BrainMeta'                 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Vitamin C
Tone
post Feb 20, 2009, 05:23 PM
Post #1


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 422
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
From: Chicago
Member No.: 4916



Are you getting enough Vitamin C? Dont forget , Vitamin C is a topic very special and separate from all other nutrient topics because Humans are one of the few complex lifeforms on the planet that doesnt make hundreds and thousands of mg of its own, while everyone else does.


http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/040826a.aspx

The Science of Vitamin C

By Gailon Totheroh
CBN News Science & Medical Reporter


The RDA, or Recommended Daily Allowance, for vitamin C suggests that men should get 75 milligrams a day and women 90 milligrams.

CBN.com – (CBN News) - If you were told there was a safe drug that would fight viruses, reduce heart disease and cancer and extend life, would you buy it? And if you found out you could get it over the counter for 25 cents a day, would you definitely buy it? And if your government and your doctor told you not to waste your money on it, would you be angry? That substance is named Ascorbic Acid, otherwise known as vitamin C.

Maybe you would be better off if you were a dog. Dr. Steve Hickey, a biophysicist from Manchester, England, and co-author of "Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C," says, "The evidence is that cats and dogs hardly ever get heart disease."

Why is that? It is because of vitamin C. But, you say, you have never seen any bow-wows at the vitamin counter, nor near the citrus at the grocery. So what gives?

Hickey explains, "Cats and dogs manufacture their own vitamin C."

And, no, not in a lab, silly, in their bodies.

Hickey said this is true of nearly all plants and nearly all animals. "Humans are a little bit strange," he says.

Hickey says humans are odd because our bodies can no longer make the Ascorbic Acid as they once did. So to get a dog's life today, as far as heart health, we have got to get C from food and supplements. And that intake may provide more than just heart health.

"Over the last 30 years," Hickey says, "we have had repeated reports and case study data of cures and highly effective treatments, treatments that increase the life span of terminal cancer patients, [increase their] expected life span by a factor of three."

So, are Americans getting enough to keep major diseases at bay? Well, that is a good question. The government says we don't need much.

The RDA, or Recommended Daily Allowance, for vitamin C suggests that men should get 75 milligrams a day and women 90 milligrams. Yet a dog the size of an adult would internally make about 2,500 milligrams.

For Hickey, the human recommendation is way too low, and should be closer to what an animal, like a dog, would make.

Dr. Hickey continues, "A normal, healthy individual might look for a 500 milligram vitamin C tablet and take it with every meal."

Nutrition researcher Carol Johnston at Arizona State University says, based on her own research and other vitamin C studies, she personally takes 1000 milligrams (1 gram) a day.

The government RDA, however, will only keep most people from getting scurvy, a wasting disease that leads to weakness of skin, gums and blood vessels; reduced ability to fight disease; and premature death.

You might expect that scurvy only exists in poor countries, but Johnston says scurvy is on the rise in America.

Data from 20 years ago put five percent of adults at scurvy levels, with the unexpected current figures at 15 percent.

Hickey says if there were an emphasis on the 1000 milligrams daily, those millions at scurvy levels would diminish and the rest of the population would be healthier. He says part of that better health would be increased resistance to deadly germs, as well as those annoying, but all too common, colds that plague us every winter.

So what error led our government down the wrong path on vitamin C? They did not account for vitamin C's half-life of half an hour. Half-lives measure depletion from the blood.

In a research study, the government waited 12 hours before looking at blood levels of people taking high and low doses. After 20-some half lives, both the high and low doses had depleted to the same level in the blood. Low doses thus appeared just as good as high doses.

Hickey says that is bad science, betraying a bias for low doses. He states, "Instead of looking at that as a hypothesis, as an idea to be tested, an idea to be thrown away, if possible, they looked at it -- and look at it -- as a scientific law."

Hickey says that the bias against lavishing vitamin C on people's diets is widespread and goes back many years. "The medical establishment had actually got it wrong, and their science was poor, and the physicians who were claiming enormous benefits for high doses -- their science was correct," he remarks.

Hickey says that the government should have paid attention to literally thousands of studies suggesting that more vitamin C is better

"Taken as a whole," he says, "that evidence invalidates the hypothesis that small doses and low blood levels are all a person needs for good health."

Why exactly is vitamin C so important, and why might getting more make a difference?

The well-known benefit of C is as an antioxidant. That is, C helps protect the body from the damage of daily living. Not as well-known is C's crucial role in forming collagen in the body. Collagen can be called the body's glue. That means it is crucial for the strength and flexibility of the blood vessels, a bastion against heart disease.

And vitamin C's antibiotic properties appear strongest at very high doses of vitamin C. Some physicians have used as much as a thousand times the RDA intravenously to treat certain diseases.

"And, that difference in magnitude is enormous," Hickey says. "It's the difference between the speed of a snail and the speed of a jet."

Even our ancient diet is believed to have included as much as 600 milligrams a day. To get that amount today, people would have to eat all fruit, all the time. And that, of course, is not practical today.

Still, Hickey does recommend the fruits and vegetables. He says, "The different colors might indicate different levels of antioxidants within those skins and what you're looking for is a lot of different colored fruits and vegetables."

Yet, he says, don't count on those fruits and vegetable for your vitamin C; they will not guarantee a person consistent and high-enough levels of the vitamin.

CBN News asked Dr. Hickey what was the best form of vitamin C to take. Hickey responded, "Well, an ideal form is vitamin C powder, because it's low cost and it's easy to take."

The trouble is, standard medicine has long had evidence that the nation's top killer -- yes, heart disease and strokes -- result from low vitamin C

"But in the past half a century, says Hickey, "the medical establishment has not performed even a simple experiment to refute that hypothesis."

Hickey says those experiments need to be done, and if not, about 95 percent of the population could rightfully assume they are not getting enough vitamin C.

The importance of vitamin C for good health is becoming increasingly evident, but with medical and government policies increasingly downplaying the nutrient, consumers are led to believe that a little dab will do you -- but it won't.

NOTE: If you have problems with acid reflux or excess stomach acid, opt for the "buffered" form of vitamin C
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Feb 20, 2009, 06:06 PM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7763
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Vitamins Seen as No Help in Heart Disease

By NICHOLAS BAKALAR, New York Times

Published: November 17, 2008
Many people take vitamins C and E in hopes of reducing their risk for heart disease, and some research supports those hopes. But a large long-term trial has found that the supplements work no better than placebos.

Scientists enrolled 14,641 male physicians in the study, dividing them into four groups of roughly 3,600 each. The first took 400 international units of vitamin E every other day and 500 milligrams of vitamin C daily; the second, vitamin E and a placebo vitamin C; the third took vitamin C and placebo vitamin E; and the last only placebos. Neither the subjects nor the scientists knew which groups were taking the active vitamins.

After eight years, the researchers found no difference among the groups in the incidence of heart attack, stroke, congestive heart failure or angina. And taking the vitamins did not reduce the need for cardiac revascularization, a surgical operation to restore adequate blood flow to the heart.

Several of the authors have served as consultants to drug companies, and the study was partly financed by the German company BASF, whose products include vitamins. It appeared Nov. 12 in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

“There are no compelling reasons to take either vitamin E or C for cardiovascular disease prevention,” said the lead author, Howard D. Sesso, an assistant professor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “We’re still testing whether taking a standard multivitamin has an effect.”
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tone
post Feb 21, 2009, 09:59 PM
Post #3


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 422
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
From: Chicago
Member No.: 4916



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Feb 20, 2009, 08:06 PM) *

Vitamins Seen as No Help in Heart Disease

By NICHOLAS BAKALAR, New York Times

Published: November 17, 2008
Many people take vitamins C and E in hopes of reducing their risk for heart disease, and some research supports those hopes. But a large long-term trial has found that the supplements work no better than placebos.

Scientists enrolled 14,641 male physicians in the study, dividing them into four groups of roughly 3,600 each. The first took 400 international units of vitamin E every other day and 500 milligrams of vitamin C daily; the second, vitamin E and a placebo vitamin C; the third took vitamin C and placebo vitamin E; and the last only placebos. Neither the subjects nor the scientists knew which groups were taking the active vitamins.

After eight years, the researchers found no difference among the groups in the incidence of heart attack, stroke, congestive heart failure or angina. And taking the vitamins did not reduce the need for cardiac revascularization, a surgical operation to restore adequate blood flow to the heart.

Several of the authors have served as consultants to drug companies, and the study was partly financed by the German company BASF, whose products include vitamins. It appeared Nov. 12 in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

“There are no compelling reasons to take either vitamin E or C for cardiovascular disease prevention,” said the lead author, Howard D. Sesso, an assistant professor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “We’re still testing whether taking a standard multivitamin has an effect.”



Seriously, you have to take vitamin C tablets, unless you are a monkey that eats fruit all day, or a goat that produces thousands of milligrams in the liver perday. do you WANT to spend an extra 100 dollars on high price fruit and attempt to eat it all, instead of eating the normal amount of fruit plus take vitamin C tablets? do you WANT this? 8 ounces of 99.9% ascorbic acid powder is 4 dollars. 4 dollars. if you dont do this, your body doesnt have a very important free radical scavenger and chelator, and cofactor in collagen production and your skin will be sub optimal, look like shit faster, and you wont live to age 93 like linus pauling, who could have lived even longer than 93 had he taken care of excess DHT levels that eventually got his prostate.

also you wouldnt get the psychoactive effect of vitamin c too, that produces a good feeling thats about 20 times weaker than an opioid but still better than nothing and synergistic with other psychoactives. but hey hey, theres a news story about how multivitamins dont affect heart disease.

news stories like this are meaningless up against the UNIQUE, Unique fact that humans are an exception to not creating their own vitmain C, and the few others that dont create their own vitamin C consume mass amounts in their diet

also, what would you expect from store bought hard vitamin tablets that contain titanium dioxide and minerals in forms that dont absorb rather than as amino acid chelates? youd be wasting your money, for the same price you can get absorbable vitamin caps with high grade forms. one star for your post.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Feb 22, 2009, 12:49 AM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7763
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



You really have to read some science books and papers. Almost every line you wrote above is either in error, anecdotal, unsubstantiated, emotional or biased.

I posted a news article (that has easy pointers for anyone to chase the original refereed source paper in The Journal of the American Medical Association) to enable the non-expert in this area to be aware of the evidence that Vitamin C has been shown to have no benefit over placebo in the case of cardiovascular disease prevention in male subjects.

I see no reason but to stand by the evidence provided in the paper by the large team, including Dr Howard D. Sesso who is Associate Epidemiologist, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

The full paper can be found at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/18/2123
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tone
post Feb 22, 2009, 04:10 PM
Post #5


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 422
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
From: Chicago
Member No.: 4916



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Feb 22, 2009, 02:49 AM) *

You really have to read some science books and papers. Almost every line you wrote above is either in error, anecdotal, unsubstantiated, emotional or biased.

I posted a news article (that has easy pointers for anyone to chase the original refereed source paper in The Journal of the American Medical Association) to enable the non-expert in this area to be aware of the evidence that Vitamin C has been shown to have no benefit over placebo in the case of cardiovascular disease prevention in male subjects.

I see no reason but to stand by the evidence provided in the paper by the large team, including Dr Howard D. Sesso who is Associate Epidemiologist, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

The full paper can be found at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/18/2123



thats very weak science compared to the undeniable fact that humans dont make their own vitamin C and the small handful of other mammals that dont, consume several fold times more than humans do. Do you understand, are dense? People cant afford that much expensive fruit when they can just get a combo of fruit and cheap ascorbic acid. you WILL get benefits from taking vitamin C, unlike other nutrients that you wont get a difference whether you take them in pill form and not and just eat food. Vitamin C is an exception, this truth is the truth no matter what.

i Guarantee you, a person who takes vitamin C daily for a year then gets their lead and mercury levels tested has a drop in them. i Guarantee you a person who takes vitamin C daily either ceases to get sick, or gets sick less often, this is always the case unless there is another underlining health condition, always. I guarantee you absolutely, a person who takes vitamin C daily has more free radical ions neutralized and suffers less damage from them. If a person has iron overload, they can get heart disease no matter how much C they take. this is a bit complicated and your posts are off base. This is as true as taking benedryl will make you tired, as taking caffeine will amp you, as animals given resveratrol live longer. its fact.

do you not undrstand that most the population has low level scurvy? do you not understand that 99.999% of species make thier own vitamin C with plasma levels dozens of fold higher than a human with a regular diet and that there is no exception to this, that its a black and white fact? do you understand that the few who dont consume a diet that gives them plasma levels of C much higher than humans have, and so 100% of all species have higher plasma levels than humans as driven naturally?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Feb 23, 2009, 08:53 AM
Post #6


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



If most of the population has low level scurvy, then how has that fact escaped the FDA which sets the recommended daily allowances for vitamins?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tone
post Feb 23, 2009, 04:31 PM
Post #7


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 422
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
From: Chicago
Member No.: 4916



QUOTE(Rick @ Feb 23, 2009, 10:53 AM) *

If most of the population has low level scurvy, then how has that fact escaped the FDA which sets the recommended daily allowances for vitamins?


they set it way to low. they arent like this omniscience all knowing force that knows what they are doing. They are idiots that F**K up all of the time. Do you know how many times i research pubmed abstracts and see data contradicting when im trying to research something? do you know how frustrating this is? ill give you an exmaple, i want to know how much of a CYP3A4 inhibitor Quercetin is so i research it and some studies say it induces CYP3A4 while others say it inhibits. EXACT OPPOSITES and thats not the only example.

Pubmed is a piece of shit and so are medical journals. You need to learn to dicern the truth. for instance, if there is a study that uses radio labled molecules to gauge exact receptor occupation of a drug, thats more solid that other methods.

Anyway, believe me, the FDA's value for C is too low for Optimal C levels. do you want to have vitamin C plasma levels that are lower than 100% of all other species? LOL!!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Feb 23, 2009, 04:50 PM
Post #8


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



So would you say that getting, say, five times the RDA for C would be enough? What about B1 and B6?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Feb 23, 2009, 08:57 PM
Post #9


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7763
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Tone @ Feb 23, 2009, 12:10 AM) *
QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Feb 22, 2009, 02:49 AM) *
I see no reason but to stand by the evidence provided in the paper by the large team, including Dr Howard D. Sesso who is Associate Epidemiologist, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

The full paper can be found at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/18/2123


thats very weak science ...

Very weak science? This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled factorial trial over 10 years, involving 14,641 subjects. I don't care to discuss this topic with you any further as you seem unable to understand the scientific method.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tone
post Feb 25, 2009, 10:36 AM
Post #10


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 422
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
From: Chicago
Member No.: 4916



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Feb 23, 2009, 10:57 PM) *

QUOTE(Tone @ Feb 23, 2009, 12:10 AM) *
QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Feb 22, 2009, 02:49 AM) *
I see no reason but to stand by the evidence provided in the paper by the large team, including Dr Howard D. Sesso who is Associate Epidemiologist, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

The full paper can be found at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/18/2123


thats very weak science ...

Very weak science? This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled factorial trial over 10 years, involving 14,641 subjects. I don't care to discuss this topic with you any further as you seem unable to understand the scientific method.


That doesnt mean the population isnt deficient in vitamin C or is even trustworthy. it means people still get heart attacks when they take bullshit supplements they bought at osco.

You pasting that article is extremely weak to argue against how awesome vitamin C supplementation is,

i didnt even get into all the benefits yet. Heres another one. Let me ask you a personal question, do you take a shit at least 2 if not 3 times a day? thats what is normal, and thats another thing vitamin C does for a person, better than magnesium, better than stool softeners, better than fiber, better than any other laxative .

Vitamin C works like a Strong Drug in many aspects, and the FDA would just LOVE to classify it as a drug, but i dont think people are going to allow that to happen. Vitamin C is Powerful and effective at the things it does. One reason the population has decaying teeth is because of its mild scurvy.

Vitamin C is 4 dollars for a huge bottle of 8 ounces of pure powder. This is one of the few supplements that is not throwing away your money. Almost all supplements are washing your money down the toilet...almost.

QUOTE(Rick @ Feb 23, 2009, 06:50 PM) *

So would you say that getting, say, five times the RDA for C would be enough? What about B1 and B6?


i would say for sure get 5 times the RDA of vitamin C. 60 mg HAS to be to low, logic dictates that, unless a person thinks its logical to have lower vitamin C levels than 100% of all other animal species. 5 times the RDA sounds better. for me personally, i often take 40 times the RDA because of what it does to me. I discovered this by accident. i was just taking one 500 mg pill a day as an antioxidant that is dirt cheap, when i once tried taking more and noticed its benefits in the higher dose, the mild psychoactive effect and the very regular bowel movements. those are the two things i can notice, i wouldnbt be surprised if there were other benefits that are the kind i dont directly feel. vitamin C overdose begins when the stool becomes too soft or you have too many bowel movements. regular bowel movements is not an indication of overdose but rather just the right amount.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tone
post Feb 25, 2009, 10:51 AM
Post #11


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 422
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
From: Chicago
Member No.: 4916



9B0Oh and to Hey Hey - theres no longer a debate that berries and certain polyphenol rich fruit are among the most healthy foods essential to human well-being, right? thats like even accepted among the mainstream meme, that a person cant live well on rice and pasta and ho-hos, that polyphenol rich fruits are beneficial.

ok, so with that said, 1) did you know that some vitamins contain things like grape seed extract, pine bark extract, in such that they contain these compounds as much as eating a few cartons of berries would or even more? and did you know that these fruits are very expensive and that its easier to buy a moderate amount of them and the pills than contain their compounds, rather than to spend 500 dollars on massive amounts of fruit? Or thatits better to at least do that if someone has a poor diet? Just being practical
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BrainMeta
post Jun 14, 2010, 03:30 AM
Post #12


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Jun 14, 2010
Member No.: 32832



Nice to given all the information about Vitamins C i read it all the pages. I think its right if you want to reduce your heavy body so vitamin c is very important substance to help you, You just find vitamin C in the lemon.Pineapple,Mango.orange,Mulberries ,grasp,....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Jun 14, 2010, 02:22 PM
Post #13


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



Lol is this seriously even a debate? Of course a paper in the Times on nutrition is bullshit. You have to make a good story. Vitamin C and heart attack have no significant correlation--in one study--big deal. That does not negate the fact that vitamin C is an ESSENTIAL vitamin. The only study that matters, is a comparison between supplemental and dietary vitamin C. If you want to reduce your chance of heart attack on a budget, take niacin and a fiber supplement.

If you want to understand vitamin C, don't read the Times. Read a biochemistry text book, or a nutritional encyclopedia. Bastyr does great research in the nutritional sciences (that isn't nearly as biased as a study in which "several of the authors have served as consultants to drug companies").

My opinion on vitamin C: if it is good enough for two time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, one of the greatest chemists/scientists to have ever lived, it is good enough for me. Preventative medicine is best. Vitamin C is non-toxic--better to be safe than sorry.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jack martinn
post Jul 13, 2010, 11:06 AM
Post #14


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Jul 13, 2010
Member No.: 32912



Vitamin C is an essential nutrient for humans. There are so many product from which we get the vitamin c. For ex. Lemon. So many benefits of vitamin c. Vitamin C is one of the safe and most effective nutrients for human body. Lemon juice is best for human body. The benefits of vitamin C is that protection against immune system, eye disease, and even skin wrinkling.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 13, 2010, 11:28 AM
Post #15


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7763
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Flex @ Jun 14, 2010, 11:22 PM) *

Lol is this seriously even a debate? Of course a paper in the Times on nutrition is bullshit. You have to make a good story. Vitamin C and heart attack have no significant correlation--in one study--big deal. That does not negate the fact that vitamin C is an ESSENTIAL vitamin. The only study that matters, is a comparison between supplemental and dietary vitamin C. If you want to reduce your chance of heart attack on a budget, take niacin and a fiber supplement.

If you want to understand vitamin C, don't read the Times. Read a biochemistry text book, or a nutritional encyclopedia. Bastyr does great research in the nutritional sciences (that isn't nearly as biased as a study in which "several of the authors have served as consultants to drug companies").

My opinion on vitamin C: if it is good enough for two time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, one of the greatest chemists/scientists to have ever lived, it is good enough for me. Preventative medicine is best. Vitamin C is non-toxic--better to be safe than sorry.
Are you Tone's twin? You both seem to have little grasp of science (or reality come to that). Look above - see the citation, read the citation, attempt to understand the content, if you are unable ask a friend to interpret it for you. Your comments about the NYT are diversionary and fail to state that they cite a credible paper. I understand Vitamin-C; I have studied it.

You prefer to make an emotional case based on some fictionalized scenario that takes a well studied and understood essential vitamin into the realms of manna from heaven. Get up to speed with the science (put some years of reading under your own belt) and make sensible comments. Preventative medicine? Better safe than sorry? Sounds more like, "More money than sense," to me!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Jul 15, 2010, 09:22 AM
Post #16


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



Vitamin C is very cheap. As always I am an advocate of a proper diet. With the right diet and exercise regiment, you wont have to worry about a shitty heart.

Oh and I do agree with you as far as the reading. Everyone could use a few more years under their belt. Reading is great stuff! As far as science education goes, I hope I am at least proficient, or UCLA has one horrible biochemistry program to have given me a degree :-)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
brunoclaus
post Aug 13, 2010, 11:25 PM
Post #17


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Aug 13, 2010
Member No.: 32990



Redoxon use of vitamin C in the form of effervescent tablets. Take in large glass of water today, which is about 1000 mg of vitamin C is actually helping to reduce swelling, scarring light and help create a healthier looking skin. After a week when this stuff from previous pimples and redness of the posts have been reduced significantly.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
paperdragons
post Aug 14, 2010, 08:02 PM
Post #18


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
Member No.: 32993



I'm not convinced we really need to be particularly concerned with vitamin C. We need it every day, but as long as we get an adequate amount for the day, our body simply excretes the waste. It can't be stored. And the RDI isn't difficult to get. You can find it in about one serving of a citrus fruit. Or some broccoli, cauliflower, bell peppers, kale... As long as your diet is respectable, you'll get what you need.

I would eschew pure tablets. Many times in the past, scientists have tried to isolate the single important element of a food that is beneficial to health, but these attempts have failed repeatedly. Oftentimes, it's the complex combination of elements in a natural food that is beneficial, and a single component is either useless or detrimental. Balance is fundamental, and natural foods are naturally balanced.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
davijones
post Nov 17, 2010, 09:31 AM
Post #19


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Nov 17, 2010
Member No.: 33225



Vitamin C is an essential nutrient for humans and certain other animal species, in which it functions as a vitamin. In living organisms, ascorbate is an anti-oxidant, since it protects the body against oxidative stress. Routine vitamin C supplementation does not reduce the incidence of the common cold in the general population. Vitamin C is purely the L-enantiomer of ascorbate; the opposite D-enantiomer has no physiological significance.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Miles
post Feb 26, 2013, 06:54 AM
Post #20


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
Member No.: 34955



Vitamin C is very important for our health and fitness.
We should take its proper amount for the better body growth and get our bones and teeth stronger.
Dairy products and citrus fruits are the good sources of the vitamin C.
You can use milk, yogurt, cheese, orange, grapefruit, lemon, apple, and guava for the vitamin C and calcium.

Maitland Bootcamp
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dexter
post May 28, 2013, 09:30 PM
Post #21


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 6
Joined: May 27, 2013
Member No.: 35141



Vitamin C is one of the safe, and most effective nutrients for human body. Lemon juice is best for human body. Moreover it is also important, for body because of the fact that in case of deficiency of vitamin C it may reduce quantity of amino acids into body which help to burn fats in body.
Fitness San mateo
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th July 2014 - 11:20 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog