Vitamin C Fanatics Were Right All Along

[Guest guest]

> Cforyourself: Vitamin C Fanatics Were Right

> All Along

> Sun, 11 Jul 2004 12:32:46 -0700

>

> Sunday, July 11, 2004

>

> Dear Newsletter rs,

>

> Thanks for your interest in Cforyourself. I hope

> you find this occasional newsletter informative and

> interesting. To view old messages or to

> , go to

>

http://lb.bcentral.com/ex/manage/rprefs.aspx

>

> Bill Sardi, an outstanding medical journalist

> (http://www.askbillsardi.com/sdm.asp) has written a

> very important article reviewing a new book that

> explains the science of why we need lots of vitamin

> C. Here is his newsletter:

>

> THE VITAMIN C FANATICS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG

>

> By Bill Sardi

>

> Labeled as “health fanatics†and “vitamin

> whackos,†the users of mega-dose vitamin C pills

> are about to be vindicated. No more hiding their

> vitamin C pills from their doctors. No more

> condescending glances from their friends when they

> say they are taking a few grams of vitamin C every

> day. According to newly revealed science, the

> belittled mega-dose vitamin C users may be

> purchasing the cheapest and most effective health

> insurance one can buy.

>

> The prevalent belief is that vitamin C is an

> essential nutrient but excessive amounts consumed

> from mega-dose vitamin pills produce expensive urine

> since excesses are excreted. This flawed idea

> emanates from studies conducted by researchers at

> the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1996.

> [Proceedings Natl Acad Sci 93:14344-8, 1996] Ever

> since then physicians, pharmacists, dietitians and

> other health practitioners have echoed the same

> mistaken chorus --- you’re wasting your money by

> taking mega-dose vitamin C pills.

>

> Health authorities claim mega-dose vitamin C pills

> are worthless

>

> The current Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for

> vitamin C, 75 milligrams for males, 90 milligrams

> for females, and an additional 35 mg for smokers, is

> based on the amount of vitamin C needed to prevent a

> person from getting scurvy and provide body stores

> for about 30 days, with a margin of safety.

> [Proceedings Natl Academy Sciences 98: 9842-46,

> 2001] An NIH press release states “at 200 mg oral

> intake, blood plasma had more than 80 percent

> maximal concentration of vitamin C and tissues were

> completely saturated. Doses of 500 mg and higher are

> completely excreted in urine.†[National Institute

> of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIH

> Press release April 15, 1996]

>

> A study conducted by NIH investigators emphatically

> states that doses of supplemental vitamin C above

> 200 milligrams daily are “nearly completely

> excreted in urine.†Furthermore, the concentration

> of ascorbic acid (the technical name for vitamin C)

> in blood plasma never exceeds much more than 70-85

> micromole per deciliter of blood regardless of the

> dosage of vitamin C consumed, so said NIH

> researchers. [biofactors 15: 71-74, 2001] (Micromole

> is a measure of concentration of substances in

> liquids.) So NIH investigators assert 5 servings of

> fresh fruits and vegetables provide about 200

> milligrams of vitamin C and that the diet should be

> sufficient to reach optimal blood levels. Vitamin C

> pills are not required, period.

>

> What about the half life?

>

> This is not so, says a new book, Ascorbate: The

> Science of Vitamin C,* written by Drs. Steve Hickey

> and Hilary Roberts, University of Manchester

> graduates in pharmacology in England. The book

> exposes the many flaws involved in the establishment

> of the Recommended Daily Allowance for vitamin C,

> and the revelations are alarming. Millions of people

> could have delayed or avoided health problems such

> as cataracts, cancer, blood vessel disease,

> aneurysms, gall stones and more had NIH researchers

> properly conducted tests to determine the human need

> for vitamin C.

>

> Hickey and Roberts note indisputable flaws in the

> RDA for vitamin C. NIH scientists waited 12 hours

> before measuring the concentration of ascorbic acid

> in the blood circulation to develop an RDA for 280

> million people. Hickey and Roberts show that NIH

> investigators failed to calculate for the half life

> of vitamin C, which is about 30 minutes in humans.

> (The half life is the time it takes for something to

> disappear from the human body.) “To be blunt,â€

> says Hickey, “the NIH gave a dose of vitamin C,

> waited until it had been excreted, and then measured

> blood levels.†Then, 24 half-lives later, NIH

> researchers concluded this was the saturation level.

>

> Other flaws

>

> It’s also obvious there weren’t enough subjects

> tested to develop adequate conclusions. The NIH only

> studied 7 and 15 subject in the two studies they

> used to develop the RDA. Also, there was the false

> assumption that concentrations of vitamin C in blood

> plasma reflect the need for vitamin C in other

> tissues throughout the body. The brain has ten times

> greater vitamin C concentration than the blood

> plasma. A 1991 study found that 2000 mg of daily

> vitamin C increased vitamin C levels by 22-32

> percent in the human eye over levels achieved by

> taking 148 milligrams.

>

> RDA itself is misleading

>

> Furthermore, the RDA itself is misleading because it

> is intended to set a level of nutrient consumption

> that would prevent disease (scurvy) among the vast

> majority (95%+) of the population. The RDA for

> vitamin C is established for healthy people. Yet

> smokers (50 million), estrogen or birth control pill

> users (13 million and 18 million), diabetics (16

> million), pregnant females (4 million) and people

> taking aspirin (inestimable millions) or other

> drugs, have increased need for vitamin C and

> comprise more than 35 percent of the population. The

> current RDA wouldn’t meet the needs of these large

> subpopulations. Every time the RDA is printed on

> dietary supplements and food labels it should be

> accompanied by an asterisk that *This RDA intake

> level was established for healthy people only and it

> is likely more vitamin C may be needed by smokers,

> diabetics, senior adults, pregnant females, and

> individuals taking certain medications (steroids,

> estrogen, birth control pills, aspirin).

>

> How did NIH researchers box themselves into a

> corner?

>

> How did the NIH researchers so emphatically claim

> that mega-dose vitamin C was worthless and then

> later box themselves into a corner with their own

> data? What NIH researchers set out to do was further

> investigate the difference between oral and

> intravenous absorption of vitamin C. Their report,

> which was published in the March 2004 issue of the

> Annals of Internal Medicine, contradicted their

> earlier published studies.

>

> Dr. Linus Pauling vindicated

>

> First, the study revealed that concentrations of

> vitamin C in blood plasma are six times greater when

> given intravenously over oral doses (885 vs 134

> micromolar concentration). This caused the

> investigators to suggest intravenous vitamin C may

> achieve concentrations that “might have antitumor

> activity†and that the “role of vitamin C in

> cancer treatment should be evaluated.†[Annals

> Internal Medicine, April 6, Volume 140: pages

> 533-37, 2004] Heavens to Betsy! This revelation

> validated the work of Dr. Linus Pauling who used

> intravenous vitamin C to more than double the

> survival rates among terminal cancer patients in

> 1976. [Proc Natl Acad Sci 73:3685-9, 1976] Later Dr.

> Pauling’s published studies using intravenous

> vitamin C were discredited by Mayo Clinic

> researchers. The news media missed this important

> story. It should have made worldwide headlines,

> particularly because oncologists have not been able

> to significantly improve survival times for cancer

> for the past few decades.

>

> The second half of the study

>

> Second, the comparative oral-dosing data in the

> Annals of Internal Medicine study revealed a more

> important shocker. When 3000 milligrams was given

> orally every 4 hours, concentrations were nearly

> three times greater (220 micromole) than what was

> believed to be the maximum that could be achieved

> through oral consumption (70-85 micromole). What

> happened to the claim that that body tightly

> controls blood plasma vitamin C concentrations with

> excesses dumped into urine? In the researchers own

> words, “single one gram supplement doses can

> produce transient plasma concentrations that are 2

> to 3-fold higher than those from vitamin C-rich

> foods (200-300 milligrams daily)!†Hold your

> horses. The NIH researchers should have retracted

> previously published papers, asking medical journal

> editors to publish erratum, and they should have

> called for a re-evaluation of the RDA for vitamin C.

> This didn’t happen, says Hickey.

>

> In March of 2004 another scientific paper was being

> published, again co-authored by NIH researchers,

> which remarkably showed that 2000 milligrams of oral

> vitamin C produced 143 micromole concentrations in

> blood plasma. The researchers remarked that numbers

> rose even among subjects with already had relatively

> high blood concentrations (87 micromole). Plasma

> concentrations rose progressively with increasing

> vitamin C doses up to 1000 milligrams per day!

> [Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 423,

> 109-115, 2004] The researchers concluded that

> “optimizing vitamin C intake appears warrantedâ€

> given the relationship of low vitamin C status with

> stroke, coronary heart disease, cancer and brain

> disease.

>

>

>

> NIH researchers said blood plasma concentrations

> cannot reach beyond 70-85 micromole from oral

> vitamin C because amounts over 200 milligrams per

> day are excreted in the urine. But the above chart,

> reproduced from an NIH study reveals that oral

> vitamin C attained 220 micromole concentrations in

> blood plasma, three times greater than what the

> National Institutes of Health said could not be

> achieved.

>

> The impact of a bogus RDA

>

> These revelations are likely to have a far-reaching

> impact beyond the RDA. The U.S. is deliberating

> approval of a worldwide trade agreement known as

> CODEX which would restrict essential nutrients in

> dietary supplements to certain minimums and maximums

> (the so-called safe upper limit), which are based

> upon an obviously flawed RDA. The CODEX vote must

> now be halted until this matter over the validity of

> the RDA for vitamin C is clarified.

>

> A reversal the vitamin supplement nay-sayers may

> never live down

>

> Such a reversal of events is likely to awaken the

> polarized camps that advocate or oppose high-dose

> vitamin C supplementation. For example, Quackwatch

> advises consumers that among things to watch for in

> detecting health quackery are claims that the RDAs

> are too low. Up till now, every health practitioner

> who espoused mega-dose vitamin C therapy has been

> labeled as a quack. Now the vitamin C advocates are

> likely to go on the offensive. [Twenty-Five Ways to

> Spot Quacks. and Vitamin Pushers, Stephen Barrett,

> M.D., Victor Herbert, M.D., J.D.]

>

> Here is a quotation from a university-based website

> which describes a prevalent attitude by scientists

> about vitamin supplements:

>

> “Vitamin hucksters spend millions promoting fear

> that you are not getting enough vitamins and

> minerals. They recommend vitamin, mineral and

> nutritional supplements as ‘vitamin insurance.’

> The American Dietetic Association, the National

> Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council

> and other major medical societies all agree that you

> should get the vitamins and minerals you need

> through a well-balanced diet.â€

>

> There is going be an adjustment period required for

> sure. How will the vitamin C nay sayers live this

> down?

>

> The greater tragedy

>

> In retrospect, now that it is apparent the RDA for

> vitamin C is flawed, the greater tragedy lies in the

> effect vitamin C supplementation could have upon

> mortality rates. An epidemiological study published

> by the NIH in the year 2000 showed that adults whose

> blood plasma concentrations exceeded the 73.8

> micromole level experienced a 57 percent reduced

> risk of dying from any cause and a 62 percent

> reduced relative risk of dying of cancer when

> compared to adults who consumed low amounts of

> vitamin C (28 micromole). [Am J Clinical Nutrition

> 72: 139-45, 2000]

>

> Another study found that for every 500 microgram

> increase in blood serum concentration of vitamin C

> an 11 percent reduction in coronary heart disease

> and stroke prevalence could be anticipated.

> [Epideminology 9: 316-21, 1998] Now that we know

> that much higher blood concentrations of ascorbic

> acid can be achieved through oral consumption than

> previously recognized, Dr. Hickey estimates 500

> milligrams of vitamin C taken orally in 5 divided

> doses every three waking hours daily (2500 mg total

> per day) could reduce the cardiovascular mortality

> risk by 55 percent compared to people consuming low

> doses of vitamin C!

>

> Millions of Americans have been misled by health

> authorities and have received errant advice in the

> development of their personal health regimens.

> Consumers read labels on vitamin bottles which said

> it supplied “100 percent of the RDA†and believe

> that is all they needed to stay healthy. This no

> longer holds for vitamin C. Consumers are likely to

> be angry once these revelations are aired in public.

>

>

> Calculating the aftermath of the error

>

> Aside from the decreased risk for cardiovascular

> disease and cancer, what else would have happened

> had the RDA for vitamin C be set much higher, an RDA

> for optimal health, like the 2500 mg per day in

> divided doses as suggested by Drs. Hickey and

> Roberts?

>

> Had the public responded to this knowledge in a

> widespread manner and begun to consume vitamin C

> pill en masse, one could expect all manner of human

> disease to decline. For example, the incidence of

> cataracts would likely drop significantly, or at

> least they would be delayed by quite a few years. [J

> Clinical Epidemiology 52: 1207-11, 1999; Am J Clin

> Nutrition 66: 911-16, 1997] Arthritic symptoms would

> diminish in the population at large due to the

> maintenance of collagen. [Arthritis Rheumatism 39:

> 648-56, 1996] Rates of skin cancer might drop. The

> number of days in a year that people would be

> hampered with cold symptoms might be reduced, which

> would likely improve productivity in society

> overall. [Advances Therapy 19: 151-59, 2002] Viral

> eruptions such as herpes and SARS would be better

> controlled or even averted. [J Antimicrobial

> Chemotherapy 52: 1049-50, 2003] Smokers might live

> longer and not exhibit much of the pathology they

> develop. [J Am College Nutrition 22: 372-78, 2003]

> Rates of gall bladder disease would drop by about 25

> percent. [J Clinical Epidemiology 51: 257-65, 1998]

> The incidence of aortic aneurysms (bulging and

> possible rupture) would be virtually eliminated.

> [Med Sci Monitor 10: 1-4, 2004]

>

> A study published in the March 2004 issue of the

> American Journal of Epidemiology indicates males

> taking high-dose vitamin C exhibit 2.68 times less

> calcification in their arteries compared to males

> who consume low doses of vitamin C. The risk for

> angina among adults who consume significant amounts

> of alcohol would be cut in half. [Ann Epidemiology.

> 9: 358-65, 1999] One study concluded that 3000 mg of

> oral vitamin C daily even increases the frequency of

> sexual intercourse. [biological Psychiatry. 2002

> 52:371-4, 2002]

>

> All of these potential health benefits can only be

> achieved with consumption of vitamin C at levels

> exceeding what the best diet provides. For taking

> just ¼ teaspoon of vitamin C five times a day, at

> an estimated cost of 25 cents per day, Americans can

> achieve a level of health never achieved by large

> populations groups.

>

> Inexplicably, Linus Pauling scientists agree with

> current RDA

>

> Surprisingly, researchers at the Linus Pauling

> Institute haven’t fully bought into the idea yet

> that high-dose vitamin C may produce exceptional

> health benefits. Instead, they followed along with

> the errant NIH recommendations. Anita Carr, a

> research associate with the Linus Pauling Institute,

> says this about the current RDA for vitamin C:

> " Based upon a preliminary review of many studies

> done over the past 15 years, a number that seems to

> stand out right now is about 100 milligrams per

> day. " [Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State

> University, June 2, 1998] Dr. Linus Pauling

> supplemented his diet with about 6000 milligrams of

> vitamin C daily.

>

> Safety not an issue

>

> Safety is not an issue when it comes to mega-dose

> vitamin C supplements. Eight placebo-controlled,

> double-blind studies and six non-placebo controlled

> clinical trials in whih up to 10,000 milligrams of

> vitamin C was consumed daily for up to three years,

> confirm the safety of vitamin C pills in excess of

> the RDA. [J Am College Nutrition 14: 124-36, 1995]

> Frequent allegations are made that vitamin C

> supplements may increase the risk of kidney stones,

> but are poorly founded. Additionally, the false

> notion that withdrawal from high-dose vitamin C may

> cause “rebound scurvy†has also been dispelled.

> While vitamin C increases the absorption of iron, it

> has not been shown to induce iron overload in

> humans. [Nutrition Reviews 57: 71-77, 1999]

>

> Vitamin C supplement users

>

> The question is, do Americans consume enough

> vitamin C for optimal health? Vitamin C is the most

> common dietary supplement consumed by American

> consumers. About 45 percent of dietary supplements

> used by consumers contain vitamin C. [Archives

> Family Medicine 9: 258-62, 2000] A 1990 report

> indicates the average intake of vitamin C from

> supplements is about 60 milligrams, however, about 5

> to 10 percent of supplement users (about 2 percent

> of the US population) consume more than 1000 mg from

> pills. [Am J Epidemiology 132: 1091-101, 1990]

>

> The blood plasma vitamin C concentration among

> vitamin C supplement users is about 60 to 70 percent

> higher than adults who do not take supplements

> (75-80 vs. 45-50 micromole). [J Am College Nutrition

> 13: 22-32, 1994] A daily intake of 1000 mg is needed

> to maintain plasma vitamin C concentration in the

> range of 75-80 micromole. Only 4.2 percent of the US

> population 3 to 74 years of age is likely to have

> plasma vitamin C levels above the 80 micromole

> point. [National Health Survey, Series 11, No. 232,

> DHHS Publication No 83-1682, 1982]

>

> One widely acclaimed study published in 1992

> indicated that vitamin C, in oral doses exceeding

> 750 milligrams per day, increased the lifespan of

> males by about 6 years. [Epidemiology 3: 194-202,

> 1992]

>

> For optimal health, what is overlooked is the half

> life of vitamin C and the importance of divided

> doses that Drs. Hickey and Roberts now emphasize in

> order to achieve steady blood levels. Health minded

> consumers owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Hickey and

> Roberts for breaking ranks among scientists who

> appear to be frozen in their tracks. Despite

> recently published data that stands in stark

> contrast to the RDA and the claim that mega-dose

> vitamin C supplementation is of no benefit, public

> health authorities are not forthcoming about their

> past mistakes. The RDA for vitamin C must be

> re-evaluated. Mega-dose vitamin C supplementation

> should no longer be demeaned. Hickey and Roberts

> have confronted the National Institutes of Health

> and the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institutes

> of Medicine directly, with little success. Now they

> are taking the issue to the public in their newly

> released book. Only the public’s demand for reform

> is likely to overcome inaction by health

> authorities. Everyone needs to read Hickey and

> Roberts’ book. ####

>

> Copyright 2004 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health,

> Inc.

>

> *Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C, Steve Hickey,

> Hilary Roberts, e-book and softcover, 264 pages,

> referenced, 2004, available at

> www.lulu.com/ascorbate

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------

> Your comments are always encouraged and appreciated.

>

> Here's to your health from Cforyourself,

>

> Rusty

>

> ------------

> This Cforyourself newsletter is an occasional

> publication of cforyourself.com.

> We appreciate your participation.

>

> Send correspondence to rusty

>

> To view old messages or to , go to

>

http://lb.bcentral.com/ex/manage/rprefs.aspx

>

> Cforyourself: Vitamin C for Optimum Health

> http://www.cforyourself.com

>

>

>