Mercury & Aluminum Levels Dropped After Discontinuing Canned Tuna

[EH]

My mother had high aluminum and mercury levels last year when she tested her hair (done via ICP-MS method by DirectLabs).  After a long discussion about her diet, she mentioned that she was eating Kirkland Signature Canned Tuna frequently.  I asked her to discontinue eating any canned tuna for a while and test again.  She just tested again after 9 months of not eating the tuna.  Her new results were dramatically improved.  Her aluminum numbers dropped by 50% and her mercury numbers dropped by 90%.

It is well known that tuna are contaminated but I had never seen personal evidence of it until now.

[PeakT]

My mother had high aluminum and mercury levels last year when she tested her hair (done via ICP-MS method by DirectLabs).  After a long discussion about her diet, she mentioned that she was eating Kirkland Signature Canned Tuna frequently.  I asked her to discontinue eating any canned tuna for a while and test again.  She just tested again after 9 months of not eating the tuna.  Her new results were dramatically improved.  Her aluminum numbers dropped by 50% and her mercury numbers dropped by 90%.

It is well known that tuna are contaminated but I had never seen personal evidence of it until now.

Nice!  Another verification of hair testing.  Thanks, brutha.

I have a question:  so this was Doctor's Data, right?  Same lab as before?

Also, is she feeling better? 

Sorry to be ignorant, but is there a lot of aluminum in tuna somehow?  Wasn't aware of that?

[EH]

My mother had high aluminum and mercury levels last year when she tested her hair (done via ICP-MS method by DirectLabs).  After a long discussion about her diet, she mentioned that she was eating Kirkland Signature Canned Tuna frequently.  I asked her to discontinue eating any canned tuna for a while and test again.  She just tested again after 9 months of not eating the tuna.  Her new results were dramatically improved.  Her aluminum numbers dropped by 50% and her mercury numbers dropped by 90%.

It is well known that tuna are contaminated but I had never seen personal evidence of it until now.

Nice!  Another verification of hair testing.  Thanks, brutha.

I have a question:  so this was Doctor's Data, right?  Same lab as before?

Also, is she feeling better? 

Sorry to be ignorant, but is there a lot of aluminum in tuna somehow?  Wasn't aware of that?

Yes, my apologies.  Doctor's Data is the testing lab and you can buy their kit through DirectLabs.com.  They usually run a 15-20% off deal a couple times a year so the hair test ends up around $100 instead of $120.  I usually run the test twice per year myself.

As far as the aluminum, my guess is that the aluminum may be a result of the aluminum can part of the canned tuna.  I know they coat them with some sort of rubber polymer to stop aluminum contamination but I wouldn't be surprised if some aluminum still leaks into the tuna.  The mercury is without a doubt from the tuna fish.

I haven't asked her if she is specifically feeling better.  Her numbers were 80th percentile before and now they are close to 10th percentile so she has a really healthy hair toxicity profile now. 

[Cataceous]

...
As far as the aluminum, my guess is that the aluminum may be a result of the aluminum can part of the canned tuna.  I know they coat them with some sort of rubber polymer to stop aluminum contamination but I wouldn't be surprised if some aluminum still leaks into the tuna.  The mercury is without a doubt from the tuna fish.
...

Some quick searching suggests the cans are steel, as is most common. They would still have a polymer coating. The search also suggests this brand would be albacore rather than light tuna. Albacore does have higher mercury content on average. However, the evidence supporting a diagnosis of individuals with hair testing is somewhat weak. See the Kempson review article, for example.

[croaker24]

...
As far as the aluminum, my guess is that the aluminum may be a result of the aluminum can part of the canned tuna.  I know they coat them with some sort of rubber polymer to stop aluminum contamination but I wouldn't be surprised if some aluminum still leaks into the tuna.  The mercury is without a doubt from the tuna fish.
...

Some quick searching suggests the cans are steel, as is most common. They would still have a polymer coating. The search also suggests this brand would be albacore rather than light tuna. Albacore does have higher mercury content on average. However, the evidence supporting a diagnosis of individuals with hair testing is somewhat weak. See the Kempson review article, for example.

I eat light tuna from Vital Choice that is young line-caught tuna, but I still restrict it to once a week.    Agreed on the hair testing - never have seen any real basis to indicate that such testing is reliable.

[golfboy307]

Mercury testing is notoriously challenging since it can lie dormant in many organs of the body.  I have had Hg issues in the past which caused me some skin issues.  Blood, Hair and Urine can all yield negative results, but you can still have a body burden.  Hg can be tough to chelate, and it takes quite awhile.  Once I stopped eating fish, and had my fillings changed out my skin improved dramatically.  Certain people have no issue with high Hg levels, but many do.  Most tuna is high in mercury has you mention.

[PeakT]

My mother had high aluminum and mercury levels last year when she tested her hair (done via ICP-MS method by DirectLabs).  After a long discussion about her diet, she mentioned that she was eating Kirkland Signature Canned Tuna frequently.  I asked her to discontinue eating any canned tuna for a while and test again.  She just tested again after 9 months of not eating the tuna.  Her new results were dramatically improved.  Her aluminum numbers dropped by 50% and her mercury numbers dropped by 90%.

It is well known that tuna are contaminated but I had never seen personal evidence of it until now.

Nice!  Another verification of hair testing.  Thanks, brutha.

I have a question:  so this was Doctor's Data, right?  Same lab as before?

Also, is she feeling better? 

Sorry to be ignorant, but is there a lot of aluminum in tuna somehow?  Wasn't aware of that?

Yes, my apologies.  Doctor's Data is the testing lab and you can buy their kit through DirectLabs.com.  They usually run a 15-20% off deal a couple times a year so the hair test ends up around $100 instead of $120.  I usually run the test twice per year myself.

As far as the aluminum, my guess is that the aluminum may be a result of the aluminum can part of the canned tuna.  I know they coat them with some sort of rubber polymer to stop aluminum contamination but I wouldn't be surprised if some aluminum still leaks into the tuna.  The mercury is without a doubt from the tuna fish.

I haven't asked her if she is specifically feeling better.  Her numbers were 80th percentile before and now they are close to 10th percentile so she has a really healthy hair toxicity profile now.

Yeah, I thought so.  That's where I got mine done but was just double checking.  Tell ya why later...

[EH]

I find the Doctor's Data testing to be reliable given that I have done it several times after supplementing (without Doctor's Data knowing about the supplements) only to find out that those particular mineral levels were a little too high from too much supplementation at times.  When I dropped the supplements completely, the levels dropped back to normal or low during the next test 6 months later. 

I doubt it is coincidence that her mercury level dropped dramatically (90%) after stopping her daily canned tuna habit.  Whether the cans are steel or aluminum I don't know for sure since I have not purchased it myself and run a magnet over it.

Doctor's Data hair testing has identified toxicity from hair/makeup products in my girlfriend, which all dropped after she changed to more natural makeup.  Mercury levels in my mother.  Supplement levels in myself.  And perhaps, though I'm not certain of it yet, levels of toxic metals in the ocean off San Diego since my brother is a surfer there and has a particularly strong toxic metal profile (including uranium).  When both my girlfriend and I used Head & Shoulders for a while our zinc numbers went through the roof.  When we tried Selsun Blue, our selenium numbers went way up.  I have seen far too much to believe it is simply coincidence.

I am not here to say that all hair testing is bulletproof, but ICP-MS is a robust method for distinguishing metals at minute levels.  I work for the market leader in ICP-MS equipment so I am familiar with it and our customers who utilize it for diagnostic and other testing.  Not all hair testing is created equal though.  External contamination, washing procedures, etc can cause major issues.  I've only ever used Doctor's Data so I cannot speak to the other labs and their accuracy.  Hair testing for me is a very cheap and effective option that compliments my other current favorite testing procedures (Labcorp, Spectracell).

[Cataceous]

... External contamination, washing procedures, etc can cause major issues.  ...

If hair is absorbing contaminants from shampoo, seawater, etc. then measuring the presence of those contaminants is not going to say much about one's health unless systemic absorption is also proved. The review article notes that hair readily absorbs exogenous material:

The external surface of hair has distinct regions of different chemical composition and can accumulate exogenous products differently.[88] Topically applied material can readily penetrate hair.[89] Longitudinal analysis of hair in fundamental studies with regard to the impact of contamination reveals significant penetration of contaminants into hair.[90] In one study, hair was sectioned longitudinally and the internal longitudinal distribution was compared to the external distribution. Contaminants increased on the outer surface of the hair and within the internal structure moving longitudinally.[91] The follicle also has a degree of permeability which has been described with regards to pharmaceuticals[92] highlighting an additional route for exogenous material to enter the pilosebaceous unit.

[PeakT]

... External contamination, washing procedures, etc can cause major issues.  ...

If hair is absorbing contaminants from shampoo, seawater, etc. then measuring the presence of those contaminants is not going to say much about one's health unless systemic absorption is also proved. The review article notes that hair readily absorbs exogenous material:

The external surface of hair has distinct regions of different chemical composition and can accumulate exogenous products differently.[88] Topically applied material can readily penetrate hair.[89] Longitudinal analysis of hair in fundamental studies with regard to the impact of contamination reveals significant penetration of contaminants into hair.[90] In one study, hair was sectioned longitudinally and the internal longitudinal distribution was compared to the external distribution. Contaminants increased on the outer surface of the hair and within the internal structure moving longitudinally.[91] The follicle also has a degree of permeability which has been described with regards to pharmaceuticals[92] highlighting an additional route for exogenous material to enter the pilosebaceous unit.

Cataceous,

It's always good to be skeptical and ask questions, etc.  And you are right that hair is vulnerable to contamination.  In addition, Dr. Cutler points out that with mercury overload, you have an initial high mercury phase and then mercury levels drop significantly as it loads into tissues - including the brain! - and then levels of mercury can actually drop.  That is actually something I wanted to mention on here.  So you can't assume that all is well.

Now, all of that said, EH and I have now documented multiple case where hair testing was spot on!  I have been negligent in not putting the information on my site, so I will do that asap.  But stay tuned as we have many very interesting examples of rather obvious overload of contaminants that hair testing did indeed pick up.

And, yes, we are all going to have different opinions on these kind of subjects and intpretation of the science.  But, in my opinion, hair testing is actually very impressive in many ways and, again, I'll start posting some articles on it soon to show why I believe that way.

[Cataceous]

...
Now, all of that said, EH and I have now documented multiple case where hair testing was spot on!  I have been negligent in not putting the information on my site, so I will do that asap.  But stay tuned as we have many very interesting examples of rather obvious overload of contaminants that hair testing did indeed pick up.

And, yes, we are all going to have different opinions on these kind of subjects and intpretation of the science.  But, in my opinion, hair testing is actually very impressive in many ways and, again, I'll start posting some articles on it soon to show why I believe that way.

I'm not saying anecdotes should be discounted automatically, but in general they need to be the starting point for further research. Otherwise you get into the dueling-anecdote situation, which we've seen with testosterone: patient A says it gave him a new life; patient B says it gave him a stroke. Clearly patient C needs more information if he's trying to make a decision.

[PeakT]

...
Now, all of that said, EH and I have now documented multiple case where hair testing was spot on!  I have been negligent in not putting the information on my site, so I will do that asap.  But stay tuned as we have many very interesting examples of rather obvious overload of contaminants that hair testing did indeed pick up.

And, yes, we are all going to have different opinions on these kind of subjects and intpretation of the science.  But, in my opinion, hair testing is actually very impressive in many ways and, again, I'll start posting some articles on it soon to show why I believe that way.

I'm not saying anecdotes should be discounted automatically, but in general they need to be the starting point for further research. Otherwise you get into the dueling-anecdote situation, which we've seen with testosterone: patient A says it gave him a new life; patient B says it gave him a stroke. Clearly patient C needs more information if he's trying to make a decision.

Okay, sure, as far as anecdotes.  However, the above is not really an anecdote if you stop to think about it.  You brought up whether or not hair testing can be trusted and that is what I responded to.  And I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I think this is very important:  you have these very important alternative medical "networks" cropping up.  They include cutting edge doctors like Shippen, Crisler and Saya that are experimenting in their practices; and they include labs like Doctor's Data that have not been fully accepted by toxicologists.  Imo we should not throw out these alternative pathways, but be open to them.  And this is because a) we as lay people are not willing to put the money up for studies and b) often these alternative networks are the only ones reading and applying the latest research.  So, admittedly, it's tricky.  But some of the best stuff is coming from "off the beaten path" imo, and until we are willing to crowdfund studies, then we have no right to bellyache that they are not "research-backed." 

[Joe Sixpack]

  Imo we should not throw out these alternative pathways, but be open to them.  And this is because a) we as lay people are not willing to put the money up for studies and b) often these alternative networks are the only ones reading and applying the latest research.  So, admittedly, it's tricky.  But some of the best stuff is coming from "off the beaten path" imo, and until we are willing to crowdfund studies, then we have no right to bellyache that they are not "research-backed."

Amen.  If we wait for conventional medicine to implement some of these techniques into standard protocol, we could be waiting a long time. 

[Cataceous]

I'm not saying anecdotes should be discounted automatically, but in general they need to be the starting point for further research. Otherwise you get into the dueling-anecdote situation, which we've seen with testosterone: patient A says it gave him a new life; patient B says it gave him a stroke. Clearly patient C needs more information if he's trying to make a decision.

Okay, sure, as far as anecdotes.  However, the above is not really an anecdote if you stop to think about it.  You brought up whether or not hair testing can be trusted and that is what I responded to.  And I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I think this is very important:  you have these very important alternative medical "networks" cropping up.  They include cutting edge doctors like Shippen, Crisler and Saya that are experimenting in their practices; and they include labs like Doctor's Data that have not been fully accepted by toxicologists.  Imo we should not throw out these alternative pathways, but be open to them.  And this is because a) we as lay people are not willing to put the money up for studies and b) often these alternative networks are the only ones reading and applying the latest research.  So, admittedly, it's tricky.  But some of the best stuff is coming from "off the beaten path" imo, and until we are willing to crowdfund studies, then we have no right to bellyache that they are not "research-backed."

I took a look at the Doctor's Data page on hair analysis, trying to get an idea of what specific claims are being made. It makes me appreciate LabCorp's effort to include references in their test descriptions.

Nutrient elements including magnesium, chromium, zinc, copper and selenium are obligatory co-factors for hundreds of important enzymes and also are essential for the normal functions of vitamins. The levels of these elements in hair are correlated with levels in organs and other tissues.

I'd really like to know what research is behind this and the strength of the correlations. Other claims are somewhat weasel-worded, and then there's the disclaimer:

Hair, however, is vulnerable to external elemental contamination by means of certain shampoos, bleaches, dyes, and curing or straightening treatments. Therefore, the first step in the interpretation of a hair element report is to rule out sources of external contamination.

[PeakT]

I'm not saying anecdotes should be discounted automatically, but in general they need to be the starting point for further research. Otherwise you get into the dueling-anecdote situation, which we've seen with testosterone: patient A says it gave him a new life; patient B says it gave him a stroke. Clearly patient C needs more information if he's trying to make a decision.

Okay, sure, as far as anecdotes.  However, the above is not really an anecdote if you stop to think about it.  You brought up whether or not hair testing can be trusted and that is what I responded to.  And I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I think this is very important:  you have these very important alternative medical "networks" cropping up.  They include cutting edge doctors like Shippen, Crisler and Saya that are experimenting in their practices; and they include labs like Doctor's Data that have not been fully accepted by toxicologists.  Imo we should not throw out these alternative pathways, but be open to them.  And this is because a) we as lay people are not willing to put the money up for studies and b) often these alternative networks are the only ones reading and applying the latest research.  So, admittedly, it's tricky.  But some of the best stuff is coming from "off the beaten path" imo, and until we are willing to crowdfund studies, then we have no right to bellyache that they are not "research-backed."

I took a look at the Doctor's Data page on hair analysis, trying to get an idea of what specific claims are being made. It makes me appreciate LabCorp's effort to include references in their test descriptions.

Nutrient elements including magnesium, chromium, zinc, copper and selenium are obligatory co-factors for hundreds of important enzymes and also are essential for the normal functions of vitamins. The levels of these elements in hair are correlated with levels in organs and other tissues.

I'd really like to know what research is behind this and the strength of the correlations. Other claims are somewhat weasel-worded, and then there's the disclaimer:

Hair, however, is vulnerable to external elemental contamination by means of certain shampoos, bleaches, dyes, and curing or straightening treatments. Therefore, the first step in the interpretation of a hair element report is to rule out sources of external contamination.

Cataceous.  Hold that thought.  I'll try to give you some examples, but I need to put the data up so we can talk about numbers.  I think there is a reasonable response to what you wrote above, but give me just a bit.