<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>Comte de Sats Germain wrote</title><author_name>Comte de Sats Germain (npub12h…9qpsf)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub12h6h8dj3ale4rk6hkpsp6gcz9kx9xtucyhd3pftn86lnn0j25gdsa9qpsf</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><html>I&#39;m a bit unsure about how it works, but my current best stab at it is that kidneys filter out what&#39;s perceived to be an excess of a mineral, and everything hits the gut first. The gut can handle &#34;bioavailable &#34; minerals easier because gut bacteria prefer to eat stuff that&#39;s already bound into some longer molecule - the gut then puts the nutrients into the bloodstream, where either your body uses them or the kidneys filter out excess. Magnesium is a double hit on the kidneys because first it causes a rush of water to the gut, which stresses kidneys (the body has a hierarchy of water priority, and kidneys are higher than gut in priority) and second because the nephrons in the kidneys are so small that mineral crystals can be a tight fit - protein even more so - and that&#39;s actually good because nephrons are the filter. But you increase the damage to the nephron&#39;s this way. In healthy kidneys its no problem - they&#39;re healing at a faster rate than the damage - but the more damaged they are, the more damage they&#39;ll take. So, I think more bioavailable magnesium would be better, but if the gut is damaged, then it&#39;ll leak more into the bloodstream, where it won&#39;t matter if its bioavailable or not. &#xA;&#xA;I&#39;m not 100% about all this. </html></oembed>