Mega doses of C
Thomas Carter
Recently I've posted about three articles on vitamin C at high
doses, all with rather sensational results. IIRC about a 75% reduction
in Alzheimer's, 50% in mortality, 10% in glycated haemoglobin, in
addition to the one below. I don't have any negative or null studies
of vitamin C in men at daily divided doses of a gram or more. Has
anyone seen any? I now have about five or six positive ones with
methodology that's not that great, but convincing when taken together.
Vit. C was the first intervention I started using about 15 yrs ago,
may have been a very lucky guess. BTW I think flu's and colds are
proaging by depleting naive T cells.
Thomas
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999 Oct;22(8):530-3. Related Articles,
Links
The effectiveness of vitamin C in preventing and relieving the
symptoms of virus-induced respiratory infections.
Gorton HC, Jarvis K.
BACKGROUND: An ever increasing demand to evaluate the
effect of dietary supplements on specific health conditions by use of
a "significant scientific" standard has prompted the publication of
this study. OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of megadose Vitamin C in
preventing and relieving cold and flu symptoms in a test group
compared with a control group. DESIGN: Prospective, controlled study
of students in a technical training facility. SUBJECTS: A total of 463
students ranging in age from 18 to 32 years made up the control group.
A total of 252 students ranging in age from 18 to 30 years made up the
experimental or test group. METHOD: Investigators tracked the number
of reports of cold and flu symptoms among the 1991 test population of
the facility compared with the reports of like symptoms among the 1990
control population. Those in the control population reporting symptoms
were treated with pain relievers and decongestants, whereas those in
the test population reporting symptoms were treated with hourly doses
of 1000 mg of Vitamin C for the first 6 hours and then 3 times daily
thereafter. Those not reporting symptoms in the test group were also
administered 1000-mg doses 3 times daily. RESULTS: Overall, reported
flu and cold symptoms in the test group decreased 85% compared with
the control group after the administration of megadose Vitamin C.
CONCLUSION: Vitamin C in megadoses administered before or after the
appearance of cold and flu symptoms relieved and prevented the
symptoms in the test population compared with the control group. PMID:
10543583
This was an open label study and had other short comings as
well, but even poorly designed studies are convincing with cure rates
of 85%. Lack of contagious action would be one reason for the very
high cure rate, but only if the intervention was successful to begin
with.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
McPoopy
80's but I don't know, Thomas...I think a skeptical attitude is best about
numbers like this. Really now, a 50% reduction in mortality??? Also I
think J Manipulative Physiol Ther is a chiropractic journal. Admittedly, I
may be biased but that fact alone immediately places its findings into my
lattitude of rejection.
"Thomas Carter" <tcar...@elp.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a7b55247.04112...@posting.google.com...
ma...@toad-net.com
I think the info at the Linus Pauling Institute about vit c should always
be given priority as the science is good, in short they aren't big on it
and I think they would be happy to see info to the contrary:
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminC/index.html
Thomas Carter
"McPoopy" <McP...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<tGdqd.474958$D%.160311@attbi_s51>...
> I've been dosing up in the 3gm/day range since the Pearson/Shaw book in the
> 80's but I don't know, Thomas...I think a skeptical attitude is best about
> numbers like this. Really now, a 50% reduction in mortality???
There were 29 deaths in the placebo groups and 15 in the C+E
groups. The results were significant with a small bit to spare. This
would give a 50/50 chance that 14 patients or more in the placebo
group were saved, a 25 to one chance that one or more was saved, with
about a 12 to one chance that seven or more were saved, and about a
six to one chance that three or more were saved. Feel free to believe
in some combination of efficacy and chance if you like, but the
results are not at all out of line with the other three intervention
trials I recently posted in which atherosclerosis was greatly reduced
by hi dose C+E. I also am a bit sceptical about the 50% number from
C+E alone, it borders on the fringe of "too good to be true" and it's
easy to mix up your thinking and your hoping, but time will tell.
Men are known to suffer more from oxidative stress than women and
also known to benefit more from vitamin C. A 50% reduction in
mortality would give them a life expectancy just about equal to women
and hi dose C+E supplementation would perhaps give them redox levels
equal to women. Coincidence?
> Also I
> think J Manipulative Physiol Ther is a chiropractic journal. Admittedly, I
> may be biased but that fact alone immediately places its findings into my
> lattitude of rejection.
>
Some chiropractors sell supplements, this would be the reason I
suppose that this journal would publish the article, whereas the
strange methodology might keep it from being published in more
appropriate and conservative ones. No reason for anyone to be
believing or skeptical on this score since it can be easily be
evaluated on an indiviual basis. My viral infections were reduced in
number from one or two per year, to one or two per decade and those
have been very light ones. In addition I sometimes feel tired and
wonder whether or not I'm getting sick. The next day I see that I
didn't.
Thomas
Dorian West
"beni kafe" <be...@elisra.com> wrote in message
news:33753bc6.0411...@posting.google.com...
> tcar...@elp.rr.com (Thomas Carter) wrote in message
> news:<a7b55247.04112...@posting.google.com>...
>> Hi,
>> Recently I've posted about three articles on vitamin C at high
>> doses, all with rather sensational results. IIRC about a 75% reduction
>> in Alzheimer's, 50% in mortality, 10% in glycated haemoglobin, in
>> addition to the one below. I don't have any negative or null studies
>> of vitamin C in men at daily divided doses of a gram or more. Has
>> anyone seen any? I now have about five or six positive ones with
>> methodology that's not that great, but convincing when taken together.
>> Vit. C was the first intervention I started using about 15 yrs ago,
>> may have been a very lucky guess. BTW I think flu's and colds are
>> proaging by depleting naive T cells.
>>
>> Thomas
>
> I was taking 500mg of vit C for 2 years and then switched to 6 grams a
> day, then to 9-10 grams a day, and for 3 years I am taking 20+ grams
> a day (to relieve sinuses allergy).
> my wife is taking also 10+ grams a day and my children are taking also
> regularly.
> I have no doubt that every thing that Pauling, Klenner, and Cathcart
> said is true.
> I saw many things happening for me: not getting colds, recovering
> quick and almost painless when ill, skeleton problems that were gone ,
> and even less sensitivity to sunlight.
> My wife's atherosclerosis vanished in 1.5 years, and many other good
> phenomenons, so I am not amazed about any good result in any research.
> beni.
What sort of sinus allergy needs 20+grams of Vit.C a day? I have one at the
back sinuses which causes my ears to ring sometimes, especially after
entering a smoky room, but 20 grams? Don't you have to keep going to the
toilet?
rs
> Recently I've posted about three articles on vitamin C at high
> doses, all with rather sensational results. IIRC about a 75% reduction
> in Alzheimer's, 50% in mortality, 10% in glycated haemoglobin, in
> addition to the one below. I don't have any negative or null studies
> of vitamin C in men at daily divided doses of a gram or more. Has
> anyone seen any? I now have about five or six positive ones with
> methodology that's not that great, but convincing when taken together.
> Vit. C was the first intervention I started using about 15 yrs ago,
> may have been a very lucky guess. BTW I think flu's and colds are
> proaging by depleting naive T cells.
>
> Thomas
One of the potential problems with vitamin C supplementation is that
it has a short half-life (30 minutes?). Most of the
extended/sustained-release products I've seen release over a two hour
period (or four). This would still require taking vitamin C many
times throughout the day. It seems logical to me to try and maintain
levels of vitamins as steady as possible and avoid rapid fluctuations.
Solaray makes a two-stage 12-hour extended-release product, which is
what I use.
In-vitro and in-vivo studies highlighting the pro-oxidant activities
of vitamin C and its interactions with transition metals may be
misleading. What this suggests to me is that it is important to take
high-dose vitamin C along with co-antioxidants which help to recycle
it and prevent pro-oxidative effects. But then, this is a general
observation which seems to apply to non-spintrap antioxidants in
general, i.e. antioxidants may work best when the right cocktail
(network) of them is taken.
Thomas Carter
rs1...@techemail.com (rs) wrote in message news:<525f0439.04120...@posting.google.com>...
>
> One of the potential problems with vitamin C supplementation is that
> it has a short half-life (30 minutes?). Most of the
> extended/sustained-release products I've seen release over a two hour
> period (or four). This would still require taking vitamin C many
> times throughout the day. It seems logical to me to try and maintain
> levels of vitamins as steady as possible and avoid rapid fluctuations.
> Solaray makes a two-stage 12-hour extended-release product, which is
> what I use.
This is widely believed among many well informed observers,
strangely including peer reviewed authors who publish vitamin C
papers. The most complete pharmacokinetic study was done by Mark
Levine et al. (PMID 8623000) Levine is a vit C proponent who did the
study in an ultimately successful attempt to get the RDA for C raised.
It was a very detailed and comprehensive study with horrible
methodology, unbelievable lab results, and even worse interpretation.
It is accepted I believe as one of the best studies done, and rightly
so since just about all others are worse. It shows a half life, which
is much referred to, of 30 min for intravenous doses, but a widely
ignored half life for oral doses of two to six hours depending on
dose, and accuracy of just how well one can read the graph. This
longer oral half life is corroborated by other papers.
One might instinctfully think the short half life of the
IV dose is due to the much higher peak plasma level, but most of the
difference is due to the fact that different molecules are in the
plasma when taken orally or by injection. Contrary to what can be read
even in many peer reviewed vit C papers, synthetic C is not the same
as natural C. It's composed of the stereoisomers d-ascorbic acid and
the natural L-ascorbic acid. D-ascorbic acid is not absorbed much, nor
is it reabsorbed by the kidneys, creating a very short half life for
the IV delivery of synthetic C. The d-ascorbic acid of oral C is, of
course, never seen past the intestines meaning only L-ascorbic acid is
in the blood. It is readily reabsorbed by the kidney's SCVT1
transporter which is stereospecific. (PMID: 10331392 ) BTW the
abstract claims there is little or no dehydroascorbic acid in the
blood, a repetition of the mistake in the earlier Levine paper, done
with ten yr old lab techniques that were pioneered by Dr. Levine,
himself which could not detect any plasma dehydroascorbic acid. It's
now known that plasma C is a mixture of about 62% ascorbic acid and
38% deyhdroascorbic acid. (PMID: 1884888 and others) BTW this study
was published five yr before the Levine paper. However this doesn't
appear to affect the main conclusions of the paper which have been so
widely repeated (in other studies) and reported that they are just as
much gospel as they are incorrect.
The basic flaw in all or nearly all pharmacokinetic studies
of vit C, which totally abrogates their conclusions as well as any
medically important utility of their results is that they give doses
of vit C then wait until the next day after it has been mostly
eliminated from the blood before measuring plasma levels, and these
are the results they UNAMOUSLY report. HOW STUPID/BIASED CAN YOU
GET?? The hourly graph in the Levine paper clearly shows that from
just 1250 mg twice daily blood levels of C are much higher (same from
the lower dose) than reported anywhere (even in his own report!). This
graph shows very high levels all day long which may give more
protection than meets the eye since we may not need as much protection
when we sleep. By taking such doses more often throughout the day one
can get levels just about as high as one wants.
The deeper I delve into the literature of medical science
the more disappointed I become to see that it's riddled with blatant
incompetency. I think this criticism above can hardly been seen as a
matter of opinion. The facts stand for themselves; Scientists
uniformly report hi blood levels of C to be unreachable while their
own studies show it to be easily reached, the conclusion is in
accordance with common sense and in addition requires little more than
the ability to read a graph. How can this be described as anything but
blatant incompetency? I wish I could say that this incompetency was
restricted to a few fields like the pharmacokinetics of vit C, but
unfortunately I see it in most areas I study intensely.
I also see a lot of good work, and I see the spark of
genius from time to time. Speaking of which has anyone else noticed a
lot of very good work coming from China, and of all places Korea
lately? I hope what I think I see is just the tip of an emerging
iceberg. We need all the help we can get.
Thomas
> In-vitro and in-vivo studies highlighting the pro-oxidant activities
> of vitamin C and its interactions with transition metals may be
> misleading. What this suggests to me is that it is important to take
> high-dose vitamin C along with co-antioxidants which help to recycle
> it and prevent pro-oxidative effects. But then, this is a general
> observation which seems to apply to non-spintrap antioxidants in
> general, i.e. antioxidants may work best when the right cocktail
> (network) of them is taken.
Yes indeed, and I'm eagerly awaiting the launch of some of
these spintraps in the market place and wondering if we can ever
really know when we have our antioxidative defenses about optimized.
Or will we overshoot just when we are on the verge of successful life
extension?
Thomas
beni
Thomas Carter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The hourly graph in the Levine paper clearly shows that from
> just 1250 mg twice daily blood levels of C are much higher (same from
> the lower dose) than reported anywhere (even in his own report!).
This
> graph shows very high levels all day long which may give more
> protection than meets the eye since we may not need as much
protection
> when we sleep. By taking such doses more often throughout the day one
> can get levels just about as high as one wants.
It seems to me desireable to get as much protection as possible from
vitamin C.
The way to achieve it is by reaching bowl tolerance at least once a
day, and then taking extra amount as wished.
Since there are many conditions that affect the body's need for vitamin
C (cold, stress, etc...) the dose is a dynamic dose every day.
Since it is possible that vit C also prevent Glycation I see no harm in
taking a lot of it.
beni.
rs1...@techemail.com
Thomas Carter wrote:
>
> Yes indeed, and I'm eagerly awaiting the launch of some of
> these spintraps in the market place and wondering if we can ever
> really know when we have our antioxidative defenses about optimized.
> Or will we overshoot just when we are on the verge of successful life
> extension?
Thanks for the vitamin C info.
I'm hoping that the powerful azulenyl nitrone STAZN will turn out to be
a safe and effective spin trap for in vivo use. It's been tested for
use in anti-aging and anti-inflammatory skin creams by Yale researchers
and said to be effective as an anti-inflammatory agent, although I
haven't found any published data. Of course, the ability of such a
substance to readily cross the mitochondrial membrane would also be
important.
The current mitochondria-targeted antioxidants may or may not be good
candidates for life extension. MitoPBN is ineffective against
superoxide, mitoQ as an idebenone derivative may greatly increase
superoxide production. Others are currently under development,
although I don't know which exactly.
Personally, I don't think that the Free Radical/MTA combination theory
has been adequately tested at this point. Currently feasible methods I
can think of to better test this idea are to develop
mitochondria-targeted spintraps like a mitoSTAZN, or to upregulate
SOD2, etc. SOD mimetics like AEOL-10150 and EUK-189 are also worth
testing, especially if combined with a secondary antioxidant and
co-administered with R-ALA and ALCAR.
Traditionally, the scientific method which is impressed on all of us
from an early age favors testing substances in isolation, and I suspect
that this is one of the reasons why life extension research is not
moving along faster at this point, at least as far as MIFRA is
concerned.
rs1...@techemail.com
>
> Yes indeed, and I'm eagerly awaiting the launch of some of
> these spintraps in the market place and wondering if we can ever
> really know when we have our antioxidative defenses about optimized.
> Or will we overshoot just when we are on the verge of successful life
> extension?
Thanks for the vitamin C info.
rs1...@techemail.com
>
> Yes indeed, and I'm eagerly awaiting the launch of some of
> these spintraps in the market place and wondering if we can ever
> really know when we have our antioxidative defenses about optimized.
> Or will we overshoot just when we are on the verge of successful life
> extension?
Thanks for the vitamin C info.
just_e...@yahoo.com
beni wrote:
> It seems to me desireable to get as much protection as possible from
> vitamin C.
> The way to achieve it is by reaching bowl tolerance at least once a
> day, and then taking extra amount as wished.
Can you support this assertion of yours?
It may be that this practice only upsets intestinal flora via
low PH. You might be able to further increase protection from
vitamin C by substituting mineral ascorbates for part of the
ascorbic acid or by consuming it with foods which buffer the acid.
There are other buffers.
I would like to see some science supporting the "bowl tolerance"
or bowel tolerance notions. I suspect that there is none.
What I found: the 23 year old PMID abstract 7321921 which says
bowel tolerance is "a method", makes no claim that its a good one,
much less "The way" (beni). It does state that replenishing
ascorbate is what's desired, but makes no mention of a single
daily dose.
If more ascorbate is sought, stopping at bowel tolerance with
ascorbic acid once a day certainly isn't the best.
> Since there are many conditions that affect the body's need for
vitamin
> C (cold, stress, etc...) the dose is a dynamic dose every day.
So you are saying you need to do what to make sure you are getting
this unknown varying "bowl tolerance"?
> Since it is possible that vit C also prevent Glycation I see no harm
in
> taking a lot of it.
I think I renmember studies showing possible pro-oxidant properties.
While I'm not sure I believe those apply to me for several reasons,
I think that your "no harm in taking a lot of it" statement is
kind of off the wall.
Why wouldn't you consider multiple doses per day as a way to
increase AUC if you'd like more C instead of one big dose?
As one would expect pro-oxidant effects to be driven by peak
concentration, you pack in the same or more benefit with less
chance of the harm. Why not divide your big single dose into
three or more and absorb more of it.
I'm sorry but, I don't see that you've made your points
if I understand what they are.
Ed
just_e...@yahoo.com
> It seems to me desireable to get as much protection as possible from
> vitamin C.
> The way to achieve it is by reaching bowl tolerance at least once a
> day, and then taking extra amount as wished.
Can you support this assertion of yours?
It may be that this practice only upsets intestinal flora via
low PH. You might be able to further increase protection from
vitamin C by substituting mineral ascorbates for part of the
ascorbic acid or by consuming it with foods which buffer the acid.
There are other buffers.
I would like to see some science supporting the "bowl tolerance"
or bowel tolerance notions. I suspect that there is none.
What I found: the 23 year old PMID abstract 7321921 which says
bowel tolerance is "a method", makes no claim that its a good one,
much less "The way" (beni). It does state that replenishing
ascorbate is what's desired, but makes no mention of a single
daily dose.
If more ascorbate is sought, stopping at bowel tolerance with
ascorbic acid once a day certainly isn't the best.
> Since there are many conditions that affect the body's need for
vitamin
> C (cold, stress, etc...) the dose is a dynamic dose every day.
So you are saying you need to do what to make sure you are getting
this unknown varying "bowl tolerance"?
> Since it is possible that vit C also prevent Glycation I see no harm
in
> taking a lot of it.
I think I renmember studies showing possible pro-oxidant properties.
just_e...@yahoo.com
> It seems to me desireable to get as much protection as possible from
> vitamin C.
> The way to achieve it is by reaching bowl tolerance at least once a
> day, and then taking extra amount as wished.
Can you support this assertion of yours?
It may be that this practice only upsets intestinal flora via
low PH. You might be able to further increase protection from
vitamin C by substituting mineral ascorbates for part of the
ascorbic acid or by consuming it with foods which buffer the acid.
There are other buffers.
I would like to see some science supporting the "bowl tolerance"
or bowel tolerance notions. I suspect that there is none.
What I found: the 23 year old PMID abstract 7321921 which says
bowel tolerance is "a method", makes no claim that its a good one,
much less "The way" (beni). It does state that replenishing
ascorbate is what's desired, but makes no mention of a single
daily dose.
If more ascorbate is sought, stopping at bowel tolerance with
ascorbic acid once a day certainly isn't the best.
> Since there are many conditions that affect the body's need for
vitamin
> C (cold, stress, etc...) the dose is a dynamic dose every day.
So you are saying you need to do what to make sure you are getting
this unknown varying "bowl tolerance"?
> Since it is possible that vit C also prevent Glycation I see no harm
in
> taking a lot of it.
I think I renmember studies showing possible pro-oxidant properties.