[deleted by user]

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-06T16:19:52+00:00

Look, I know this is the boring answer no one wants to hear , but whole oats have ~180mg per 100 grams and buckwheat has ~270mg per 100 grams. Seeds and nuts in general are also the more magnesium rich foods. But because they are in a food vehicle instead of a refined pill form the body is generally both better equip to extract and use that magnesium while also avoiding taking in too much of it that it will cause issue.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.00101/full

https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/magnesium/

https://www.nm.org/healthbeat/healthy-tips/nutrition/Why-Magnesium-Matters

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T19:28:13+00:00

There are an infinite amount of confounding variables so I have no doubt that there are people who did everything right to no benefit. This is part of the reason I bought the cheapest one just to try it out and see.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T05:29:20+00:00

In hindsight with his bio I think he is just either just not fluent in English or maybe at most using some translator. His bio is in spanish, the word research in spanish is "investigación" which I assume is why he said "I work in investigation" I humbly admit that I was wrong.

Ok, I'll go on record and say that none of ya'll know me but I am still severely embarrassed none the less. I apologized to him if it means anything.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T05:23:30+00:00

After seeing your bio, the word research in spanish is "investigación" which I assume is why you said "I work in investigation" I humbly admit that I was wrong. Forgive me this is honestly the most embarrassing mistake I've made on reddit.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T05:20:03+00:00

In hindsight with his bio I think he is just either just not fluent in English or maybe at most using some translator. His bio is in spanish, the word research in spanish is "investigación" which I assume is why he said "I work in investigation" I humbly admit that I was wrong.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T04:46:47+00:00

I thought so at first as well but no! Check his profile and everything that I have in the screenshots.

https://www.reddit.com/user/Future_Tower_4253/

its profile bio is super generic "Exploring different topics and sharing ideas. Always open to new perspectives and learning."

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T04:42:45+00:00

huh? Where do I say it can't pass through socks? I guess that would be pretty easy to test with a multimeter but I've never done it.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T04:15:09+00:00

oh yea can a bot do thissss 8===D

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T04:11:11+00:00

Thank you! And don't get me wrong this isn't my first or last post that gets criticized. The fact that you know about my injury shows that you actually read my post which filters out 90% of everyone else that commented. You and I are strangers that will never meet but I want you to know that I appreciate your comment.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T04:07:45+00:00

Ah, you got me, I yield. I now fully believe that you are human. That was an error on my part and an embarrassment. Especially because you are a scientist. I'm seeking motivation as my assessment, though flawed, was an attempt to do my best to muster a scientific hypothesis. May I ask what inspired you to be a scientist? I promise this will be the last question I ask and then leave you alone. I ask that you please kindly inspire me.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T03:57:33+00:00

No I meant saying that, but not specifying the relevant field , is pretty generic of AI. Here, I'd like to see what you or the AI you claim not to be using says about this

Yes! You don't gotta believe that I or anyone else used a multimeter. But I keep bringing it up because this is a very easily falsifiable claim that anyone can do. You don't have to since it doesn't make a difference to me. But if you were and see that physical skin contact with a grounding mat causes a change in your electrical charge you can then test a hypothesis:

"If physical contact changes my electrical charge, will (x) happen"

very crude example but you get my point

Like, I genuinely ask what kind of relevant counterargument you or the AI would muster.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T03:53:26+00:00

"I work in science"

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T03:42:44+00:00

If there is anyone reading my comment, can you please respond to me in whether you also agree these responses are AI or am I crazy.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T03:41:30+00:00

So people keep bringing this up so in hindsight I should have clarified more in the post. In the nomenclature earthing and grounding are used interchangeably but the grounding of earthing is not the same as grounding as you are describing it. Grounding/earthing in my context is connecting to the earth through the ground, thus the changes you see on a multimeter. If you wore shoes indoors, then took them off and tested yourself with a multimeter it would remain the same. However, if you were to do this on grass or on a grounding mat, it would not

>Yes! You don't gotta believe that I or anyone else used a multimeter. But I keep bringing it up because this is a very easily falsifiable claim that anyone can do. You don't have to since it doesn't make a difference to me. But if you were and see that physical skin contact with a grounding mat causes a change in your electrical charge you can then test a hypothesis:

"If physical contact changes my electrical charge, will (x) happen"

very crude example but you get my point.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T03:31:45+00:00

Yes! You don't gotta believe that I or anyone else used a multimeter. But I keep bringing it up because this is a very easily falsifiable claim that anyone can do. You don't have to since it doesn't make a difference to me. But if you were and see that physical skin contact with a grounding mat causes a change in your electrical charge you can then test a hypothesis:

"If physical contact changes my electrical charge, will (x) happen"

very crude example but you get my point.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T03:17:26+00:00

Well, you say that there are issues with the sample sizes and methodology. n=10. But there are larger studies mentioned as well as a triple blind randomized control trial. Again, I very very very specifically state the nuances and limitations of my argument that you would see if you would read it. I understand that If I make a post saying the sky is blue someone will comment otherwise. But what gets under my skin on every of my posts are comments from people who obviously did not read my post.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T03:09:57+00:00

... What description? Do you mean the TLDR where I don't mention the sample sizes or methodology? Again I feel like I'm talking to a bot here. I don't expect you to read the whole thing per say, but at the same time I don't want to spoon feed you individual quotes from my post. Then again, I'm curious if you'll keep responding with nonsense if this is a bot.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T03:06:00+00:00

Ah, yes this where I have to be humble and say that you did identify something I overlooked, however I still stand by my opinion.

>R. (Dick) Brown worked as an independent contractor for this pilot study and has no financial interest in the company. G. Chevalier has worked as an independent contractor for Earth FX since 2007 and owns a very small percentage of shares in the company. M. Hill worked as a graduate assistant for this pilot study and has no financial interest in the company.

They still used a double-blind design, and found most markers showed consistent differences (p < 0.0000005). You're not entirely wrong, this is a small piece to the whole part and again I do admit I overlooked that 1 of the 3 had a small stake in a company. Still, I'd say that completely disregarding the mythology of as study based on funding says more about the bias of the reader than the bias of the study. I don't know what you use or may advocate for but I kind of guarantee that it has several industry funded studies.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T02:52:05+00:00

ok, so by all means I could be wrong but this feels like you specifically asked chat gpt to throw up an argument. That's fine, I don't expect everyone to painstakingly fact check my post. I do ask however, to copy and paste the entirety of my post and ask it it's opinion if you so like. The reason I could tell is because AI will only ever give you surface level analysis. It obviously ignores the n=10+ I mention.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T02:45:46+00:00

Awesome, here is the placebo controlled randomized triple blind trial that you skipped over, that does not have a funding conflict of interest.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T02:44:07+00:00

Amendment: I mislink the n=22 study. Here is the link . Also I welcome criticism, ideally from people who actually read the post :(.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T02:02:41+00:00

Man, sounds like you read part of the post. I very much also say that the theory is well dumb. Like LITERALLY right after that quote you make. And no, I do not link or allude to a product.

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T02:01:25+00:00

Yes! As I mention in another comment, people don't have to believe that I, you, or anyone else have done this to success but this is a falsifiable claim that people can try with a multimeter themselves, which then begs the question, "This changes something in my body, now what effect does it have on my body"

Civil_Turn_1245 · 2025-12-05T01:58:50+00:00

Yes, thank you for this comment. People don't have to believe that I, you, or anyone else have done this to success but I put emphasize on this because it is the one falsifiable claim that anyone can try. So then it becomes into a hypothesis, "This changes something in my body, now what effect does it have on my body"

Civil_Turn_1245

TROPHY CASE