Skip to main content

Primary Research · 2001

Bioavailability of US commercial magnesium preparations

Firoz and Graber · Magnesium Research, 2001

Key finding

Magnesium oxide had ~4% absorption vs 33% for magnesium chloride/lactate/aspartate forms.

Magnesium deficiency is seen with some frequency in the outpatient setting and requires oral repletion or maintenance therapy. The purpose of this study was to measure the bioavailability of four commercially-available preparations of magnesium, and to test the claim that organic salts are more easily absorbed. Bioavailability was measured as the increment of urinary maginesium excretion in normal volunteers given approximately 21 mEq/day of the test preparations. Results indicated relatively poor bioavailability of magnesium oxide (fractional absorption 4 per cent) but significantly higher and equivalent bioavailability of magnesium chloride, magnesium lactate and magnesium aspartate. We conclude that there is relatively poor bioavailability of magnesium oxide, but greater and equivalent bioavailability of magnesium chloride, lactate, and aspartate. Inorganic magnesium salts, depending on the preparation, may have bioavailability equivalent to organic magnesium salts.

Abstract sourced from PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Displayed in the authors’ own words for context; our critique is in the sections below.

Read the full paper

Cited in 2 guides

How to read a study like this

The same questions worth asking about any research paper, not just this one. Worth a minute even if you trust the grade.

Who was studied, and do you resemble them?

Supplement effects often depend on baseline status. Vitamin D helps people who are deficient; iron helps people who are anemic. A result in people unlike you may not apply to you.

What was measured, and does it matter in daily life?

A study that shows a blood marker moved isn't the same as a study that shows people felt or functioned better. Ask what the outcome means in practice.

How large was the effect — not just whether it was significant.

'Statistically significant' only means the effect is unlikely to be zero. It doesn't tell you the effect is large enough to notice. Look for effect sizes, not just p-values.

Who paid for the trial, and what did they stand to gain?

Industry-funded trials are several times more likely to report positive results than independent ones. It's not usually fraud — it's subtle design and reporting choices. Weight accordingly.

Has anyone else replicated this?

Single positive trials are hypotheses. Replication by independent groups is what turns a hypothesis into reliable evidence. If the only positive trial is the one you're reading, wait.

Does the dose in the trial match what's being sold?

Supplement marketing routinely cites trials that used 5–10× the dose in the product. If the effective dose was 2 g/day and the capsule has 200 mg, expect roughly no effect.

About this page

Formulate maintains a registry of clinical studies cited across its guides and evidence grades. This page links the study metadata to the content that cites it — one canonical entry per landmark study.

The full citation chain is public so readers can verify claims without hunting through individual guide pages. Browse all cited studies →

Note: Study summaries on this page are editorial interpretations of the research. Always consult the primary source before drawing clinical conclusions.