ApoE4.Info

I'm curious what others are hearing about mercury test results. Mine, self ordered and I think organic rather than inorganic mercury, came in at 7.2 ug/L (0-14.9 for non-occupational exposure). I assumed this was okay, but my doctor investigating CIRS etc, and who's up on Bredesen's work, said that is high and is concerned. She's having me stop all fish and seafood for a month to see if that's behind it, and she said it reflects recent exposure, not old. I think all my mercury fillings from my early years were replaced over time, and it's been years since the last one was.

Fish and seafood are my main animal protein. I eat Norwegian cod (~3x/wk), wild Alaskan salmon (~2x/wk), shrimp and scallops. I vacillate between eating lower amounts per Gundry and thinking I personally need more protein and increasing it again. I've had a great omega 6:3 ratio for about six years running, but maybe I need to cut back. I dropped the low mercury sardines because canned fish raises my histamine too much. I do better with certain frozen sources.

In this article Harvard isn't considering ApoE4's compromised ability to clear toxins, but it suggests I could be getting too much of a good thing? I'll take a month off and retest and then maybe if it goes down try shellfish only with salmon 2x/wk. Fish oil it out again. It keeps increasing my pain by making my laxity worse.

Make smart seafood choices to minimize mercury intake

Most of the participants (95%) had blood levels of mercury in the safe zone—under 5.8 micrograms per liter (μg/L). Not surprisingly, the more fish people ate, the higher the levels of mercury in their blood. Those who consumed swordfish, shark, and other high-mercury fish were the most likely to have blood levels of mercury above 5.8 μg/L. But some who ate only salmon or tuna also had high mercury levels.

Harvard's safe zone is lower than LabCorp's presumably acceptable upper end. It comes from this in the paper reported on:

≥5.8 μg/L. This is the concentration that the National Research Council panel identified as the level below which “is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime” and was adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (10, 11)

This chart shows me that my level is in fact relatively high, as does this:

The percentage of the population with blood mercury concentrations ≥5.8 μg/L was low (4.6%)....

Just as one would expect:

Shrimp and crab consumption was not associated with a higher odds of blood mercury concentrations ≥5.8 μg/L.

I think I'll need to shift to primarily shrimp, crab and scallops, with salmon 2x/week and hope my omega 6:3 ratio stays good.
Here's the paper:

Seafood consumption and blood mercury concentrations in adults aged ≥20 y, 2007–2010

Fascinating, Circ. I'll be following this thread with interest. I eat seafood around 25 days a month and suspect my mercury levels will also be high. I just did the QuickSilver blood test. This is certainly a case where the "prescription" might be contributing to the pathology...

And it's no fun to think that we should be able to eat fish daily without concern, since mercury is a pollutant that shouldn't be in our environment. At least that's my understanding.

Circ, I did the Toxic Metals urine test through Doctor's Data. My former FM PA ordered it. It was a provocation test, and the results were creatinine corrected to account for urine dilution variations. My result was .9 ug/g creatinine. The reference interval was <4, so I appear to be in good shape with respect to mercury toxicity. Of course, I have no idea how this translates into your method of testing. Also, my test didn't differentiate between organic and inorganic mercury.

FWIW, I don't eat as much fish or seafood as you and many others on the forum do.

That said, my new FM MD put a note in his summary that we might want to consider the Mercury TriTest, which is the QuickSilver test that Julie just had done. He might have forgotten that I had my toxic metals tested already, or he might think the QuickSilver test is better.

Circ, could you clarify what you said: "Fish oil it out again. It keeps increasing my pain by making my laxity worse." Does fish oil increase your laxity? Is it omega 3 fish oil? Thanks, Matisse

I'll be following with interest too. Dr. Kogan ordered a mercury test for me too (which involved cutting a large clump of my hair). I'll let everyone know the results. I have many old fillings and the idea of replacing my fillings makes me queasy.

Matisse wrote:Circ, could you clarify what you said: "Fish oil it out again. It keeps increasing my pain by making my laxity worse." Does fish oil increase your laxity? Is it omega 3 fish oil? Thanks, Matisse

Hi Matisse, Yes, it seems that every time I try fish oil it makes me more lax. I'm already too hypermobile which causes many issues, so the last thing I need is that getting worse. Supplements advertised as helping stiff, aging people become more flexible are generally a problem for me. Glucosamine is another example. The more lax I am the harder my muscles have to work to keep me up, whether sitting, standing or whathaveyou, so they get more sore and tired. Your mileage may vary though, and last night I thought maybe I'd try taking it twice a week and see how that goes. Oh, yep, omega 3. I think at least the DHA, but I'm not sure if the EPA has this effect?

I hope the mercury test smorgasbord stabilizes some day to a go-to standard. I just went with what was easy and accessible for me without giving it a thought

I found this chart to try to gauge, okay, what is lowest mercury among the low mercury options. Apparently in the long run I'll need lowest low mercury. I hadn't anticipated needing to cut back on low mercury fish and seafood

Comparing the Atlantic and Pacific columns and circling the lowest, it looks like -- after I abstain and get my mercury levels down -- Atlantic scallops will be my new friend, with Atlantic Pollack being an occasional splurge(?) (if I find I like it). I already eat scallops on occasion and love them. I'd be happy to eat them more, but I won't get as much omega 3.

When I start incorporating some fish and seafood again, I may try 1/2 salmon filet 1x/week and scallops 2x/week. The Atlantic cod I was eating may have more mercury than the Pacific salmon I was eating.

Note that ND means 'no data' not 'not detected'.

I don't know if this is the best chart to use. It's just the one that came up. It would be worth doing some data comparisons and see if there's an agreeable pattern or a better set of data for some reason.

I don't know if this is the last word on mercury tests, but Mercola did an =http://articles.mercola.com/sites/arti ... spxarticle that explains the differences. After reading it I concluded that since I had my mercury amalgams removed years ago when they fell apart, and since I don't live anywhere near coal plants, the blood test was fine for me. But then I went and got my little mouth mirror and had a look around and found one little dickens still in there.

I am or was a fish lover. I gave it up because of the mercury years ago. I did have myself tested recenty and methymercury was 0.15, and inorganic was 0.027 giving me a total of 0.17. According to the CDC the range (normal or acceptable - it does not say) is 0.038 to 9.96. I don't really trust that the CDC knows what a safe level is and I only eat fish when I am out and there is no other choice. I had a mouthful of amalgum fillings as a child that were replaced over the years.