I'm familiar with Darren Schmidt's position/videos on Vitamin C. For contrast, if you haven't already seen it, check-out the following thread:/www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=30&m=3992126
Then, scroll-down to the fourth post and see the "Guide to the Proper Administration of Vitamin C" by Dr. Levy. I'm not trying to be lazy by not posting the link here (
), I just thought some of the other links might be interesting to you, also.
There's also information on Vitamin C by Andrew W. Saul, PhD, if you look-around. I participated in one of his MegaVitamin Courses, a couple of years ago. /www.andrewsaulcourse.com
His main website is "DoctorYourself" at www.doctoryourself.com
I recently shared his audiobook of the same title here: /www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=30&m=3992702
Anyway, as far as supplementation goes, I seriously doubt that what's in vitamin and mineral supplements is the same as what's in food. How can it be? Not only do whole foods have the compounds that "science" has been able to identify, but whole food also contains all the ones yet-to-be discovered - assuming we ever identify them all. Plus, no one truly knows how all the compounds work together in synergy.
Then, of course, we further complicate matters by introducing them into the body. That adds another astonishing level of complexity.
As the years and decades pass, we discover compounds we didn't know about
previously. Back to Vitamin C, as an example. First, it was thought to be only Ascorbic Acid. Then, it was thought that Hesperidin needed to be added. Then, Rutin. Then, Rose Hips. So, it makes me ask: "What was the value of taking that one, isolated supplement, for all of those years?"
Another example of reductionism was illustrated in T. Colin Campbell's book Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition
."In studying the apple, Professor Liu and his team began by choosing to focus on vitamin C and its antioxidant effect. They found that 100 grams of apples (about a half cup) had an antioxidant, vitamin-C like activity equivalent to 1,500 milligrams of vitamin C, (about 3 times the amount of a typical vitamin C supplement). When they chemically analyzed that 100 grams of the whole apple, however, they found only 5.7 milligrams of vitamin C, far below the 1,500 milligrams that the level of antioxidant activity associated with the vitamin C indicated.
The vitamin-C like activity from 100 grams of whole apple was an astounding 263 times as potent as the same amount of the isolated chemical! Said another way, the specific chemical we refer to as vitamin C accounts for much less than 1 percent of the vitamin C-like activity in the apple – a miniscule amount. The other 99-plus percent of this activity is due to other vitamin C-like chemicals in the apple, the possible ability of vitamin C to be much more effective in context of the whole apple than it is when consumed in an isolated form, or both."
I certainly don't have all the answers, with regard to diet and supplementation. This is incredibly frustrating for me, because I just want to know what's correct and what's not. But, there's always conflicting opinions.
There's often the idea "If we only had randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, we could figure-out this stuff."
Then, there's this:
:"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."
Angell M. Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption. The New York Review of Books magazine. Available from: www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
Horton R. Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? www.thelancet.com. Available from: www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf
Then, just for fun, I found this last night:/thepeopleschemist.com/stinky-sulfur-award-unapproved-drug-disguised-vitamin
I've got several articles from that site saved, so I can read them this upcoming week. So, I've not read this one yet, either. But, it was suggested by a Naturopath. Not that a Naturopath (or, any designation) should confer automatic truth or credibility. Even the plant-based, vegan doctors disagree on some points - such as Vitamin D supplementation.
So, when my head swirls with all of this stuff, I tend to retreat to what seems most likely to be safe and true. I go back to Michael Pollan's advice: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." That seems to be the sort of environment humans in which humans probably found themselves the most.
Perhaps reductionism can be helpful in some circumstances, but I'm not convinced that it's ideal when trying to equate whole foods to isolated supplements.
So, rather than taking a lyc
opene supplement, we should eat a tomato. And, trying to manipulate lab values (e.g. driving-up Vitamin D) probably doesn't correct an underlying pathology (is the "deficiency" the cause or the effect? and, is it really a deficiency? should we check the blood or what's in the cells/organs?) and may not lead to improved health outcomes over the long-term.
But, again, this is just my opinion!
Post Edited (The Dude Abides) : 3/25/2018 8:00:56 PM (GMT-6)