Date:   2/10/2008 2:56:08 PM ( 16 y ago)
Hits:   2,137
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1107897

Actually, ascorbic acid was the first discovered and recognized component of vitamin C and is the only "officially" chemically recognized definition. This being said, vitamin C has since been discovered to be an actual complex of compounds (much as, say, vitamin E has been discovered to be) and these other compounds (including bioflavinoids, etc) are known to be necessary for the proper/optimal utilization of vitamin C. Unfortunately, this discovery was made "after the fact" and is not taken into account with vitamin C's technical definition. So it goes....

Vitamin C from a natural source is always superior to straight ascorbic acid, as it tends to contain it's own natural co-factors. One also can get by with taking much less of it, as it functions much more efficiently in the body. "Mega" doses are typically not needed (except in more extreme conditions or deficiency). Taking large amounts of straight ascorbic acid, over time, can even generate a vitamin C deficiency, as the ascorbic acid will "use up" and/or depleat one's own available co-factors and leave one without the ability to make adequate use of the isolated compound.

I have known individuals who mega-dosed ascorbic acid for prolonged periods to actually test as vitamin C deficient. Ester-C is nothing too special and is just an over-priced means of taking ascorbic acid without getting the commonly suffered gastric discomfort. Natural source C will be inherently well tolerated and give you ultimately "more bang for your buck".

~EM
 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1107897