Dear Vitamin C Foundation
I have found that vitamin C in the ascorbic acid form is the best form to take orally. I have been able to achieve what I call the ascorbate effect with only ascorbic acid by mouth. Mineral ascorbates by mouth, while being a fine source of vitamin C, do not seem to carry the same punch, probably more electrons.
Vitamin C is not a chelator of heavy metals. If you can reference evidence to the contrary please do so. Thank you in advance.ofonorow wrote:The reason we generally recommend ascorbic acid orally, as Dr. Cathcart and others have found, ascorbic acid has twice the ability to squelch electrons (free radicals) and also has the ability to bind with minerals/metals already in the body. So if vitamin C is being taken for its chelation/detoxification properties, it should be taken orally as ascorbic acid.
Horsea wrote:First, thanks for agreeing about the negative effect on teeth. I'd say that part of the solution is to drink the A.A. in a highly diluted state.
Owen, that is a good reply and I thank you for your trouble. For me, this matter is now clarified. I recall hearing someone say, though, that as far as supplementing with antioxidants goes, there is a point of diminishing returns. We need the right amount at the right times for the right purpose, not neverending massive dosages "no matter what". And I hope you agree. So in practical terms I would say that goes along with the Na Ascorbate vs A.A. information.
By the way, I've seen powder supplements containing a variety of mineral ascorbates (excluding sodium ascorbate). They say this is a source of Vit C but I would say that it is a way of getting minerals instead.
Saw wrote:I've always had the impression that all vitamin c taken orally (ascorbic,ascorbate) was released into the blood stream as ascorbate.
Anyone care to clarify this for me???
vancanada wrote:Vitamin C is not a chelator of heavy metals. If you can reference evidence to the contrary please do so. Thank you in advance.ofonorow wrote:The reason we generally recommend ascorbic acid orally, as Dr. Cathcart and others have found, ascorbic acid has twice the ability to squelch electrons (free radicals) and also has the ability to bind with minerals/metals already in the body. So if vitamin C is being taken for its chelation/detoxification properties, it should be taken orally as ascorbic acid.
Perhaps you are still confused regarding the pharmacokinetics of ascorbic acid in mammalian species. In vitro experiments do not always apply to in vivo conditions. Therefore any references you may have to in vitro experiments are not requested in this case. I am already familiar with those. As for in vivo experiments...those would be most welcome.
My late wife had high lead 27 years ago when I first met and fell in love with her. She was very allergic to corn, so she couldn't take plain ascorbic acid, so she took Calcium Ascorbate for years, as that didn't bother her.
A year before her death in May 2010 (25 years later), I did another hair analysis, and found that she still had a high level of lead, telling me that her ascorbate C hadn't removed it, but my hair analysis at the same time showed all toxics except arsenic were "unmeasurable". We both took about 4 grams of vitamin C daily, but hers was an ascorbate form, and mine ascorbic acid. No mercury or lead measurable.
She ;had had the hobby of stained glass that requires a lot of soldering, and that is where she got the lead I assume, and she quit that hobby right after we met and married.
Once the ascorbic acid gets into the bloodstream, any minerals that are pH positive get mixed with the acid C, becoming the ascorbate form. This means that like chelation, all minerals from nutritional to toxic may be removed. Once an ascorbate is formed, it cannot change to another ascorbate.
In addition, once it becomes an ascorbate, it is water soluble and thus passes out of the body via the kidney and urine pathway, thus remaining in the blood less time, and thus not as "active" in killing bacteria and virus cells.
In 1982/3, I spent time with Linus Pauling on the phone, and he knew that vitamin C could act as a chelation agent, but he thought that the ascorbate form would work as well. He was also unaware (as I was at that time) that vitamin C is not very useful against hormone mediate4d cancers, but was very effective against viral mediators. He was taking 18-20 grams per day with prostate cancer (which killed him shortly after).
I hope this clears up some of the confusion about vitamin C and the two forms of it that are virtually unknown by most MD's and the general public.
If high levels of mercury have been detected in the body's cells, two other chelating agents called DMSA (also known as succimer) and DMPS can help pull the mercury out. If mercury levels are high, either DMSA or DMPS can be used as chelators. Another chelator, which sometimes causes allergic side effects, is known as D-penicillamine (or Depen.) In addition, the following nutrients are known to chelate mercury in the body: the amino acid L-cysteine, the antioxidant glutathione, the mineral selenium, and vitamin C. Garlic is rich in the sulfhydryl groups that help chelate mercury. Selenium, in particular, competes with mercury for binding sites in the cell. The other nutrients grab on to mercury and help the cells release it.
My personal preference is to take both ascorbic acid and ascorbates, because I believe too much ascorbic acid can stress the ability of the body to maintain neutral pH.
saw wrote:The way I see it (blood PH) is that if you don't buffer AA your body will. Depleting your body of minerals.
You also don't want to be drawing extra calcium into the blood stream.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest