Something you wrote 4 years ago.

This is where the best forum discussions are preserved for posterity.

Moderator: ofonorow

Horsea
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:30 am
Contact:

Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#1  Post by Horsea » Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:27 pm

Hi, Owen. I am reading old posts on this forum to try to learn as much as I can. I found this, from you, as regards your son:

Advice is the same about the form, generally ascorbic acid is what we gave him and it is twice as "powerful" as any salt.

Now, I really don't know what to think anymore! Everywhere else the recommendation seems to be that sodium ascorbate is every bit as good as plain A.A. At least that is my interpretation. Can you help me out once and for all as to what form is best as far as "power" goes? Tks.

P.S. When I gave my son plain A.A. he says it affects the way his teeth feel, that they are negatively affected. Does anyone else get this?

NiacinVC
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:24 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#2  Post by NiacinVC » Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:19 pm

yah aa can do that to teeth. AA is def better than sodium.
"When one's expectations are reduced to zero, one really appreciates everything one does have"- Steven Hawking

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 12889
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#3  Post by ofonorow » Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:12 am

Horsea, great question for the vitamin C foundation forum! And not an easy answer...

See if this helps, letter to us from vitamin C expert Dr. Robert Cathcart III, MD,
http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/docc.shtml

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.


So, with Cathcart's and Dr. Levy's help, we have basically narrowed our recommendations down to ascorbic acid (or sodium ascorbate) orally, and sodium ascorbate for intravenous infusion.

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.

As Dr. Cathcart noticed clinically, if you are fighting an infection (which he says generally creates a stream of free radicals) you should also take vitamin C as ascorbic acid.

These uses (as ascorbic acid) are generally high dosage, over and above vitamin C's role as a "vitamin."

For the purpose of preventing frank scurvy (and possibly chronic scurvy, aka heart disease) we believe that sodium ascorbate is as effective as ascorbic acid. Lots of people believe in the sodium ascorbate form (including the late Jay Patrick who started Alacer Corp) and many people have discovered that high doses of ascorbic acid orally can irritate the lower portion of the esophagus, perhaps even causing lesions/ulcers. The sodium ascorbate form is not as irritating to the esophagus.

Even Linus Pauling added baking soda - creating some sodium ascorbate in his 9000 mg ascorbic acid drink. (See HTLLAFB). I have started taking about 40% sodium ascorbate and 60% ascorbic acid in my daily 15-20 g.

Little long winded. Does all this answer your questions? I think the difference boils down to the fact that ascorbic acid doesn't have any molecule already bound to it, while a mineral ascorbate (salt) has at least one molecule (e.g. calcium) bound and thus the ability to attract another molecule is cut by one half.
Owen R. Fonorow, Follow #OWENRFONOROW at twitter

Horsea
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:30 am
Contact:

Re: Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#4  Post by Horsea » Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:22 am

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. :roll:

VanCanada

Re: Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#5  Post by VanCanada » Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:24 am

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.
Vitamin C is not a chelator of heavy metals. If you can reference evidence to the contrary please do so. Thank you in advance.

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.

Saw
Vitamin C Master
Vitamin C Master
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#6  Post by Saw » Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:15 pm

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???
Even a Blind Squirrel makes his own vitamin C.

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 12889
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#7  Post by ofonorow » Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:55 am

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. :roll:


I've know about Cathcart's caution about teeth, but I personally ignored it, and the only thing that happened taking "massive" amounts of ascorbic acid daily is that I stopped having dental carries.

As far as "diminishing returns" for massive antioxidants, how does one tell what is the right time, and what is the harm? I think Dr. Levy's Primal Panacea does a good job of explaining this "non issue." The half life of vitamin C is short (meaning it must be continually replenished in the blood stream) and to equal what animals make, you need large amounts. You only have to increase to really massive amounts during stress/infections. I am still impressed that those suffering mononucleosis can tolerate over 200,000 mg of vitamin C daily!
Owen R. Fonorow, Follow #OWENRFONOROW at twitter

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 12889
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#8  Post by ofonorow » Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:09 am

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???


This is also a surprisingly interesting topic, and you would think we would know for sure by now.

Jay Patrick who I respected immensely believed and wrote this, but he was not technically a scientist, and Pauling never made this claim.

Sherry Lewin was a biochemist, and in her 1976 book Vitamin C: Its Biology and Medical Potential, she wrote that vitamin C in the blood stream was ascorbic acid, (and this is the form that generally enters cells), but that vitamin C in the Lymph was generally sodium ascorbate (implying that it picked up the sodium ion inside the cell, and was transported out of the cell in this form.)

It does seem likely that ascorbic acid would combine with sodium in the blood stream since our blood streams reportedly have the salt content of the ocean.
Owen R. Fonorow, Follow #OWENRFONOROW at twitter

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 12889
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#9  Post by ofonorow » Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:13 am

vancanada wrote:
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.
Vitamin C is not a chelator of heavy metals. If you can reference evidence to the contrary please do so. Thank you in advance.

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.



We have had this discussion previously, and you are still incorrect. Vitamin C fulfills all the common requirements of a "chelator" according to the strict definition. I supplied the references previously at this forum. The only "new" piece of information (from Phil Bates) is that perhaps only the ascorbic acid form should be considered as a chelator, because any mineral ascorbate is already bound to a mineral.

If you want to argue with Phil Bates, I'll pass it along, as his arguments (and the in vivo experiment) can be found in this topic
http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9957

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.
Owen R. Fonorow, Follow #OWENRFONOROW at twitter

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 12889
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#10  Post by ofonorow » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:26 pm

This is an excellent description of chelation,
http://www.drhoffman.com/page.cfm/90

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.
Owen R. Fonorow, Follow #OWENRFONOROW at twitter

Steve Brown
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#11  Post by Steve Brown » Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:16 pm

Ascorbate doesn't squelch electrons; it squelches free radicals by donating electrons to them. Free radicals damage cellular materials by stealing electrons from them. Ascorbic acid has H+ associated with the ascorbate anion, while sodium ascorbate has Na+ associated with the ascorbate anion. The H+ cation is more reactive than the Na+ cation, and that is why ascorbic acid is acidic and sodium ascorbate has neutral pH. Ascorbic acid that enters the bloodstream is likely to become sodium ascorbate by interaction with the bicarbonate buffering system of the blood. 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.
Last edited by Steve Brown on Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dolev
quack
quack
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:01 am
Contact:

Re: Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#12  Post by Dolev » Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:59 pm

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.


I like and appreciate the way you phrased that. Even though I believe that the several pH neutralizing systems can take care of large amounts of ascorbic acid, there is room for a belief that this could be stressful and therefore part of the vitamin C should be in ascorbate form.

The way you phrased it gives rationality to the subject, rather than the kind of statements made by the "flat earth" types who ignore 80 years of research and clinical experience and claim that ascorbic acid isn't vitamin C and that it causes acidosis leading to cancer, etc.
Dolev

Steve Brown
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#13  Post by Steve Brown » Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:54 pm

Thanks, Dolev. As I see it, taking some of my vitamin C as sodium ascorbate and potassium ascorbate is simply helping my body to maintain pH within a narrow range, and I do feel physically better taking a combination of ascorbic acid and ascorbates than I feel taking ascorbic acid alone. Plus, I have long held the belief that potassium ascorbate has a special affinity for uptake by cells. What works for me is 50% as ascorbic acid, 33% as sodium ascorbate, and 17% as potassium ascorbate.

Saw
Vitamin C Master
Vitamin C Master
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#14  Post by Saw » Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:10 am

Good points Steve.
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.

I take about 50% of my C as Sodium Ascorbate, 10% as Magnesium Ascorbate and 40% as AA. Plus an extra 400 mg magnesium citrate before bed.
this has made a big difference for muscle twitching which I have had for about 5 years.
Even a Blind Squirrel makes his own vitamin C.

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 12889
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Something you wrote 4 years ago.

Post Number:#15  Post by ofonorow » Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:16 am

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.


Remember, "buffering" works both ways. If your blood were to become too alkaline, the body must try to make the blood pH more acidic. The pH is controlled (or buffered) along a fairly narrow range.

And I too thought Steve's analysis was excellent, and noted the ratio that makes him feel best. Even Linus Pauling added an alkalizing agent to his 9000 mg of ascorbic acid.

As far as "depleting the body of minerals" it seems that vitamin C is a little more miraculous, in that it normalizes the blood concentrations of minerals - some how. If too high, yes vitamin C can help the body expel them, but from all my reading, vitamin C also has an effect of increasing low mineral concentrations in the blood. Maybe Steve Brown has some idea how this 'regulation' works?
Owen R. Fonorow, Follow #OWENRFONOROW at twitter


Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest