Vitamin D – An Old Friend Finding New Respect
Written by Wellness Club on January 4, 2010 – 11:44 am -Vitamin D – An Old Friend Finding New Respect
By Nurse Mark
Vitamin D, once dismissed as little more than “the sunshine vitamin” important only for healthy bone development in children, is suddenly finding new respect – even within the conventional medical world, which is normally quick to pooh-pooh anything natural or vitamin-related as unimportant compared to Big Pharma’s patented toxic offerings.
Vitamin D is suddenly receiving positive press on a number of fronts, and Dr. Myatt and Nurse Mark have just returned from a major medical conference where a number of speakers admitted that vitamin D is actually misnamed; for it is more akin to a hormone than a vitamin.
Long known for it’s relationship to calcium and for it’s importance in preventing rickets in children (osteomalacia in adults) new research is linking vitamin D to a wide range of other health issues: it may be a major factor in the pathology of many cancers as well as heart disease, stroke, hypertension, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, depression, chronic pain, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, muscle weakness, muscle wasting, birth defects, periodontal disease, and more.
There is even evidence that vitamin D, taken in supplement form at 2000 to 5000 IU (International Units) daily, is highly protective against the H1N1 influenza virus (and presumably all other influenza viruses as well!)
So, how can you be sure you are getting enough of this newly respected “wonder-vitamin”? Well, they don’t call it “the sunshine vitamin” for nothing! Perhaps our most important source of vitamin D is from within our own bodies – given adequate exposure to sunlight our own skin produces vitamin D for us in healthy amounts.
Just how much sun and how much vitamin D? Medical scientists have found that the skin produces approximately 10,000 IU of vitamin D in response to as little as 20 to 30 minutes of unprotected summer sun exposure. Amazingly, that is 50 times more than the US government’s recommendation of 200 to 400 IU per day! (Which is why the acronym ‘RDA’ – which the government claims stands for ‘Recommended Daily Allowance’ – actually means ‘Really Dumb Advice’!)
But, you say, you live in Boston, or Seattle, or Nome in Alaska, and the sun goes away in November and isn’t seen again until April (I’m kidding – sort of – I know it really does peek through the gloom of winter once or twice during that time…) or if you live in Minnesota where it’s just too cold to expose any skin for much of the winter – what then?
Well, vitamin D can be obtained from food too. Since rickets in children is such a crippling but preventable condition, governments have long encouraged the “fortification” of dairy products and breads and cereals with token amounts of vitamin D. In the United States and Canada, for example, fortified milk typically provides 100 IU per glass – a far cry from the 10,000 IU of vitamin D made by the skin in response to sunlight! Most kids love milk, but try getting a hundred glasses into a kid; at 16 glasses per gallon… well, you do the math!
Other foods high in vitamin D include fish liver oils: cod liver oil contains around 1,360 IU per tablespoon. Mom was right – and now you know why it was good for you to gag down that awful stuff!
If you don’t care for cod liver oil (and who does?) maybe you like fish better: Herring is the vitamin D champ, with a 3 ounce portion providing around 1383 IU – other fishes lag behind with catfish providing 425 IU from that 3 ounce serving and salmon giving 360 IU from a 3.5 ounce portion.
Don’t care for fish at all? Well, a whole egg will serve up a whopping 20 IU of this important vitamin…
You say you are a vegetarian? You’d better be sure you are getting plenty of sunshine, because other than tiny amounts that may be found in UV-irradiated mushrooms, there just aren’t any vegetable sources of vitamin D.
What to do? Should you just throw your hands in the air and accept the negative health consequences of vitamin D deficiency? No! You can easily achieve meaningful, health-restoring vitamin D levels with supplementation. The Wellness Club offers vitamin D in both capsules of 5000 IU per tab and liquid form that provides 2000 IU per drop. Either of these supplements makes it easy to tailor a daily dosage to your individual needs.
How can you know how much you should take? The Vitamin D Council, a non-profit group dedicated to vitamin D research and education recommends people take 5,000 IU per day for 2–3 months, then perform a vitamin D test. They then suggest adjusting the dosage so that blood levels are between 50–80 ng/mL (or 125–200 nM/L) year-round.
But wait – that sounds like big dose – and didn’t someone once tell you that too much vitamin D can be toxic? Maybe they did, but research does not support that concern. One source found that in adults, a sustained intake of 50,000 IU daily could produce toxicity within a few months and 40,000 IU per day in infants has been shown to produce toxicity within 1 to 4 months. That is ten times the recommended dose – so just don’t do that! And, if you are using high doses of vitamin D, vitamin D testing is good insurance and will allow you to fine-tune your dosage to your actual needs. Be careful though, since not all testing is the same and lab references and standards vary – be sure that you are comparing ‘apples to apples’ and obtaining useable results when you are tested.
The 25-hydroxyvitamin D blood test (25(OH)D blood test) is a test that measures the amount of calcidiol circulating in the blood. This is the most accurate measure of the amount of vitamin D in the body. The Wellness Club offers this testing too – from a lab that adheres to standardized references and values so that you know what you are getting when you receive your results.
Sources:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D
Posted in Nutrition and Health | Comments Off
Vitamin D Deficiency Can Be Deadly
Written by Wellness Club on June 25, 2008 – 2:00 pm -Of note in this morning’s new headlines was this from Associated Press: Lack of sunshine vitamin may cloud survival odds which leads off by saying "New research linking low vitamin D levels with deaths from heart disease and other causes bolsters mounting evidence about the "sunshine" vitamin’s role in good health." and continues to say: "Patients with the lowest blood levels of vitamin D were about two times more likely to die from any cause during the next eight years than those with the highest levels, the study found. The link with heart-related deaths was particularly strong in those with low vitamin D levels."
This news article was written in response to the recent release of yet more studies showing not just the benefit of Vitamin D, but it’s absolute essential need for our bodies to survive and thrive. One of those studies, with the imposing title of "25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Risk of Myocardial Infarction in Men – A Prospective Study" which appears in this weeks edition of Archives of Internal Medicine concludes: "Low levels of [Vitamin] D are associated with higher risk of myocardial infarction in a graded manner, even after controlling for factors known to be associated with coronary artery disease."
Whew – this from a conventional medical journal! It seems vitamin D is no longer just for healthy bones! Even the mighty FDA is bending to the pressure of scientific evidence and allowing more liberally addition of Vitamin D to foods and allowing simpler and more general claims to be made about the health benefits of additional vitamin D.
But this is not news to us here at the wellness club – we have long-recognized the essential nature of Vitamin D, and the role it plays in bone health, cardiac health, cancer prevention, and general illness prevention. This is so important that when Dr. Myatt recently improved the formulation of Maxi Multi Optimal Dose Daily Multiple Vitamins she DOUBLED the amount of Vitamin D from 400 to 800 iu!
Are You getting enough of this vital, health-preserving vitamin?
Visit The Wellness Club to learn more about Vitamin D.
Posted in Bone and Joint Health, Cancer, Drugs and Alternatives, Family Health, Heart and Circulation, Nutrition and Health | Comments Off
Vitamins = Expensive Urine?
Written by Wellness Club on April 27, 2018 – 4:14 pm -By Dr. Dana Myatt
If I hear or read this one more time, I’m going to ….. go take some additional magnesium to calm down.
The conventional press and most conventional doctors (who receive post-grad education from drug companies) keep saying that all vitamins do is make expensive urine.
What do they think? That saying it over and over will make it true? Kind of like saying the Earth is flat a million times will make it flat?
The bulk of scientific evidence points to the positive value of nutritional supplements on health, not just urine. I’ve written about this many times before and I hate to beat a dead horse. You can refresh your memory here: “Vitamins a Waste” — Fake News or Fact? and Do Vitamins Really Make Any Difference?
Mom on her 95th birthday – the Princess of the party!
So let’s talk about “expensive urine” from a different perspective, a funny but true story to illustrate. This one is close to home. Literally.
My Mom is 95 and she lives with us. Five years ago, when Mom was living independently with Dad, she went to her conventional doc for a routine check-up. It’s always a good idea to keep an “insurance doc” on the hook in case of emergency and for things that are best-served by the conventional side. I’m a big proponent of having a local doc who can write prescriptions and perform tests, hospital admissions, etc.
And you don’t want to just show up on their doorstep the first time you need them, hence the value of a routine exam. Then they will know who you are, at least a little. Plus you will have an established medical chart with your insurance connections in place. This is all good.
I encourage having a local conventional general doctor and this is the reason Mom was in for an exam. She did not have any complaints. Well, OK, maybe her low back. She’s been complaining of that for the last 50 years that I recall and nothing is wrong that can be fixed with surgery, drugs, manipulation, etc. With additional low back stretches, she feels much better. But I digress.
Mom was in good health. The doctor didn’t know this yet. Test results take a week. All he knew was that her blood pressure was enviable for a 40 year old much less a 90 year old, her heart sounded good, her pulse was normal and she was nearly 80 pounds overweight.
The doc asked her what medications she was taking. Mom told him “none.” He didn’t believe this. After all, she was 90. It would be downright un-American to be 90 and not on at least two or three medications, especially for blood pressure. So he asked her again what she was taking. She told him that her daughter, a naturopathic doctor, had her on vitamins. She recited her list. A multiple (9 caps per day, not one), digestive enzymes, fish oil, extra magnesium and melatonin at bedtime.
“That’s all I take” she assured him. He chuckled and said, “All that does is give you expensive urine.” Then he scolded her for being overweight, suggested she go on a diet (but didn’t give any instructions on how to do this) and told her to come back next week for results.
The next week, Mom went for follow-up. Her test results showed normal cholesterol, borderline high-normal blood sugars, no evidence of osteoporosis and nothing else wrong. Nothing. Nada.
“Well, even though you need to lose weight, you are in otherwise really good health” the doctor grudgingly acknowledged. To which Mom replied, “Maybe it’s all that expensive urine”!
Mom has been living with us for nearly two years since Dad passed. She has lost 80 pounds. Her fasting blood sugars are as right as rain now. Her B.P. is 130/80, no drugs. Her new local doc still can’t find anything wrong, although he did want to do a bone density test. (Why? “Because we can and insurance will pay”). I told him that we’d already done a bone density test at home. “How did you do that?” he wanted to know. “Well, Mom has fallen a couple of times and injured nothing but her ego.” (Note: she hasn’t taken a tumble in a looooong time since we started exercising, by the way).
Dr. Myatt, Mom Flo Wishmeyer, and Nurse Mark delivering Meals On Wheels – this picture appeared on the front page of our local newspaper.
She and I walk a half mile 3-5 times per week. Mom calls it “The Green Mile.” (Look up the Tom Hanks movie by the same name if you don’t get the joke).
The three of us deliver Meals on Wheels once a week which requires walking and getting in and out of the car frequently.
We entertain (tonight is movie night in our hangar), give parties, go to parties and generally enjoy life as much as possible. In fact we’re planning Mom’s 96th b-day party coming up next month.
Oh yes, and we still take our vitamins. I’ve seen the research (my eyeballs are in it most of the day) and I’m hedging my bet that I, too, can live well into my 90’s. After all, I’ve got good genetics and “expensive urine”! 
Posted in Nutrition and Health | Comments Off
"Vitamins a Waste" — Fake News or Fact?
Written by Wellness Club on August 23, 2017 – 2:31 pm -By Dr. Dana Myatt
Gotta’ love the media. They are more concerned with entertaining us than with actual journalism. We call this "info-tainment." Please don’t bet your life on this kind of reporting.
They’ve done it again, this time with the recent report that "most vitamin supplements are worthless." Here’s what a recent mainstream news article said:
"The idea of a pill that can improve your overall health is an appealing one.
Unfortunately, no matter how colorful their packaging or hopeful their messaging, most vitamins and supplements fall prey to the same problem: We simply do not need them to be healthy. Some supplements — particularly those marketed for physical enhancement — can cause real harm."
While its true that there are unproven and over-hyped supplements, it is also true that many —- multi vitamins, fish oil, vitamin D and a number of herbs—- have significant proven medical benefit.
Here’s what "they" (the Lamestream Media) said versus what the preponderance of scientific evidence shows.
- What the Headline said: "Vitamin Pills a Waste of Money"
What the research actually said:
To quote the article directly: “Two large trials [with 27,658 individuals] reported lower cancer incidence in men taking a multivitamin for more than 10 years. High quality studies were scant…" (meaning: not enough data to draw good conclusions about the rest). (1)Dr. Myatt’s comment: It should be noted that the "multivitamins" examined in the study were low-potency ("one a day") supplements, something that has never been proven to be of much benefit to anyone except those who are severely deficient.
- What the Headline said: "Multivitamins of no benefit to seniors."
What the research actually said:
To quote the article directly: "Multivitamins and mineral supplements were found to reduce the mean annual number of days spent with infection (three studies) by 17.5." (2)Dr. Myatt’s comment: Again, the "multivitamins" examined in the study were low-potency ("one a day") supplements, something that has never been proven to be of much benefit to anyone except those severely deficient. But even at low potency, there was a decreased risk of infection in the elderly.
- What the Headline said: "Vitamins are linked to increased risk of death."
What the research actually said:
The study (if you can call it that) — asking folks to report from memory what supplements they had taken years previously — in fact found the following:B complex vitamins were associated with a 7% reduction in mortality
Vitamin C intake associated with a 4% reduction in mortality
Vitamin D intake associated with an 8% reduction in mortality
Magnesium intake associated with a 3% reduction in mortality
Selenium intake associated with a 3% reduction in mortality
Zinc intake associated with a 3% reduction in mortalityDr. Myatt’s comment: This study was so poorly done, and the "findings" so misreported, that I wrote an entire article about it here: Vitamins Linked to Increased Risk of Death?
Now for the Positive Studies Your May Not Have Seen
- Multivitamins Decrease Women’s Heart Disease Death.
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the "multivitamins don’t help" argument is far from over. Women who took multivitamin-mineral supplements for three years or more were significantly less likely to die from heart disease. (3)
- Multivitamin users have lower risk of dying from stroke.
To quote the article directly: "Conclusions— Multivitamin use, particularly frequent use, was associated with reduced risk of total and ischemic stroke mortality among Japanese people with lower intake of fruits and vegetables." (4)
The number of studies showing positive benefit in multivitamin use are so overwhelming that we have written about them numerous times. Please see the following articles with multiple references.
Dr Myatt’s Bottom Line and Summary
The preponderance of evidence is far in favor of taking a multiple vitamin/mineral supplement for health.
"One a day" multiples are of limited value in improving health. Please see "Maxi Multi" for a discussion of optimal potency multiple vitamin formulas.
Regular users have far more benefit than casual users. Take your multiple every day.
While conventional medicine and newspaper headlines continue to preach that nutritional supplementation isn’t important, the results of medical research shows just the opposite. Here are some medical findings that should convince you to keep taking a high-quality, optimal potency multiple vitamin/mineral supplement. If you’re not sure what an “optimal potency” formula consists of or what you should be taking for your age and sex, refer to The Wellness Club web site’s nutritional supplements page for an up-to-date ingredient list and optimal dose recommendations.
Harvard researchers have found that sub-optimal levels of folic acid, vitamins B6 and B12 are a risk factor for heart disease and colon and breast cancers.
(Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) June 19, 2002)
A six-month study showing that folic acid, vitamin B12 and vitamin B6 helped prevent recurrence of blocked arteries in patients who have undergone coronary angioplasty.
(Journal of the American Medical Association, August 28, 2002)
Vitamin K is a critical nutrient for skeletal integrity, with evidence of vitamin K supplementation reducing bone loss in healthy postmenopausal women and a significant positive relationship between vitamin K status and indices of bone health in men.
(24th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, September 20 – 24, 2002, San Antonio, Texas)
Alzheimer’s disease: Association with zinc deficiency and cerebral vitamin B12 deficiency.
(Journal of Orthol. Psychiatry (CANADA), 1984, 13/2 (97-104))
Supplementation of the elderly with vitamin E has been shown to enhance immune response, delay onset of Alzheimer’s disease, and increase resistance to oxidative injury associated with exercise.
(Proc Nutr Soc. 2002;61:165-171)
Vitamin E intake, from foods or supplements, is associated with less cognitive decline with age.
(Arch Neurol. 2002;59:1125-1132)
Researchers at Cambridge University in England looked at serum vitamin C and how long people lived. People who had the lowest levels of vitamin C were twice as likely to die compared to those with the highest serum vitamin C levels. This study was based on the findings from over 19,000 people.
(Lancet 2001; 357:657-63)
26.4% of esophageal and gastric cancers are attributable to low selenium levels.
(Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Mark et al., 2000)
Calcium supplementation is associated with a significant – though moderate – reduction in the risk of recurrent colorectal adenomas. The effect of calcium was independent of initial dietary fat and calcium intake.
(N Engl J Med (United States) Jan 14 1999, 340 (2) p101-7.)
Data from the Nurses’ Health Study conducted at the Harvard Medical School showed that long-term supplementation with folic acid reduces the risk of colon cancer by 75% in women! 90,000 women participated in the Nurses’ Health Study, making this an especially significant finding. The authors of this study explained that folic acid obtained from supplements had a stronger protective effect against colon cancer than folic acid consumed in the diet.
(Annals of Internal Medicine (1998; 129:517-524)
Regarding asthma, the lowest intakes of vitamin C and manganese (a trace mineral not to be confused with magnesium) were associated with more than five-fold increased risks of bronchial reactivity. Decreasing intakes of magnesium were also significantly associated with an increased risk of hyper-reactivity.
(Thorax (United Kingdom), 1997, 52/2 (166-170))
Antioxidant supplements reduce the risk of cataract. One study evaluated 410 men for 3 years to ascertain the association between serum vitamin E and the development of cortical lens opacities (cataracts). The men with the lowest level of serum vitamin E had a 3.7 times greater risk of this form of cataract compared to men with the highest serum level of vitamin E.
(American Journal of Epidemiology Sept. 1996)
Encouraging moderate exercise and dietary supplementation with calcium and vitamin D are the major nonpharmacological management measures used to prevent and treat osteoporosis.
(Drugs and Aging (New Zealand), 1996, 9/6 (472-477)
Nutrient intake of patients with rheumatoid arthritis is deficient in pyridoxine (vitamin B-6), zinc, copper, and magnesium.
(Journal of Rheumatology (Canada), 1996, 23/6 (990-994))
Bottom Line?
Despite the breathless pseudo-reporting and claims to the contrary, vitamin and mineral supplementation is not only NOT a “waste,” it is essential for restoring, maintaining, and improving health – and countless studies have proven this to be true.
So, who are you going to believe? Me and the respected medical researchers and scientists that I’ve quoted in this and many other articles, or lamestream media ‘infotainment” produced by misreading and misquoting biased or poorly conducted pseudo-research?
That’s it – I knew you would go with the real science! Good for you!
References:
1. Fortmann SP, Burda BU, Senger CA, Lin JS, Whitlock EP. Vitamin and mineral supplements in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer: an updated systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Dec 17;159(12):824-34.
2. El-Kadiki A, Sutton AJ. Role of multivitamins and mineral supplements in preventing infections in elderly people: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BMJ. 2005 Apr 16;330(7496):871
3. Bailey RL, Fakhouri TH, Park Y, et al. Multivitamin-mineral use is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease mortality among women in the United States. J Nutr. 2015 Mar;145(3):572-8.
4. Shigeki Yamada, MD; Akio Koizumi, MD; Hiroyasu Iso, MD; Yasuhiko Wada, MD, et al. Risk Factors for Fatal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: The Japan Collaborative Cohort Study.
Posted in Nutrition and Health | Comments Off
When is vitamin C not vitamin C?
Written by Wellness Club on July 24, 2017 – 12:24 pm -Nurse Mark Says:
Lots of people write to us, knowing that we are on the leading edge of medical news and science. Often it’s to ask about things that others have written – things that maybe don’t seem quite right, or things that seem to be in contradiction with our recommendations.
There are endless streams of health-related e-books available on the internet, many of them free, and most of the free ones are thinly veiled sales pitches.
Many of these books are little more than armchair theory or personal experience monologues and they contain little, if any verifiable science. If there is a smidgeon of science in the piece it is usually something that the author has cherry-picked, misinterpreted, and/or modified to suit a preconceived idea or to support a product.
Rarely do these books provide verifiable scientific references to back up their claims. Often any references given are to other e-books or print books which contain similarly vague references or you may find out that all the books mentioned as references use the same reference, quoted over and over until it takes on the cachet of “it is common knowledge”…
One of Dr. Myatt’s patients, who is a voracious reader of all things health-related, recently wrote to ask about something he found in a free e-book: The book’s author claimed that ascorbic acid is not really vitamin C but rather just some sort of “wrapper” surrounding all manner of other things that the author claims make up “real” vitamin C. Wow! Wouldn’t Dr. Linus Pauling be surprised!
Let’s see what Dr. Myatt has to say about all this:
Dr. Myatt Says:
“The Calcium Lie Part II”
When I was young ( a while ago!), my Mom, Grandma and even me as a small child used to chuckle at my Grandpa when he would read something in the newspaper that was preposterous. We’d point out the folly or falsehood and he would say, “But it’s in the newspaper! They couldn’t print it if it weren’t true!” To which we would roll our eyes and laugh.
Fast forward to today. I have a very few patients (not many) who, if they see it on the internet, “know” it surely must be true. Don’t do this. Look for the references and proof.
There aren’t enough hours in the day to respond to every “the earth is flat” claim without proof. “Some doctor said he observed…..” gives a start place to do some “proof research,” but hearsay alone doesn’t constitute good science or medicine. So when I got an email from someone who downloaded a free ebook titled “The Calcium Lie Part II” with a statement saying “this guy said ascorbic acid is like the wrapper on candy” and not a single reference to support that claim,I’m having flashbacks of my grandpa…
Folks, please don’t believe everything you read without demanding references and proof. Haven’t I taught you better than this???
I’ve got ascorbic acid in Maxi Multi? You betcha. It is the form of vitamin C that is the “real deal.” If there was something better, I would put that in instead.
Anybody can write an ebook and say anything they want. But can they defend their claims with references? Show me the reference that concerns you and I will surely respond.
Here is an authoritative (that is, scientifically substantiated) page from the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon Health Sciences medical school that discusses vitamin C: http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-C
Vitamin C supplements are available in many forms, and there is little scientific evidence that any one form is better absorbed or more effective than another. (a references link for that statement is on the page at the above link)
The “other stuff” that occurs with vitamin C in nature are bioflavonoids. That’s the white rind part of a citrus fruit for example. Bioflavonoids have benefits independent of vitamin C. You will notice there are 100mg of bioflavonoids in Maxi Multi.
Surfing the internet does not constitute “research,” and just because someone makes a statement on the internet or in a book does not make it fact. I suspected the guy who wrote “The Calcium Lie Part II” was selling something.
The Vitamin C Myth (A Warning to the Health Conscious)
Vitamin C, also known as ascorbic acid and L-ascorbic acid, is a vitamin found in food and used as a dietary supplement. As a supplement it is used to treat and prevent scurvy.
Vitamin C is ascorbate, chemical name 2-Oxo-L-threo-hexono-1,4-lactone-2,3-enediol.
In an effort to set the record straight – vitamin C is ascorbate only.
Most commonly, vitamin C is ingested as ascorbic acid (hydrogen ascorbate) or sodium ascorbate. Vitamin C also occurs in different mineral forms, including calcium ascorbate, magnesium ascorbate, and others.
The Marketing Myth of "vitamin C complex"
The claim that vitamin C naturally exists as a multi-compound "complex" has never been scientifically documented. Vitamin C does occur in nature along with other compounds such as bioflavonoids. Some of these other substances have independent health benefits. But vitamin C does not depend on bioflavonoids or other co-factors to work its magic.
Some individuals, usually operating on the "Wild, Wild West” of the internet (where you can make just about any claim you please) are promoting fraud. I don’t know if this is deliberate or if they truly haven’t done their scientific research, but you will find that they are usually selling a version of the mythical "vitamin C complex." This is marketing hype, not science.
The argument says something like "ascorbic acid is not vitamin C" and has no effect by itself. The one study usually quoted by the hypesters claims that some doctor found he could not cure scurvy — the classic vitamin C deficiency disease — by using ascorbic acid alone. Unfortunately for the hypesters, there is no study to this effect to be found in the medical literature but there are plenty of studies showing that ascorbic acid (vitamin C) does indeed cure scurvy — and helps a long list of other conditions as well.
Side Note: You can find videos on YouTube discussing the "vitamin C complex." Some of these are very professionally made and look legit. The problem is, they are simply slick marketing pieces. They are not based on any peer-reviewed scientific studies. I know it can be difficult for laymen to sort science from hearsay, but always look for scientific reference. If there are none, run the other way. Or else stick around and see what the marketing angle is. Just like printing it in a newspaper, saying it in a video doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true!
If you find their marketing hype compelling, please do your due diligence on PubMed, the compilation of peer reviewed medical journal studies. Type ascorbic acid, ascorbate, or vitamin C into the search box. You will find 14,000+ studies on vitamin C, the vast majority showing the many positive effects of this vitamin. None of those studies refer to "vitamin C complex."
All the scientifically documented effects of vitamin C have been seen and achieved using ascorbic acid or another form of ascorbate by itself. No ancillary nutrients, co-factors or "complexes" were used. Again, that’s over 14,000 studies.
Now for the "No B.S." (Bad Science) discussion on vitamin C
Some vitamin C products are marketed to include bioflavonoids. I put bioflavonoids in my Maxi Multi because they have independent health benefits. But vitamin C does not require bioflavonoids in order to work.
Natural and synthetic L-ascorbic acid are chemically identical, and there are no known differences in their biological activity. Human studies have not shown any additional "bioavailbility" of so-called "natural" or "food forms." Here are just a few examples from PubMed” – these would be known as “references.”
- Pelletier, O. & Keith, M.O. Bioavailability of synthetic and natural ascorbic acid. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 1974; 64: 271-275
- Mangels, A.R. et al. The bioavailability to humans of ascorbic acid from oranges, orange juice, and cooked broccoli is similar to that of synthetic ascorbic acid. Journal of Nutrition. 1993; volume 123: pages 1054-1061. (PubMed)
- Gregory, J.F. Ascorbic acid bioavailability in foods and supplements. Nutrition Reviews. 1993; volume 51: pages 301-309. (PubMed)
- Carr AC, Vissers MC. Synthetic or food-derived vitamin C-are they equally bioavailable? Nutrients. 2013;5(11):4284-4304. (PubMed)
- Uchida E, Kondo Y, Amano A, et al. Absorption and excretion of ascorbic acid alone and in acerola (Malpighia emarginata) juice: comparison in healthy Japanese subjects. Biol Pharm Bull. 2011;34(11):1744-1747. (PubMed)
- Carr AC, Bozonet SM, Pullar JM, Simcock JW, Vissers MC. A randomized steady-state bioavailability study of synthetic versus natural (kiwifruit-derived) vitamin C. Nutrients. 2013;5(9):3684-3695. (PubMed)
- Jones E, Hughes RE. The influence of bioflavonoids on the absorption of vitamin C. IRCS Med Sci. 1984;12:320.
Finally, to be fair, one small study (8 people) in 1988 suggested a possible difference in bioavailability but this study has not been duplicated.
- Vinson, J.A. & Bose, P. Comparative bioavailability to humans of ascorbic acid alone or in a citrus extract. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1988; volume 48: pages 501-604. (PubMed)
Summary
Antioxidants and bioflaonoids are certainly healthy, but there is no convincing evidence that these ancillary nutrients are needed to improve the effect of vitamin C (AKA ascorbic acid or 2-Oxo-L-threo-hexono-1,4-lactone-2,3-enediol ).
Dr. Linus Pauling — the "Father" of vitamin C — found no evidence to suggest that additions to ascorbic acid improved effectiveness.
By the way, Dr. Pauling, a molecular biochemist, is the only person in history to have been awarded two unshared Nobel prizes. That’s two more Nobel prizes than the fellow who wrote “The Calcium Lie Part II.” Just sayin’.
If there was a proven better form of vitamin C, or some ancillary nutrient that improved absorption or function, I would certainly tell you about it. I’d also make that the nutrient of choice in my own formulas. However, over 14,000 peer-reviewed studies have not been overturned by a couple of slick but spurious marketing pieces.
Oh, and that ebook that my patient wrote me about? I checked it out – and yup, it’s a sales-piece alright. Surprise, surprise…
Refences and further reading:
Buffered Vitamin C: http://www.drmyattswellnessclub.com/vitccrystals.htm
"Nobel Prize Facts". Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB. 2014. Retrieved 14 January 2017.
Posted in Nutrition and Health | Comments Off
