The Trace Mineral Supplement Showdown
I analyzed every major mineral source so you don’t have to. The results may make you rethink your entire trace supplement shelf and why composition matters more than marketing
During these last few weeks of the serial publication of my book on trace minerals “From Volcanoes to Vitality: The Untold Story of Asao Shimanishi – The Man Who Cracked Earths Hidden Code To Life and Health,”
I have tried to respond to innumerable reader questions about whether their supplement is as good as, better than, or, more often, which is the “the best one.”
Others don’t ask questions and instead pridefully boast that they have taken mineral supplement XYZ for 30 years and that it has kept them in the best of health (love those folks, actually).
So, by popular demand, today I’ll review the compositional differences, processing methods, and practical considerations among these mineral sources. You will learn more about the various sources of trace minerals than you ever wanted to, and some of it may make you uncomfortable.
Now, in complete transparency, everything I’ve learned about the mineral composition and geochemical processes involved in producing Shimanishi’s Themarox extract naturally inclines me toward it as an exciting (understatement) source of minerals.
That inclination is based on its geochemical characteristics, analytical data, and clinical experiences—not emotion or economics. It’s driven by the geochemistry and the data I’ve reviewed. So don’t be surprised if Themarox stands out when comparing mineral origins and properties.
Now, bear with me: because I started selling a water purification product derived from Themarox, for the first time in my life, I have to write with “disclaimers.” These will appear not infrequently, because I ran this post through AI for a “regulatory infractions” check, and it “killed me” on almost any opinion I expressed.
Let’s start with the first one:
Nothing in this discussion is meant to claim or suggest any effect on human health, disease prevention, or treatment. These comparisons are strictly about composition, origin, and chemistry.
That said, this is just a comparison between mineral sources—not a statement about health effects; thus, it is a relative argument, not an absolute one. Any personal preferences I describe relate only to chemistry and geology, not to health outcomes or product recommendations.
Any form of trace mineral intake, from any source, can contribute to overall mineral diversity, which most people lack. My goal here is to compare mineral origins, profiles, and chemical behaviors — not to recommend any single product for human use.
Again, anyone paying attention to mineral intake — from any reputable source — is already way ahead in terms of thinking about an often-overlooked aspect of nutrition.
Ocean Water Minerals
Let’s begin with the ocean-water minerals — the intellectual descendants of my man, René Quinton (from Chapter 8B).
“Quinton minerals” are sourced from defined deep-ocean sites (often during plankton blooms) and microfiltered rather than chemically extracted. They contain up to 78–80 minerals and trace elements in their natural ionic form, closely mirroring the mineral balance and ratios found in human plasma.
The water primarily includes chloride, sodium, magnesium, potassium, calcium, sulfate, and trace levels of other elements, with the minerals present as natural marine salts with no phytonutrients as you get from plant mineral sources.
Not all minerals occur in a sulfated form as there are various other anions (chloride, sulfate, bicarbonate, etc.) that naturally occur in seawater.
Seawater itself contains only trace amounts of metals like iron and aluminum, since these elements are largely insoluble under open-ocean conditions. In contrast, marine fulvic substances and ocean-floor mineral sediments are rich in these and other transition metals.
It is within these boundary layers — where organic matter, minerals, and redox-active metals interact — that natural purification and catalytic reactions occur, processes that seawater alone cannot sustain in solution.
These are the same mineral interfaces that Asao Shimanishi reproduced through his Themarox process — the engineered recreation of the ocean floor’s catalytic environment in a concentrated, ionic form.
In the table below, red boxes indicate the parameter where I find Themarox superior, and blue is where Quinton is superior.
Themarox Compared to Quinton Minerals
*Note the pH of Themarox, although accurate in its original concentrated state before being added to water, is not relevant to Aurmina when added to water, where it is only slightly acidic and keeps pH balanced.
Great Salt Lake Mineral Concentrates
The “Veggie Trace Minerals” that Elmer Heinrich praised in his book “The Untold Truth” are from brine concentrated from a geologic salt lake (not from plants as he described them). However, they are sometimes marketed as “plant-based” because their trace spectra resemble those of plants.
These supplements are produced by concentrating and purifying natural brine from the Great Salt Lake. The minerals are present primarily as inorganic ions and salts (e.g., magnesium, sodium, potassium, sulfate, chloride), not as plant-derived chelates.
Because they’re already in ionic form, they dissolve readily and can be dosed in small amounts. Typical concerns, e.g., heavy metals/halides (As, Pb, Hg, Br⁻) and purity refer to compositional considerations evaluated in raw materials, not to any proven human health risks associated with specific products.
The main differences between lake-derived minerals and black mica-derived minerals are that in the former, iron is typically low, and although sulfate is present, it is not dominant.
Thus, the lake-derived water has no flocculation/coagulation effects – it cannot be used as a water purifier. Lastly, rare-earth elements are usually present in trace amounts or not at all.
Themarox vs. Great Salt Lake Minerals
In the below, red boxes indicate the parameter where I find Themarox superior, blue is where the Lake brine minerals are superior.
Plant/Seaweed–Derived Minerals
Mentions of advantages or limitations here are strictly about elemental profiles and chemical characteristics, not health benefits or biological outcomes.
Plant/seaweed mineral products come from current biomass—harvested kelps and other seaweeds, calcified red algae (e.g., Lithothamnion), and nutrient-dense greens like spirulina/chlorella or moringa—which are then extracted.
They do not originate from ancient decomposed remains. In these materials, minerals reside inside plant tissues, often bound to organic ligands (amino acids, polysaccharides) or, for red algae, locked into calcium–magnesium carbonates.
- Seaweeds: strong in iodine (main strength), plus Mg, K, Ca.
- Red algae (e.g., Lithothamnion): primarily Ca–Mg carbonate with 70+ trace elements.
- Greens (spirulina/chlorella/moringa): background K/Mg/Ca with modest iron. Alongside minerals, these extracts carry phytonutrients—polyphenols and phlorotannins in seaweeds; pigments/antioxidants and fibers in greens—making them “food-form” supplements that are typically gentle for daily augmentation (targeted iodine or Ca/Mg, plus some small amount of broad trace support).
Because composition varies by species, harvest site, and season, batch-to-batch variability is real; rigorous controls for metals and iodine are essential. Watch for inorganic arsenic and excess iodine in seaweeds, and for Pb/Cd depending on the water; for greens, ensure screening for pesticides and microbial contaminants.
Another comparison table – seaweed hits some high points (very high iodine, magnesium, potassium content) but some low ones (high calcium, high sodium, less sulfur, less iron). Ultimately, it is not as uniquely balanced as Themarox.
Themarox vs. Plant/Seaweed–Derived Minerals
But it is the overall winner in the iodine department for sure. In fact, the only mineral I add to Themarox-derived supplementation protocols is… iodine.
Key limitation vs. black-mica minerals
Plant/seaweed extracts are lower in iron and low in sulfate, and—critically—do not exhibit the electrochemical water effects seen with black-mica–derived sulfated ionic minerals (e.g., Themarox). They don’t drive flocculation/coagulation, don’t markedly raise ORP, and won’t reshape water’s charge dynamics. In short: excellent for food-like mineral top-ups and phytonutrients, but not for sulfate/iron-centric chemistry or water-treatment behaviors.
When to use which
Choose plant/seaweed minerals for a nutritional top-up—iodine from kelp, Ca/Mg from red algae, or broad trace + antioxidants from greens. Choose black-mica (sulfated ionic) minerals when you specifically want iron and sulfate delivery and/or water-chemistry effects (charge balancing, ORP increase, flocculation) that plant/seaweed products don’t provide.
Fulvic & Humic Acid Minerals
Descriptions of chelation, binding, or solubility effects refer to chemical behavior, not to any proven clinical effect in humans.
Fulvic and humic acids are natural components of humus—the dark, complex material formed as plants, animals, and microbes decompose over long time scales. At least that is the common conception of them.
Still, in reality, fulvic and humic acids don’t only originate from terrestrial soil humus — they’re also widely distributed in aquatic environments, including lakes, rivers, estuaries, and ocean sediments.
Commercial supplements extract these fractions (often from leonardite/humates) and concentrate the associated organic complexes bound to minerals. Unlike purified inorganic salts like Shimanshi’s minerals below, these products are organic–mineral mixtures whose composition reflects the source deposit and extraction method.
Sources and Compositions
The problem with the above is that when you see “Fulvic Trace Mineral Complex” on a label, that number usually refers to an optical density or extraction yield, not an elemental analysis. There’s no standardized molecular formula for fulvic acid — it’s a mixture of thousands of carbon-based fragments that chelate metals.
Its actual composition depends entirely on the starting material. Note the ubiquitous presence of aluminum, not because it is bad (Themarox has it too). To understand just how non-toxic the majority of aluminum compounds in food are, you need to go to “Aluminum school” (Chapter 17). I am just pointing it out to show that aluminum is literally the driver of its formation.
A respectful note on the origin of Fulvic/Humic acid extracts
Despite being widely marketed as ‘plant-derived,’ fulvic acid is, in truth, the product of microbial transformation of both plant and animal matter over geological time. Because humic deposits arise from indiscriminate natural accumulation of biological matter, the original inputs are not traceable to specific species.
While modern processing transforms that material into chemically altered humic substances, it is scientifically accurate—and respectful—to acknowledge that ancient animal, and potentially human, remains may have contributed to the source of organic matter.
Although some maintain that since leonardite/lignite-derived fulvic/humic products come from geologic deposits of “ancient” plant material formed millions of years ago, they do not contain human remains.
Although such a claim might be logical on its surface, the fact is that fulvic acids are variable organic complexes derived from decayed biological matter — their exact age and biological origin are indeterminate even though the lignite or leonardite deposit it was mined from formed millions of years ago.
Of course, the final product does not contain recognizable tissues, but its deep-time origin is geological rather than biological.
Further, for other biogenic sources (peat, soil, sediment, and shilajit), these are much younger accumulations of decomposed biological matter, so it is not possible to rule out contributions from animals—and, in principle, humans—at their origin site either, even though the final extracts also contain no identifiable tissues.
With shilajit, the key is that the contributing biomass reflects whatever lived (and died) in that landscape. In high-alpine zones, which are overwhelmingly plant- and microbial-dominated, but in lower or mixed zones, animal inputs can occur.
Strengths (when quality is verified)
- Broad spectrum of trace constituents: Often contain a wide array of trace minerals and organic ligands inherent to humus chemistry.
- Natural chelation & transport: Fulvic acid can bind minerals, potentially enhancing solubility and cellular transport (a reason for its popularity in agriculture and supplementation).
- Binding capacity: Humic/fulvic matrices can bind various ions; some practitioners value this for supporting elimination of certain metals or metabolites (evidence base varies by endpoint).
Limitations & risks
- Variability: Composition varies widely by deposit and process; two bottles from different sources may differ materially in mineral profile and organic residues.
- Contaminants: Without rigorous sourcing and testing, products may contain excess metals (e.g., Pb, As, Cd) or unwanted organics.
- Label ambiguity: “Fulvic content” is sometimes overstated or undefined; look for standardized assays (e.g., ISO/standardized fulvic quantification), full metals panels, and batch COAs.
- Elemental spectrum: Compared to igneous/metamorphic, rock-derived mineral solutions, humic sources are less likely to contain certain rare-earth elements and may show different redox behavior.
Practical guidance for readers
- Insist on documentation: Choose brands with GMP certification and third-party COAs for each lot (identity, microbial, full metals including As, Pb, Cd, Hg, and aluminum, plus organic contaminants where applicable). Look for proven geographic sources and altitude.
This is general quality-control advice applicable to any raw material; it is not an endorsement of any product or practice.
- Check standardized measures: Look for defined fulvic/humic quantification methods rather than marketing percentages.
- Start low, go slow: Given variability, begin with conservative dosing and monitor tolerance.
- Match to intent: If your priority is a predictable mineral spectrum, a rock-derived ionic formulation may be preferable; if you’re seeking organic chelation properties, a validated humic/fulvic extract might suit, provided quality proofs are in place.
This is a general statement about material characteristics, not a recommendation for ingestion or medical use.
I leave you with yet another comparison table. Note I found Themarox superior in the below parameters (don’t forget the rare-earth and ultratace minerals in Themarox as well).
Themarox compared to Fulvic/Humic
This is taken from a long document, read the rest here pierrekorymedicalmusings.com
Header image: GeologyPage