to be between low to none in my case).

Has any one done such a test, and if so, how accurate did you find it to be? Any thoughts are greatly appreciated! :)
 
Hi Gertrudes,

Question: where would you have such a test done at?

It sounds very interesting and it does make me think into getting one done.
 
Hi sleepermustawaken,

I've searched on the net for a while and ordered from the following website: _http://www.nutrition4all.co.uk/index.html I simply sent them an hair sample by post.
It is UK based, partially why I chose it, but the tests are sent to the US. I am not sure of where you are based, but you might find a provider closer to where you are, that is if you don't live within UK.

I found the 12 pages report to be comprehensive, and it is a relatively inexpensive way to test yourself. That is, if you don't buy the supplements.
I also enjoyed the E-book on minerals that I was sent with the purchase. But as I have mentioned, thoughts about the test's accuracy have been coming to mind lately, I believe that hair mineral analysis can be an indicator for something, but is it accurate, or are there more precise ways of measuring minerals and toxicity levels?
 
I thank YOU for the information Gertrudes,

I will look into it.

I am familiar that for certain drug testing that a hair sample is also taken besides urinalysis. And as for toxicity due to diet, I hope that someone with a background knowledge on this type of analysis would chyme in and give some detail knowledge as to its worth.

I wish you luck with your quest.

I will look into this and report back with anything useful.
 
Thank you sleepermustawaken,

Here is some of the information I have been coming across. On a positive review:

hairanalysistest.com said:
A hair analysis test is the best way to obtain a comprehensive and accurate vitamin deficiency test or a mineral deficiency test.

Hair is the second most metabolically active tissue in the body. The hair tissue is affected by the blood, perspiration, environment, genetics, hormones and enzymes. The hair represents what is occurring inside the cells and the submolecular figures of the body. A blood test shows what is happening outside the cell and the waste material being discarded. The hair gives a reading of what is being stored in the body. For example, if mercury is high in the hair, a higher concentration of it would also be found in organs like the kidney and liver.

A hair analysis gives a complete picture of a person's health history. Our hair analysis test can indicate vitamin, mineral and nutritional deficiencies as well as heavy metal toxicity have occured over a long period of time.

All minerals need to be in balance for optimal health. For instance if calcium and magnesium are too low you may have muscle twitches or trouble sleeping. If sodium and potassium are too high you may have hyperactivity.

If our hair analysis test indicates that there is an elevated mineral toxicity, this means that your minerals are getting stuck in the connective tissues, instead of being utilized by your body. The key is that ALL of your minerals need to be in "balance" with each other so they can nourish your body properly as they are supposed to do.
(...)
Hair Analysis and Heavy Metal Toxicity

This hair test for toxins can show if toxic heavy metals have accumulated in the body. Some of the metals which cause symptoms are mercury, chlorine, iron, aluminum, arsenic, copper, lead, cadmium and nickel. Surprisingly, heavy metal toxicity isn't uncommon. Toxic metals tend to cause havoc to the nervous system.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded in a 1980 report that "human hair can be used effectively for the biological monitoring of the highest priority toxic metals - lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic," and "For toxic exposure... (testing) hair appears to be superior to (testing) blood and urine."."
Click to expand...

On this report we have (emphasis mine):

addadhdadvances.com/hairmineralanalysis.html said:
There was a study published in JAMA in 2001, comparing the results of six of the major hair analysis laboratories in the US. Researchers took hair samples from one healthy individual and sent a sample to each lab, requesting a full analysis. They compared test results for each mineral, laboratory reference ranges, laboratory characteristics, and interpretation of health implications.

They found that in 14 of the thirty-one minerals measured, there was significant disagreement between laboratories. In 12 minerals there was a greater than 10-fold difference between the highest and lowest measured values. Laboratory designations of normal reference ranges varied greatly, resulting in conflicting classifications (high, normal, or low) of nearly all analyzed minerals. The laboratories also provided conflicting dietary and nutritional supplement recommendations based on their results.

The researchers concluded that hair mineral analysis from these laboratories was unreliable. They recommended against the use of hair mineral analysis to assess individual nutritional status or suspected environmental exposures. Problems with the regulation and certification of these laboratories also should be addressed.

This study is a great example of why you need to read scientific studies yourself and not rely upon the researchers’ conclusions. This is a pretty strong criticism, but I will explain why I say this. This study had a number of problems, which invalidates the conclusions of the researchers.
Problem 1:
Only two of the laboratories studied use ICP- Mass Spectrometry, which is the state of the art technology. Those two laboratories had very good agreement in their results. The variation occurred in the laboratories using ICP- Atomic Emission Spectroscopy, which is a less accurate outdated technology.
Problem 2:
One laboratory in the study misrepresented its CLIA license status. The results from this laboratory were responsible for 10 of the 12 spurious results.
Problem 3:
The researchers concluded that the results from all these laboratories were unreliable. However, they themselves did not actually measure the mineral content of the samples. Therefore, they had no way of knowing if some of the laboratories were in fact accurate in their measurements.
Problem 4:
The researchers did not test if the laboratories were consistent in their measurements. They could have done this easily by sending the same sample three or four times to each lab to determine if the results were consistent.
Problem 5:
The conclusion made by the researchers is incorrect. They concluded that hair mineral analysis is unreliable and therefore has no clinical use. This is not what the study demonstrates. What the results do show is that not every lab engaging in mineral analysis is reliable. There is no information from this study as to which laboratories are not accurate. Certainly no blanket statement can be made that all of the laboratories are inaccurate and that hair mineral analysis is not a clinically useful technique. There is no evidence for such assertions.
What Should Have Been Done:
If the researchers really wanted to test hair analysis laboratories fairly, they should have themselves, established reference values for each mineral. They could do this by measured the mineral content of the hair, or through blood tests. This way they could determine which if any of the laboratories were accurate.

They should have sent repeat samples to each of the labs to test for consistent results. If all of these laboratories were inconsistent in their measurements or if none of the lab results reflected the actual mineral content of the samples, then they could conclude that hair analysis is not a useful technique.

The truth is we don’t know whether or not hair analysis is a useful diagnostic technique. To the best of my knowledge it hasn’t been properly studied. What is clear and what is proven by the study is that not all hair analysis laboratories are reliable.

This means the fact that the lab reported your son’s copper reading is too high does not mean that it is. The bottom line is that if you are going to use hair analysis should not be considered a stand-alone diagnostic test for mineral status. It should be used in conjunction with patient symptoms and other laboratory tests.
Click to expand...

I tried to check the technology used at the laboratory my sample was sent to, but there is no information on the website. I think I will do some more studying and then send them an e-mail. I should have probably gotten a better understanding of the most accurate technology at use prior to the test, and which labs do use it.
 
Did the report happen to mention mercury?
 
Perceval said:
Did the report happen to mention mercury?
Click to expand...

Yes, it has a chart for nutrient mineral levels, another for toxic minerals (where mercury is included).
But now that you have mentioned, this quote from the Ultramind Solution made me think though:

Ultramind Solution said:
Autistic children have low levels of glutathione, the major detoxification compound in the body, so they cannot excrete metals (...) Their hair shows low levels of mercury because genetically they can't excrete it, but higher levels in their baby teeth. But when given a chelation challenge test with DMSA or DMPS, autistic kids have more mercury and other metals then normal children.
Click to expand...

I don't think that not eliminating mercury properly is the case with me, not because I'm not autistic, but because I don't have any major ailments (so far) that would point towards levels of mercury toxicity. My results showed almost no mercury levels, despite the several silver fillings I have in my teeth. Nevertheless, it is worth to consider that if metals are not being properly excreted, it won't likely show on an hair analysis test. I am not sure whether this is only valid for autistic kids, perhaps not, I suppose anyone is subject to have inbuilt detoxification defaults that won't necessarily manifest in autism.
 
Mercury may be harmful at very low doses for one person, but not for another person. It seems there is at least a thousandfold difference in individual thresholds for mercury poisoning, perhaps even one millionfold. That means that mercury levels that are considered poisonous to people may vary within a range of one to one million, depending on the person. Low-level mercury toxicity covers any symptom or complaint one can possibly think of, so it is tricky. Also, there is no decisive test to find out how much mercury is stored in the body. Mercury levels in hair are more and less reliable, but not totally reliable.

Sidney MacDonald Baker covers this and many other subjects including lab testing in his book "Detoxification and Healing", which is truly one of the best health books we've ever read, highly recommended.
 
Psyche said:
Mercury may be harmful at very low doses for one person, but not for another person. It seems there is at least a thousandfold difference in individual thresholds for mercury poisoning, perhaps even one millionfold. That means that mercury levels that are considered poisonous to people may vary within a range of one to one million, depending on the person. Low-level mercury toxicity covers any symptom or complaint one can possibly think of, so it is tricky. Also, there is no decisive test to find out how much mercury is stored in the body. Mercury levels in hair are more and less reliable, but not totally reliable.
Click to expand...

Thank you Psyche, that makes complete sense.
My best bet really lies in continuous detoxifying, and being vigilant for any reactions. With more experience and a cleaner body, my body's own language will probably begin to become clearer to me, if that makes sense.

Psyche said:
Sidney MacDonald Baker covers this and many other subjects including lab testing in his book "Detoxification and Healing", which is truly one of the best health books we've ever read, highly recommended.
Click to expand...

Will definitely get it!
 
thought provoking.

Nice to see the additions about mercury.

I really need to get the Ultra Mind Solution book.

Thanks for the extra info Gertrudes :scared:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom