3585 replies to this topic

[niner]

I do however worry that old Mitos are not dying off and being replaced as they should be?

Well, a differing thought is that since Fathi said in his interview that C60 is not at all toxic - that the notion that there is some kind of harm to mitos, which is a type of toxicity, is contrary to what he said.

When a dietary supplement with anti-aging properties is known to produce no toxicity I tend to take high doses of it, as with the tocotrienols that grew hair on my head and later darkened it. I take four a day rather than 1 or 2, as the label directs. Since it's a strong anti-prostate cancer nutrient, with good effects on blood lipids, the more the better, for anti-aging purposes, the great majority of the time - up to a point of diminishing returns.

I'm seeing efforts to find the least amount of C60 that works, which, to me is like finding the RDA for a vitamin. Thousands of published studies show that RDA levels of vitamins do not produce optimal effects. They are just subsistence levels, survival levels where one doesn't get nutrient deficiency diseases. They are not optimal levels where anti-aging effects occur.

I hear very intelligent people here reporting subjective feelings of benefits when they take breaks from C60oo, so I'm definitely interested in that notion, even though it is contrary to Fathi's statement.

But the counterpoint is that since it's non-toxic, isn't it more logical to err on the side of saturation rather than find the lowest dose that does something?

I agree that seeing a huge life extension in a mammal is contrary to the idea that mitochondria are being damaged by c60. On the contrary, it suggests that mitochondria are being protected. However, there are at least theoretical reasons to consider the possibility of mitochondrial problems; oxidative damage to the mitochondrial membrane is a signal for them to be phagocytized. Your tocotrienol results sound amazing, which usually means (like Turnbuckle's hair growth) that I won't see the same results, though I'm tempted to try nonetheless.

When I stopped taking c60, I felt lousy, and when I resumed I felt better. That's an anecdote of negligible significance, but there it is.

My attempt to find the minimum dose wasn't about finding the dose that barely worked, I was looking for the minimum amount that gave the full effect, and trying to characterize the long term pharmacokinetics; that is, figuring out how long it lasts.

Nothing is non-toxic at ALL doses, so saturation is never a good idea. We know next to nothing about long term toxicity of c60-oo in humans. Developmental and reproductive tox is a complete blank spot, though that's of no consequence to you or I. I don't know if you saw my "Hypothetical Concern" thread, but people (like nearly all of us) who begin dosing in middle age are running a different experiment than Baati did. The optimal dose for us might be different than for someone who starts in their twenties.

[mikey]

I do however worry that old Mitos are not dying off and being replaced as they should be?

Well, a differing thought is that since Fathi said in his interview that C60 is not at all toxic - that the notion that there is some kind of harm to mitos, which is a type of toxicity, is contrary to what he said.

When a dietary supplement with anti-aging properties is known to produce no toxicity I tend to take high doses of it, as with the tocotrienols that grew hair on my head and later darkened it. I take four a day rather than 1 or 2, as the label directs. Since it's a strong anti-prostate cancer nutrient, with good effects on blood lipids, the more the better, for anti-aging purposes, the great majority of the time - up to a point of diminishing returns.

I'm seeing efforts to find the least amount of C60 that works, which, to me is like finding the RDA for a vitamin. Thousands of published studies show that RDA levels of vitamins do not produce optimal effects. They are just subsistence levels, survival levels where one doesn't get nutrient deficiency diseases. They are not optimal levels where anti-aging effects occur.

I hear very intelligent people here reporting subjective feelings of benefits when they take breaks from C60oo, so I'm definitely interested in that notion, even though it is contrary to Fathi's statement.

But the counterpoint is that since it's non-toxic, isn't it more logical to err on the side of saturation rather than find the lowest dose that does something?

I agree that seeing a huge life extension in a mammal is contrary to the idea that mitochondria are being damaged by c60. On the contrary, it suggests that mitochondria are being protected. However, there are at least theoretical reasons to consider the possibility of mitochondrial problems; oxidative damage to the mitochondrial membrane is a signal for them to be phagocytized. Your tocotrienol results sound amazing, which usually means (like Turnbuckle's hair growth) that I won't see the same results, though I'm tempted to try nonetheless.

When I stopped taking c60, I felt lousy, and when I resumed I felt better. That's an anecdote of negligible significance, but there it is.

My attempt to find the minimum dose wasn't about finding the dose that barely worked, I was looking for the minimum amount that gave the full effect, and trying to characterize the long term pharmacokinetics; that is, figuring out how long it lasts.

Nothing is non-toxic at ALL doses, so saturation is never a good idea. We know next to nothing about long term toxicity of c60-oo in humans. Developmental and reproductive tox is a complete blank spot, though that's of no consequence to you or I. I don't know if you saw my "Hypothetical Concern" thread, but people (like nearly all of us) who begin dosing in middle age are running a different experiment than Baati did. The optimal dose for us might be different than for someone who starts in their twenties.

Well, vitamin C has been confirmed to have no cyto-toxic effects at any dose, therefore non-toxic at any dose, according to Carol S. Johnston, 30+ year research scientist at USDA. So there are some things that are not toxic, which is what Fathi said about C60.
_____________________________________________

Johnston CS. Biomarkers for establishing a tolerable upper intake level for vitamin C. Nutr Rev 1999 Mar;57(3):71-77.
Dietary reference intakes (DRIs) for vitamin C for healthy U.S. populations are currently being formulated by the Panel on Dietary Antioxidants and Related Compounds of the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine. A major task of the Panel is to analyze the evidence of adverse effects of high-dose vitamin C intakes to derive, if appropriate, a Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for vitamin C. The present report details current and past research examining potential adverse effects of supplemental vitamin C. The available data indicate that very high intakes of vitamin C (2-4 g/day) are well tolerated biologically in healthy mammalian systems. Currently, strong scientific evidence to define and defend a UL for vitamin C is not available."
______________________________________________

Right about an optimal dosage range, not too much (saturation) but not too little. However, with something that is said to be completely non-toxic the main concern is that at some point - saturation, one can spend more money but get no more benefits.

That's what an optimal dosage range is. Where we get the most bang for the buck.

Well, regarding the tocotrienols, I've had confirmation from others, including one medical doctor, who saw the same hair growth I saw.

And then there are other reasons to take tocotrienols as Tocomin-SupraBio - improved blood lipids, and an anti-cancer effect, especially prostate cancer, even prostate cancer stem cells that most conventional therapies do not address.


As to us pper middle-agers and us taking C60 being different than young healthy rats, yes, it's true. But, remember that study where they gave old rats activated carbon and their maximum lifespan increased by 34%?

I would hope that if we clean up our lifestyles, diets, exercise and reduce stress in general, that us older people could see a significant increase in both lifespan and healthspan, the time when we are free from disease.

I'm working on living into two centuries, if it's possible. So, yes, there are some critical areas in my aged metabolism that need to be addressed if I'm going to live that long.

But I've decided to consistently take 8 - 16 mg/day, which is less than the potential 1/6 the rat dose x 1.7 mg x 88 kg (my body weight) = 24.9 mg/day.

One thing that appears to have started up again. After 18 months of tocotrienols my hair became two shades darker. That appeared to stop at a point. Now, with C60oo it's again darkening, even the area that was white on the sides, which you can see in my current photo, is darkening.

I'll have another set of photos done with the same light/same location for comparison.

I'm pretty much amazed at what clearly appears to be age-reversal.

Edited by mikey, 08 November 2012 - 07:20 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

My morning green drink... With a tablespoon of non filtered yummy C60 in Oo.


Cheers
A

Attached Files

•  uploadfromtaptalk1352470578239.jpg   77.8KB   9 downloads

[Turnbuckle]

As to us pper middle-agers and us taking C60 being different than young healthy rats, yes, it's true. But, remember that study where they gave old rats activated carbon and their maximum lifespan increased by 34%?

That Russian study was misunderstood by a book author who did not actually read anything but the translated (or mistranslated) abstract. It was enhanced survival times from the beginning of treatment, not enhanced longevity. Since these rats were old, the actual increase in longevity was just 3 or 4 percent.

[xtronics]

Well, vitamin C has been confirmed to have no cyto-toxic effects at any dose,

Not sure you mean to make such a blanket statement. The dose makes the poison. You might want to read:
Vitamin C in human health and disease is still a mystery ? An overview
The SCE-inducing capacity of vitaminC: Investigations in vitro and in vivo
Ascorbic acid augments cytotoxicity induced by oxidized low-density lipoprotein.

There is more - much of this is based on Pauling's work. Pauling was a huge leader in molecular biology, but his ego got the best of him with his claims that vit C would cure the common cold. It is also claimed that he destroyed research data that showed high dosages caused cancer in lab animals.

There are places where high dosages of vit C can create radials in the presence of iron. The body does the best it can to get rid of vit C if in dosages above 250mg/day.

[mikey]

My father knew Dr. Pauling and I am well versed in what he actually said.

I've seen misrepresentations of his work that I know are such, as the claim that "he destroyed research data that showed high dosages caused cancer in lab animals."

That's nonsense.

An in-vitro study that says that "high doses of vitamin C cause free radicals in the presence of iron" has no relevance to what happens in-vivo.

Iron exhibits a pro-oxidant effect when there is a lack of antioxidants, like vitamin E, which controls the pro-oxidant effect of iron in vivo.

[mikey]

Well, vitamin C has been confirmed to have no cyto-toxic effects at any dose,

Not sure you mean to make such a blanket statement. The dose makes the poison. You might want to read:
Vitamin C in human health and disease is still a mystery ? An overview
The SCE-inducing capacity of vitaminC: Investigations in vitro and in vivo
Ascorbic acid augments cytotoxicity induced by oxidized low-density lipoprotein.

There is more - much of this is based on Pauling's work. Pauling was a huge leader in molecular biology, but his ego got the best of him with his claims that vit C would cure the common cold. It is also claimed that he destroyed research data that showed high dosages caused cancer in lab animals.

There are places where high dosages of vit C can create radials in the presence of iron. The body does the best it can to get rid of vit C if in dosages above 250mg/day.

The "blanket" statement is made based on the in-depth work of long-time USDA researcher Dr. Carol S. Johnston's evaluation of vitamin C's potential for toxicity when she was directed to find a tolerable upper limit for vitamin C.

She couldn't find data to support cytotoxicity. I'm just referring to her work.
Vitamin C is safer than milk.

[niner]

She couldn't find data to support cytotoxicity. I'm just referring to her work.
Vitamin C is safer than milk.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I could drink a kilogram of milk in one sitting, but if I ate a kilogram of vitamin C, I don't think it would work out very well. I once had an ulcer that I think was caused by too much vitamin C on an empty stomach.

[xtronics]

Dr. Carol S. Johnston's own meta-study paper recommend no more than 2G/day - and that is looking at short term effects - not effects that might take time to develop. The problem is that Pauling was recommending higher dosages which it did at least cause gastric problems.

There is still debate over the optimal dosage of vit C. I think it is fairly safe at dosages up to 1G(I wouldn't take more than 500mG), but I don't see any reason to take mega dosages and think there could be hidden risks at the dosages Pauling was recommending. (I understand why he was recommending meg-C, but I've seen not seen quality studies that back up his theory ).

There is a rather balanced review of Pauling's Vitamin C exaggerations - I don't think his first C paper would have been accepted if he didn't have the Nobel Prize.
Here is a more negative take. I have to discount Pauling's later work, as his ego got the better of him to the point that I don't trust his data. I also read that he destroyed irreplaceable mass spec data (that could today be saving lives) out of revenge to the scientist that exposed him. This was a very sad end of a one-time great scientist.

There are theoretical reasons to think that high dosages of vit C might fuel Fenton reactions that can cause ROS - negative effects would take controlled long term studies in human subjects to expose.

[smithx]

We are now solidly off topic, but the Mayo Clinic posts these warnings about vitamin C:

Side Effects and Warnings
Vitamin C is generally regarded as safe in amounts normally obtained from foods. Vitamin C supplements are also generally regarded as safe in most individuals in recommended amounts, although side effects are rarely reported, including nausea, vomiting, heartburn, abdominal cramps, and headache. Dental erosion may occur from chronically chewing vitamin C tablets.
High doses of vitamin C have been associated with multiple adverse effects. These include kidney stones, severe diarrhea, nausea, and gastritis. Rarely, flushing, faintness, dizziness, and fatigue have been noted. In cases of toxicity due to massive ingestions of vitamin C, forced fluids, and diuresis may be beneficial. In postmenopausal women with diabetes, supplemental vitamin C in doses greater than 300 milligrams daily has been associated with increased risk of heart-related death.
Healthy adults who take chronic large doses of vitamin C may experience low blood levels of vitamin C when they stop taking the high doses and resume normal intake. To avoid this potential complication, people who are taking high doses who wish to reduce their intake should do so gradually rather than acutely. There are rare reports of scurvy due to tolerance or resistance following cessation after long-term high-dose use, such as in infants born to mothers taking extra vitamin C throughout their pregnancy.
Vitamin C in high doses appears to interfere with the blood-thinning effects of anticoagulants such as warfarin by lowering prothrombin time (PT). Caution is advised in patients with bleeding disorders or those taking drugs that affect bleeding. Dosing adjustments may be necessary.
Vitamin C may affect blood sugar levels. Caution is advised in patients with diabetes or hypoglycemia, and in those taking drugs, herbs, or supplements that affect blood sugar. Blood glucose levels may need to be monitored by a qualified healthcare professional, including a pharmacist. Medication adjustments may be necessary.
Use cautiously in patients with cancer, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, anemia and related conditions, kidney stones, or sickle cell disease, or after angioplasty. Use cautiously in patients taking antibiotics, anticancer agents, HIV medications, barbiturates, estrogens, fluphenazine, or iron supplements. Use parenteral (injected) vitamin C cautiously, as it may cause dizziness, faintness, or injection site discomfort, and in high doses, it may lead to renal insufficiency (kidney function problems).
Avoid in patients with known allergies or hypersensitivities to any ingredients in Vitamin C products. Avoid high doses of vitamin C in people with conditions aggravated by acid loading, such as cirrhosis, gout, renal tubular acidosis, or paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. Avoid high doses of vitamin C in patients with kidney failure or in those taking agents that may damage the kidneys, due to an increased risk of kidney failure.

http://www.mayoclini...DSECTION=safety

[mikey]

She couldn't find data to support cytotoxicity. I'm just referring to her work.
Vitamin C is safer than milk.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I could drink a kilogram of milk in one sitting, but if I ate a kilogram of vitamin C, I don't think it would work out very well. I once had an ulcer that I think was caused by too much vitamin C on an empty stomach.

We have dozens of years of evidence. The only adverse effect commonly seen with vitamin C is the bowel tolerance effect.
It's like vitamin B12 as cyanocobalamin. There is a potential for toxicity, but with 200,000,000+ people taking it every day for the last four dozen years toxicity has never been seen, so.... it's possible, but it never happens.

[mikey]

I do however worry that old Mitos are not dying off and being replaced as they should be?

Well, a differing thought is that since Fathi said in his interview that C60 is not at all toxic - that the notion that there is some kind of harm to mitos, which is a type of toxicity, is contrary to what he said.

When a dietary supplement with anti-aging properties is known to produce no toxicity I tend to take high doses of it, as with the tocotrienols that grew hair on my head and later darkened it. I take four a day rather than 1 or 2, as the label directs. Since it's a strong anti-prostate cancer nutrient, with good effects on blood lipids, the more the better, for anti-aging purposes, the great majority of the time - up to a point of diminishing returns.

I'm seeing efforts to find the least amount of C60 that works, which, to me is like finding the RDA for a vitamin. Thousands of published studies show that RDA levels of vitamins do not produce optimal effects. They are just subsistence levels, survival levels where one doesn't get nutrient deficiency diseases. They are not optimal levels where anti-aging effects occur.

I hear very intelligent people here reporting subjective feelings of benefits when they take breaks from C60oo, so I'm definitely interested in that notion, even though it is contrary to Fathi's statement.

But the counterpoint is that since it's non-toxic, isn't it more logical to err on the side of saturation rather than find the lowest dose that does something?

I agree that seeing a huge life extension in a mammal is contrary to the idea that mitochondria are being damaged by c60. On the contrary, it suggests that mitochondria are being protected. However, there are at least theoretical reasons to consider the possibility of mitochondrial problems; oxidative damage to the mitochondrial membrane is a signal for them to be phagocytized. Your tocotrienol results sound amazing, which usually means (like Turnbuckle's hair growth) that I won't see the same results, though I'm tempted to try nonetheless.

When I stopped taking c60, I felt lousy, and when I resumed I felt better. That's an anecdote of negligible significance, but there it is.

My attempt to find the minimum dose wasn't about finding the dose that barely worked, I was looking for the minimum amount that gave the full effect, and trying to characterize the long term pharmacokinetics; that is, figuring out how long it lasts.

Nothing is non-toxic at ALL doses, so saturation is never a good idea. We know next to nothing about long term toxicity of c60-oo in humans. Developmental and reproductive tox is a complete blank spot, though that's of no consequence to you or I. I don't know if you saw my "Hypothetical Concern" thread, but people (like nearly all of us) who begin dosing in middle age are running a different experiment than Baati did. The optimal dose for us might be different than for someone who starts in their twenties.

As usual, I find myself strongly in agreement with what you posted.

Finding an optimal dosage range that gives the most effect with the least amount is always what we do when looking at biochemicals that improve health.

But rather than wait for human studies to confirm an optimal dosage range, I'm just going to take as much as feels good and keeps darkening my hair and improving collagen health - wrinkle's losing depth - scars fading.

As to taking Tocomin-Suprabio tocotrienols, if you are the type of person who takes a handful of vitamins, minerals and antioxidants, the data on tocos - and my own experience - says that they're more valuable, in a way, then d-alpha tocopherol vitamin E.

I'd rate them as being as valuable as CoQ10 for my long-term health, esp since they've caused visible changes in my looking younger, according to unbiased friends. So, I recommend considering taking them.

For prostate health - anti-cancer potential and blood lipids, which are both important for life extension purposes, they seem to be one of the most effective supplements.

[sthira]

Like smithx and Mayo Clinic are suggesting, why not do the safe thing for your personal health and eat fruits and vegs that are already adequate vitamin c sources? Broccoli, eg, is delicious and has proven benefits.

[mikey]

Dr. Carol S. Johnston's own meta-study paper recommend no more than 2G/day - and that is looking at short term effects - not effects that might take time to develop. The problem is that Pauling was recommending higher dosages which it did at least cause gastric problems.

There is still debate over the optimal dosage of vit C. I think it is fairly safe at dosages up to 1G(I wouldn't take more than 500mG), but I don't see any reason to take mega dosages and think there could be hidden risks at the dosages Pauling was recommending. (I understand why he was recommending meg-C, but I've seen not seen quality studies that back up his theory ).

There is a rather balanced review of Pauling's Vitamin C exaggerations - I don't think his first C paper would have been accepted if he didn't have the Nobel Prize.
Here is a more negative take. I have to discount Pauling's later work, as his ego got the better of him to the point that I don't trust his data. I also read that he destroyed irreplaceable mass spec data (that could today be saving lives) out of revenge to the scientist that exposed him. This was a very sad end of a one-time great scientist.

There are theoretical reasons to think that high dosages of vit C might fuel Fenton reactions that can cause ROS - negative effects would take controlled long term studies in human subjects to expose.

Dr. Johnston's study did not say "no more than 2 grams a day."

She said, "The available data indicate that very high intakes of vitamin C (2-4 g/day) are well tolerated biologically in healthy mammalian systems."

She put no upper limit on vitamin C intake and, in fact, stated that after her comprehensive review of all published data that. "...strong scientific evidence to define and defend a UL for vitamin C is not available." This means that she found no data that put a safety ceiling on vitamin C intake. (UL = tolerable upper limit). Vitamin C does not cause cytotoxicity at any dose.

As to what dosages should be recommended, multiple studies show beneficial effects beginning to occur at 1,000 mg and higher, where lesser doses either didn't work or had considerably less effect.

One study showed that senior women who took supplements that contained between 1,000 mg and 5,000 mg of Vitamin C per day
had 5% greater bone density than women who took 500 mg or less per day over three years. Morton DJ, et al. Vitamin C supplement use and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. J Bone Min Res 2001;16(1):135-140.

Another study stated that Vitamin C doses of 250 mg to 500 mg per day produced no effect on reduction of cold symptoms, while doses from 1,000 mg to 6,000 mg per day decreased cold durations an average of 21%. Hemila H, et al. Vitamin C and the common cold: a retrospective analysis of Chalmers’ review. J Am Coll Nutr 1995;14(2):116-123.

One of the first human studies that demonstrated increased human lifespans, showed that men who took 800 mg per day of Vitamin C lived six years longer than men who consumed the 60 mg per day that is the Recommended Daily Value. Enstron, et al. Vitamin C intake and mortality among a sample of the United States population. Epidemiology 1992 May;3(3):194-202.

The most logical analysis of what dosage of vitamin C might be appropriate for humans looked at other primates and found that if we consider the daily dietary vitamin C intake of chimps at their body weight and gorillas at their body weight humans would fit into reciprocally needing approximately 2,300 mg a day to match our primate cousins.

Chimpanzees in captivity weigh about 55 kilograms and consume about 800 to 1,600 mg/day of vitamin C in their prepared diets; gorillas, weighing about 200 kilograms, ingest between 3,000 and 6,000 mg/day. These primates, our closest biological relatives, are not able to synthesize vitamin C and must depend upon dietary sources to prevent scurvy and optimize performance and health.

In Evolution and the Need for Ascorbic Acid (published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 1970), Linus Pauling calculated the amount of several vitamins in 110 raw plant foods, based on the amount of each plant food that provides 2,500 kcal of energy, which is the average daily need for humans. The average amount of vitamin C for the 110 plant foods providing 2,500 kcal of energy is 2,300 mg, or 38 times the present RDA.

I find that after extensive personal testing that my allergies die down to almost nothing if I am sure to take 6,000 mg a day. Less doesn't work.
Vitamin C is a natural antihistamine.

As to the notion that vitamin C can "cure" cancer, the first article you cited was correct. Addressing cancer cannot happen with typical oral doses of vitamin C, because the concentration needed inside cells cannot be reached with tablets or capsules.

So US Government researcher Dr. Mark Levine investigated IV vitamin C and found some benefit.

Turn the page to 2012 and we find that vitamin C is available for oral use in liposomes and we have documentation of liposomal vitamin C curing leukemia in the press. Liposomal vitamin C delivers vitamin C at about 90% intracellularly, where IV vitamin C only delivers intracellular vitamin C at about 20%. Tablets might get 2 - 4 percent.

As well, I have an 80-year old female friend who has breast cancer. Her doctor started her on a cancer med that showed no effect on the size of the tumor over several months.

She began taking 6 grams of Livon Brand Lypo-Spheric (liposomal) Vitamin C in February, when her tumor measured 6. It has consistently shrunk since she started the liposomal vitamin C and to her doctor's amazement it is now a size 2.5. She hasn't told him that she is taking liposomal vitamin C, so his amazement is that the cancer drug he prescribed to her is exhibiting such a high degree of effectiveness. Obviously, he hasn't seen it do this before. But he doesn't know what really may be causing the tumor shrinkage.

So, for those who are confused about what vitamin C dosing or its place in the armamentarium of a life-extensionist I offer you these things to consider.

[mikey]

She couldn't find data to support cytotoxicity. I'm just referring to her work.
Vitamin C is safer than milk.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I could drink a kilogram of milk in one sitting, but if I ate a kilogram of vitamin C, I don't think it would work out very well. I once had an ulcer that I think was caused by too much vitamin C on an empty stomach.

Niner, I'm surprised at you. You WOULD definitely have diarrhea if you took a KG of vitamin C. No brainer.

But just to put a prick in the balloon, the 2009 the annual report of the US National Poison Data System confirmed that milk killed 155 babies because of exposure to drugs coming through mother's breast milk, so indeed, vitamin C IS safer than milk, because vitamins killed no one, as has been recorded every year since the Centers For Poison Controls began recording adverse effects for nutrients.

Vitamins are safer than milk!

[mikey]

We are now solidly off topic, but the Mayo Clinic posts these warnings about vitamin C:

Side Effects and Warnings
Vitamin C is generally regarded as safe in amounts normally obtained from foods. Vitamin C supplements are also generally regarded as safe in most individuals in recommended amounts, although side effects are rarely reported, including nausea, vomiting, heartburn, abdominal cramps, and headache. Dental erosion may occur from chronically chewing vitamin C tablets.
High doses of vitamin C have been associated with multiple adverse effects. These include kidney stones, severe diarrhea, nausea, and gastritis. Rarely, flushing, faintness, dizziness, and fatigue have been noted. In cases of toxicity due to massive ingestions of vitamin C, forced fluids, and diuresis may be beneficial. In postmenopausal women with diabetes, supplemental vitamin C in doses greater than 300 milligrams daily has been associated with increased risk of heart-related death.
Healthy adults who take chronic large doses of vitamin C may experience low blood levels of vitamin C when they stop taking the high doses and resume normal intake. To avoid this potential complication, people who are taking high doses who wish to reduce their intake should do so gradually rather than acutely. There are rare reports of scurvy due to tolerance or resistance following cessation after long-term high-dose use, such as in infants born to mothers taking extra vitamin C throughout their pregnancy.
Vitamin C in high doses appears to interfere with the blood-thinning effects of anticoagulants such as warfarin by lowering prothrombin time (PT). Caution is advised in patients with bleeding disorders or those taking drugs that affect bleeding. Dosing adjustments may be necessary.
Vitamin C may affect blood sugar levels. Caution is advised in patients with diabetes or hypoglycemia, and in those taking drugs, herbs, or supplements that affect blood sugar. Blood glucose levels may need to be monitored by a qualified healthcare professional, including a pharmacist. Medication adjustments may be necessary.
Use cautiously in patients with cancer, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, anemia and related conditions, kidney stones, or sickle cell disease, or after angioplasty. Use cautiously in patients taking antibiotics, anticancer agents, HIV medications, barbiturates, estrogens, fluphenazine, or iron supplements. Use parenteral (injected) vitamin C cautiously, as it may cause dizziness, faintness, or injection site discomfort, and in high doses, it may lead to renal insufficiency (kidney function problems).
Avoid in patients with known allergies or hypersensitivities to any ingredients in Vitamin C products. Avoid high doses of vitamin C in people with conditions aggravated by acid loading, such as cirrhosis, gout, renal tubular acidosis, or paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. Avoid high doses of vitamin C in patients with kidney failure or in those taking agents that may damage the kidneys, due to an increased risk of kidney failure.

http://www.mayoclini...DSECTION=safety

I'm sorry, but the Mayo Clinic has poor credibility as a source of unbiased information. They are, in general, a "mill" producing rote information that harmonizes with the AMA, who are expressly anti-vitamin. Mayo Clinic never seems to question the status quo.

For instance, the notion that vitamin C causes kidney stones is contrary to published data.
"In the large-scale Harvard Prospective Health Professional Follow-Up Study, those groups in the highest quintile of Vitamin C intake, above 1,500 mg per day, had a lower risk of kidney stones than the groups in the lowest quintiles."

More vitamin C equaled less kidney stores. Yet, the Mayo Clinic continues to promote the incorrect notion that vitamin C supplements might cause kidney stones.

Please cite more credible sources than mainstream medical organizations that think we are nuts because we believe that we might extend our lifespans.

[mikey]

She couldn't find data to support cytotoxicity. I'm just referring to her work.
Vitamin C is safer than milk.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I could drink a kilogram of milk in one sitting, but if I ate a kilogram of vitamin C, I don't think it would work out very well. I once had an ulcer that I think was caused by too much vitamin C on an empty stomach.

I find it hard to believe that vitamin C with a pH of 3 could cause an ulcer.
Vitamins are not known to cause ulcers.

Ulcers are typically caused by an infection in the lining of the stomach that erodes the protective lining.

The primary cause of stomach ulcers is the bacteria H. pylori.

[Hebbeh]

She couldn't find data to support cytotoxicity. I'm just referring to her work.
Vitamin C is safer than milk.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I could drink a kilogram of milk in one sitting, but if I ate a kilogram of vitamin C, I don't think it would work out very well. I once had an ulcer that I think was caused by too much vitamin C on an empty stomach.

I find it hard to believe that vitamin C with a pH of 3could cause an ulcer.
Vitamins are not known to cause ulcers.

Ulcers are typically caused by an infection in the lining of the stomach that erodes the protective lining.

The primary cause of stomach ulcers is the bacteria H. pylori.

If vitamin C acts as an antihistamine, it is highly likely that chronic dosing on an empty stomach can have negatively affect the protective stomach mucosa and allow bacteria like H. pylori (which we all carry) to attack the stomach lining. It's not a stretch by any means.

[mikey]

She couldn't find data to support cytotoxicity. I'm just referring to her work.
Vitamin C is safer than milk.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I could drink a kilogram of milk in one sitting, but if I ate a kilogram of vitamin C, I don't think it would work out very well. I once had an ulcer that I think was caused by too much vitamin C on an empty stomach.

I find it hard to believe that vitamin C with a pH of 3 could cause an ulcer.
Vitamins are not known to cause ulcers.

Ulcers are typically caused by an infection in the lining of the stomach that erodes the protective lining.

The primary cause of stomach ulcers is the bacteria H. pylori.

If vitamin C acts as an antihistamine, it is highly likely that chronic dosing on an empty stomach can have negatively affect the protective stomach mucosa and allow bacteria like H. pylori (which we all carry) to attack the stomach lining. It's not a stretch by any means.

Highly likely? That's guessing and it's incorrect. This study showed that vitamin C with E improved H.pylori eradication by about 50%.

Indeed, vitamin C may protect against H.pylori, according to http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12897042

Individuals who are infected with the ulcer-causing bacterium h. pylori suffer from low levels of vitamin C, according to a recent study published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. In the largest study to date to look at the relationship between vitamin C and h. pylori infection, researchers studied data and blood samples gathered from a random sample of 6,746 adults during NHANES III, the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, conducted between 1988 and 1994. The study authors used data from 20- to 90-year-old subjects collected during the first phase of NHANES III, conducted from October 1988 through October of 1991.

To determine the rate of infection with this bacterium that has been linked to stomach cancer, the researchers tested stored blood samples. Nearly one-third (2,189 subjects or 32 percent) of the 6,746 participants tested positive for H. pylori and 54 percent of the subjects who tested positive were infected by an especially toxic strain of the bacterium. The investigators also tested the blood samples to determine the vitamin C levels of subjects. The researchers discovered that white participants with the highest blood levels of vitamin C had a 25 percent lower rate of infection with h. pylori. In addition, higher levels of vitamin C were connected to a lower prevalence of the more toxic strain of H. pylori.

Reference:
Simon JA, Hudes ES, Perez-Perez GI. Relation of Serum Ascorbic Acid to Helicobacter pylori Serology in US Adults: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Am Coll Nutr. 2003 Aug;22(4):283-9.

Edited by mikey, 12 November 2012 - 08:23 AM.

[Hebbeh]

She couldn't find data to support cytotoxicity. I'm just referring to her work.
Vitamin C is safer than milk.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I could drink a kilogram of milk in one sitting, but if I ate a kilogram of vitamin C, I don't think it would work out very well. I once had an ulcer that I think was caused by too much vitamin C on an empty stomach.

I find it hard to believe that vitamin C with a pH of 3 could cause an ulcer.
Vitamins are not known to cause ulcers.

Ulcers are typically caused by an infection in the lining of the stomach that erodes the protective lining.

The primary cause of stomach ulcers is the bacteria H. pylori.

If vitamin C acts as an antihistamine, it is highly likely that chronic dosing on an empty stomach can have negatively affect the protective stomach mucosa and allow bacteria like H. pylori (which we all carry) to attack the stomach lining. It's not a stretch by any means.

Highly likely? That's guessing and it's incorrect. This study showed that vitamin C with E improved H.pylori eradication by about 50%.

Indeed, vitamin C may protect against H.pylori, according to http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12897042

Individuals who are infected with the ulcer-causing bacterium h. pylori suffer from low levels of vitamin C, according to a recent study published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. In the largest study to date to look at the relationship between vitamin C and h. pylori infection, researchers studied data and blood samples gathered from a random sample of 6,746 adults during NHANES III, the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, conducted between 1988 and 1994. The study authors used data from 20- to 90-year-old subjects collected during the first phase of NHANES III, conducted from October 1988 through October of 1991.

To determine the rate of infection with this bacterium that has been linked to stomach cancer, the researchers tested stored blood samples. Nearly one-third (2,189 subjects or 32 percent) of the 6,746 participants tested positive for H. pylori and 54 percent of the subjects who tested positive were infected by an especially toxic strain of the bacterium. The investigators also tested the blood samples to determine the vitamin C levels of subjects. The researchers discovered that white participants with the highest blood levels of vitamin C had a 25 percent lower rate of infection with h. pylori. In addition, higher levels of vitamin C were connected to a lower prevalence of the more toxic strain of H. pylori.

The results do not show whether vitamin C actually prevents h. pylori infection or if the infection itself lowers blood levels of vitamin C. Past animal studies, however, suggest that vitamin C intake may reduce infection. Regardless, the study authors suggested that anyone who tests positive for h. pylori as well as all Americans increase their vitamin C intake.
Reference:
Simon JA, Hudes ES, Perez-Perez GI. Relation of Serum Ascorbic Acid to Helicobacter pylori Serology in US Adults: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Am Coll Nutr. 2003 Aug;22(4):283-9.
Based on the results of this study, people who are prone to ulcers or anyone who wants to protect themselves against H. pylori may want to consider taking a vitamin C supplement

These studies in no way address what effects vitamin C may have on the stomach mucosa with chronic doses of C on an empty stomach. That situation was certainly not addressed nor studied. And the first study was really in relation to treating H pylori with antimicrobials...which has nothing to do with what niner was describing. Talking about guessing.

edit: And these studies aren't talking about taking 6 grams of C or megadosing...it is simply showing a relationship between having normal or sub normal C levels. The stuidies do not indicate or advocate any amount of C above RDA levels is advantageous.

Edited by Hebbeh, 12 November 2012 - 08:33 AM.

[mikey]

She couldn't find data to support cytotoxicity. I'm just referring to her work.
Vitamin C is safer than milk.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I could drink a kilogram of milk in one sitting, but if I ate a kilogram of vitamin C, I don't think it would work out very well. I once had an ulcer that I think was caused by too much vitamin C on an empty stomach.

I find it hard to believe that vitamin C with a pH of 3 could cause an ulcer.
Vitamins are not known to cause ulcers.

Ulcers are typically caused by an infection in the lining of the stomach that erodes the protective lining.

The primary cause of stomach ulcers is the bacteria H. pylori.

If vitamin C acts as an antihistamine, it is highly likely that chronic dosing on an empty stomach can have negatively affect the protective stomach mucosa and allow bacteria like H. pylori (which we all carry) to attack the stomach lining. It's not a stretch by any means.

Highly likely? That's guessing and it's incorrect. This study showed that vitamin C with E improved H.pylori eradication by about 50%.

Indeed, vitamin C may protect against H.pylori, according to http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12897042

Individuals who are infected with the ulcer-causing bacterium h. pylori suffer from low levels of vitamin C, according to a recent study published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. In the largest study to date to look at the relationship between vitamin C and h. pylori infection, researchers studied data and blood samples gathered from a random sample of 6,746 adults during NHANES III, the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, conducted between 1988 and 1994. The study authors used data from 20- to 90-year-old subjects collected during the first phase of NHANES III, conducted from October 1988 through October of 1991.

To determine the rate of infection with this bacterium that has been linked to stomach cancer, the researchers tested stored blood samples. Nearly one-third (2,189 subjects or 32 percent) of the 6,746 participants tested positive for H. pylori and 54 percent of the subjects who tested positive were infected by an especially toxic strain of the bacterium. The investigators also tested the blood samples to determine the vitamin C levels of subjects. The researchers discovered that white participants with the highest blood levels of vitamin C had a 25 percent lower rate of infection with h. pylori. In addition, higher levels of vitamin C were connected to a lower prevalence of the more toxic strain of H. pylori.

The results do not show whether vitamin C actually prevents h. pylori infection or if the infection itself lowers blood levels of vitamin C. Past animal studies, however, suggest that vitamin C intake may reduce infection. Regardless, the study authors suggested that anyone who tests positive for h. pylori as well as all Americans increase their vitamin C intake.
Reference:
Simon JA, Hudes ES, Perez-Perez GI. Relation of Serum Ascorbic Acid to Helicobacter pylori Serology in US Adults: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Am Coll Nutr. 2003 Aug;22(4):283-9.
Based on the results of this study, people who are prone to ulcers or anyone who wants to protect themselves against H. pylori may want to consider taking a vitamin C supplement

These studies in no way address what effects vitamin C may have on the stomach mucosa with chronic doses of C on an empty stomach. That situation was certainly not addressed nor studied. And the first study was really in relation to treating H pylori with antimicrobials...which has nothing to do with what niner was describing. Talking about guessing.

edit: And these studies aren't talking about taking 6 grams of C or megadosing...it is simply showing a relationship between having normal or sub normal C levels. The stuidies do not indicate or advocate any amount of C above RDA levels is advantageous.

Who takes chronic doses of vitamin C OR ANY VITAMIN on an empty stomach? That's just silly.

Vitamins should be taken in the middle or end of a meal to optimize absorption.

The point is, both studies point to - the more vitamin C, the less H.pylori.

[Hebbeh]

Who takes chronic doses of vitamin C OR ANY VITAMIN on an empty stomach? That's just silly.

Vitamins should be taken in the middle or end of a meal to optimize absorption.

The point is, both studies point to - the more vitamin C, the less H.pylori.

That was the whole point of you refuting niner's experience....of whether taking C on an empty stomach could lead to gastric issues....so why change the subject now?

And neither study points to "the more vitamin C, the less H pylori". Both studies indicate correcting a vitamin C deficiency resulting in better treatment which is no surprise....that correcting a deficiency resulted in improved health...but that in no way means more is better beyond correcting said deficiency....anything more than that is beyond the scope of the study and just you guessing and making it up.

Edited by Hebbeh, 12 November 2012 - 08:50 AM.

[Hebbeh]

Who takes chronic doses of vitamin C OR ANY VITAMIN on an empty stomach? That's just silly.

By the way, what's silly is advocating mega dosing vitamins the way you do. You're free to mega dose all you want but openly advocating mega dosing supplements in the manner you do is the type of irresponsible behavior that will ultimately lead to the FDA intervening and supplement regulation....and not in a good way.

[Chopperboy]

I'm sorry, but the Mayo Clinic has poor credibility as a source of unbiased information. They are, in general, a "mill" producing rote information that harmonizes with the AMA, who are expressly anti-vitamin. Mayo Clinic never seems to question the status quo.

Mayo clinic the mainstream of mainstream - source LEF

[zorba990]

Who takes chronic doses of vitamin C OR ANY VITAMIN on an empty stomach? That's just silly.

By the way, what's silly is advocating mega dosing vitamins the way you do. You're free to mega dose all you want but openly advocating mega dosing supplements in the manner you do is the type of irresponsible behavior that will ultimately lead to the FDA intervening and supplement regulation....and not in a good way.

One person's megadose is another's standard daily dose. With Vitamin C, since many mammals make 10g a day and 10x that when injured or sick, I have no problem with taking 2-4 grams a day and more at times (Liposomal). I take vitamin E to correspond with the NASA dosages (approximate). Mostly mixed tocopherols, but some dry vitamin E tocopherol acetate and some rice rice tocotrienols as well. I've never had ANY side effects form large doses of mixed tocopherols. Carlson E Gems Elite is a good product.

The threat of removal of supplements has been around since the 80's. Nothing ever happens. They might have had a chance before it became a multi-billion dollar industry. Now, I presume, the vitamin companies have their own lobbyists. And if they don't, well, I'm available for that job! :-)

[Hebbeh]

With Vitamin C, since many mammals make 10g a day and 10x that when injured or sick

References...and as they relate to humans?

[zorba990]

With Vitamin C, since many mammals make 10g a day and 10x that when injured or sick

References...and as they relate to humans?

http://www.lewrockwe...di/sardi91.html

[Hebbeh]

With Vitamin C, since many mammals make 10g a day and 10x that when injured or sick

References...and as they relate to humans?

http://www.lewrockwe...di/sardi91.html

The only thing I see there is a goat produces 1.6 grams/day and early humans are thought to have consumed 640 mg/day. Nothing even remotely close to either your claim or mikey's advocated mega doses.

[VinceG]

Hi folks. For those of you interested in the science of C60 as related to health and longevity - what is known and what is not known - I have just posted a long entry in my blog Buckyballs, health and longevity – state of knowledge It is at http://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/ I have set out to make this a comprehensive treatment of the subject. If any of you know more, please chime in with comments. Vince Giuliano

[mikey]

Who takes chronic doses of vitamin C OR ANY VITAMIN on an empty stomach? That's just silly.

By the way, what's silly is advocating mega dosing vitamins the way you do. You're free to mega dose all you want but openly advocating mega dosing supplements in the manner you do is the type of irresponsible behavior that will ultimately lead to the FDA intervening and supplement regulation....and not in a good way.

I was given the "Activist of the Year" award by the second largest lobbying group in the USA for my work in helping pass a federal law that protected consumers from FDA trying to make dietary supplements into prescription items in 1994 - The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), so I know FDA well, as we beat them at their own game.

They have no interest or jurisdiction in my non-commercial free speech, so they aren't in any way going to "intervene" because of what I say.

That you refer to higher potencies as termed "mega-dosing" comes from the 1980's. The notion of mega-dosing morphed into confirmed optimal dosing based on published studies showing the threshold effect dosage where nutrients begin to exhibit their optimal effects, which tend to be "anti-aging" effects. These are always significantly higher potencies than RDA-type doses.

The point is the published studies that I cited showed that vitamin C levels in serum were "inversely associated" with H. pylori activity. The authors did not discuss an upper limit, therefore, as usual, more is better, up to a point of diminishing returns. And since vitamin C exhibits no cytotoxic effects, those who are concerned with H. pylori might consider taking doses seen to be highly effective for other health problems.

3 to 10 grams a day, or just below individual bowel tolerance level. I take 3,000 mg several times a day, with no bowel tolerance effect and can confirm the benefits, mostly experiencing almost no allergic responses, where without higher dose vitamin C I have hay fever and a host of allergic problems that plug up my hose and irritate my eyes.

But more importantly, the notion that vitamin C might cause ulcers seems to be contrary to what these studies show.

Indeed, consuming optimal levels of dietary and supplemental vitamin C would likely reduce H. pylori's effect.

http://www.michaelmooney.net

Edited by mikey, 13 November 2012 - 12:40 AM.