94 replies to this topic

[JChief]

I have been making my own liposmal vitamin C and wanted to share a new receipe which adds resveratrol and curcumin to an already potent cancer fighting weapon. This requires an ultrasonic cleaner (I use the iSonic Ultrasonic Cleaner model P4810 ~$90 on Amazon; I like it because it can be run for long periods of time without having to re-start it). Vitamin C (like Curcumin and Resveratrol) is very difficult for the body to absorb when taken orally. This is particularly true when Vitamin C is taken in large oral doses. Until the advent of Liposomal Vitamin C the only efficient method of getting therapeutic levels of Vitamin C into the blood stream was intravenously. This required administration and attendance by a physician or nurse practitioner.

Current studies indicate cancer patients can get more bang for the buck from properly prepared oral Liposomal Vitamin C than is available from the intravenous variety.

Industry is now producing Liposomal carriers for any number of supplements. Two of the more recent and effective are Liposomal Curcumin and Liposomal Resveratrol. Now you can make your own and save money in the process.

***

1. Using a glass or stainless steel sauce pan warm 1 ½ cups of distilled water to 45 degrees Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit).

2. In two 12 oz. or larger sealable jars place ½ cup (4 oz.) of the warmed distilled water in each.

3. Add 3 tablespoons of non-GMO soy lecithin (I use the Swansons brand and buy in bulk) to each jar. Seal jars and agitate each vigorously for 3 – 5 minutes. Set jars aside allowing the lecithin granules to soak up distilled water.

4. After soaking for two or more hours shake/agitate each jar vigorously (I use a hand blender) until smooth creamy lecithin solutions in each jar with no visible lecithin granules.

5. Place 10 grams Curcumin (3 1/3 level teaspoons) in one jar of lecithin solution, close jar tightly and agitate/shake aggressively for 3 – 5 minutes until Curcumin is in solution.

6. Place 3 grams Resveratrol (3 level teaspoons) in the 2nd jar of lecithin solution, close jar and agitate/shake aggressively for 3 – 5 minutes until Trans-Resveratrol is in solution.

7. Pour contents of both jars together into ultra-sonic cleaner and turn the unit on. Stir with straw through the first cycle. (Approximately 2 – 3 minutes.)

8. Start next ultrasonic cycle. When ultrasonic unit stops start again. Continue running cycles and stir occasionally while accomplishing the following.

9. Wash your sealable jars. Place two oz. of warm distilled water in each jar.

10. Add 1 Tablespoon prescription Vitamin C powder (I use the Perque brand) to 1st jar, seal and shake/agitate vigorously until Vitamin C is dissolved.

11. Dissolve 1 Heaping Tablespoon of Bob’s Red Mill Bicarbonate of Soda (Bob’s is Aluminum free) in 2nd jar, seal and shake / agitate vigorously until baking soda is dissolved.

12. While stirring the Vitamin C / distilled water solution very slowly pour/dribble the dissolved bicarbonate of soda/water mixture into the Vitamin C / distilled water solution. (Pour soda solution slowly as the resulting mixture will bubble. By pouring slowing and constantly stirring Vitamin C solution you will be able to mix the two without bubbling over.)

13. At the conclusion of mixing the bicarbonate of soda mixture into the Vitamin C mixture bubbling will cease. Pour the resulting total Vitamin C / Bicarbonate of Soda mix together into what was the Bicarbonate of Soda jar and swirl to dissolve any soda that may have settled out.

14. Pour the resulting Vitamin C / Bicarbonate of Soda mixture in ultrasonic unit with the Lecithin, Resveratrol, Curcumin mix.

15. Operate the ultrasonic cleaner for 4 additional cycles or 10 minutes. (I run the cleaner for 30 minutes, 3 runs of 10 min cycles)

16. Measure the pH of the resulting Liposomal combination. You are seeking a pH 7.25 – 7.50. . * Both Vitamin C and Resveratrol are acidic. If needed add very small amounts of addition soda to buffer resulting Liposomal to neutral.

***

I pour the finished product into a glass Patron Silver Tequila bottle and top with a cork and keep refrigerated I take a shot in the morning and in the evening.

Each Tablespoon of this Liposomal Combination results in:

500 mg Vitamin C. Assuming 10 x efficacy the equivalent of 5 grams oral.
415 mg Curcumin. Assuming 10 x efficacy the equivalent of 4 grams oral.
125 mg Resveratrol. Assuming 20 x efficacy the equivalent of 2 1/2 grams oral.

All ingredients are noted for apoptosis (cancer killing) so approach the use with significant caution and common sense. Large doses could cause a severe herxhiemer reaction overwhelming your body’s ability to remove the resulting cancer die off.

The combination is more effective if blood levels are kept near constant. So dividing doses over time is a valid strategy.

Edited by JChief, 16 November 2013 - 09:52 PM.

[cuprous]

Very interesting - thank you for sharing! Any subjective effects?

[cargocultist]

Don't you need an oil or other non polar substance to make a true liposomal concoction? I certainly don't see why vit c would be liposomal using this method.

[JChief]

That's where the lecithin comes in Just use Google!

[cargocultist]

That's where the lecithin comes in Just use Google!

I understand how soap works and I make my own mayonnaise. I still don't see the mechanics of the vit c clearly. Why wouldn't most of it just hang out in the water? Are (trans)resveratrol and curcumin absolutely insoluble in water?

[violetechos]

Why is the baking soda needed ? To change the ph of the vitamin c? I guess you are buffering the vitamin c, ey?

If not using an acidic chemical, its not necessary, jah?

[JChief]

Why is the baking soda needed ? To change the ph of the vitamin c? I guess you are buffering the vitamin c, ey?

If not using an acidic chemical, its not necessary, jah?

To lower the ph for those that are taking high doses.

That's where the lecithin comes in Just use Google!

I understand how soap works and I make my own mayonnaise. I still don't see the mechanics of the vit c clearly. Why wouldn't most of it just hang out in the water? Are (trans)resveratrol and curcumin absolutely insoluble in water?

The are not easily made bioavailable in large quantities. Large doses of oral vitamin C causes loose stools. I figured the community would know this kind of stuff. I've been away for a year. IV Vitamin C treatments have health effects you might want to Google. You use the ultrasonic cleaner to create the liposomal Vitamin C.

[joelcairo]

I recently found this thread in which is it claimed that the ultrasonic method doesn't create liposomal vitamin C.

http://www.vitamincf...hp?f=20&t=10699

I don't have an opinion on this, but I would really really like to have true liposomal preparations available, not just for ascorbate but for curcumin, quercetin, silibinin and a variety of other not-very-bioavailable substances.

[ChristineH]

Where is the evidence that the home-made liposomal products deliver what you say they do, JChief?

[joelcairo]

Here's another article, quite detailed. I haven't even finished reading it in detail but it suggests the ultrasonic system does work. However I believe they sell higher-end equipment, not the jewelry-cleaner devices.

http://www.laborator.../400033.article

Edited by joelcairo, 22 November 2013 - 12:10 AM.

[cargocultist]

Why is the baking soda needed ? To change the ph of the vitamin c? I guess you are buffering the vitamin c, ey?

If not using an acidic chemical, its not necessary, jah?

To lower the ph for those that are taking high doses.

That's where the lecithin comes in Just use Google!

I understand how soap works and I make my own mayonnaise. I still don't see the mechanics of the vit c clearly. Why wouldn't most of it just hang out in the water? Are (trans)resveratrol and curcumin absolutely insoluble in water?

The are not easily made bioavailable in large quantities. Large doses of oral vitamin C causes loose stools.

I know that. I meant the mechanics of the emulsifying process. I'm ignoring the fact that taking large quantities of vit c does nothing for your health and perhaps has negative side effects since vit c can act as a pro-oxidant under some circumstances.

I figured the community would know this kind of stuff. I've been away for a year.

You should have taken up a class in comprehensive reading while you where away. The fact that you didn't understand my question says more about your intellect than mine. And the fact that you opportunistically (and stupidly) attack an unknown person with a low post count says something about both your character and intellect. No offense but please keep it down.

IV Vitamin C treatments have health effects you might want to Google. You use the ultrasonic cleaner to create the liposomal Vitamin C.

Google says that IV vit c doesn't have a clear advantage against cancer and in vitro animal studies suggest there may be benefits. Can you please enlighten me? And I don't mean the odd Pubmed article about a test on 3 guinea-pigs or some in-vitro study on animal cells.

[cargocultist]

Alright, I've looked some more into liposomes and understand my confusion. Liposomal vit c is indeed possible because it is water soluble and there is a bilayer of phospholipids like a cell membrane. I was mixing up nano emulsions and liposomes which are different beasts.

I really think that lipophilic substances such as curcumin and resveratrol don't form liposomes but rather an emulsion. Please note that the crystals are larger than you want if they don't break down properly under ultrasonic agitation, reducing emulsion stability and bioavailability. I suggest you first dissolve the resveratrol and curcumin in an organic oil and then dump it in a bath of water with phospholips or synthetic food/pharmaceutical grade emulsifier such a polysorbate 20 or 80 if you deem them to be safe.

Edited by cargocultist, 22 November 2013 - 01:32 AM.

[ChristineH]

Philosophically, I have to wonder if we should be forcing exogenous compounds into human cells when their natural properties prevent them from entering our cells in any significant amount. Why do we think that artificially forcing curcumin or resveratrol is in our best interest?

[nightlight]

11. Dissolve 1 Heaping Tablespoon of Bob’s Red Mill Bicarbonate of Soda (Bob’s is Aluminum free) in 2nd jar, seal and shake / agitate vigorously until baking soda is dissolved.

12. While stirring the Vitamin C / distilled water solution very slowly pour/dribble the dissolved bicarbonate of soda/water mixture into the Vitamin C / distilled water solution. (Pour soda solution slowly as the resulting mixture will bubble. By pouring slowing and constantly stirring Vitamin C solution you will be able to mix the two without bubbling over.)

13. At the conclusion of mixing the bicarbonate of soda mixture into the Vitamin C mixture bubbling will cease. Pour the resulting total Vitamin C / Bicarbonate of Soda mix together into what was the Bicarbonate of Soda jar and swirl to dissolve any soda that may have settled out.

You can eliminate these steps if you use Sodium Ascorbate instead of Ascorbic Acid + Baking Soda. Besides greatly simplifying the preparation, it also allows more of Vitamin C to be fully dissolved.

Another supplement which works well in Liposomal form is Acetyl-L-Carnitine/ALCAR (I add ~12g in a separate one 1.5 cup batch). It's best to use pure ALCAR in powder form without fillers that come in capsules (Swanson has pure S.A. powder, too). One table spoon of the final potion provides 1/2 g of Liposomal ALCAR which I find at least as effective (in terms of energy & mood boost) as 1g of ALCAR in regular caps. I also experimented with couple batches with Liposomal PEA, but found it much too stimulating/intoxicating in an unproductive way (a distracting dopamine rush unsuitable for mental work), leaving the hangover after-effects.

In contrast, the Liposomal C & ALCAR result in very subtle and non-disruptive sense of well being, cascading down from the top of the head and throughout the body which lasts for hours, boosting the urge to 'do stuff' (a strong anti-procrastination effect). The above pleasant sensations are not intrusive since one has to pay attention to experience them, hence they don't interfere with mental focus and work.

[cargocultist]

Philosophically, I have to wonder if we should be forcing exogenous compounds into human cells when their natural properties prevent them from entering our cells in any significant amount. Why do we think that artificially forcing curcumin or resveratrol is in our best interest?

I agree vehemently with this statement. The body is a complex, emergent system which doesn't lend itself to the cartesian treatment. That's why physiology and nutritional research is, and should be more so, a heuristic science.

Having said that, AFAIK curcumin doesn't do damage to in vitro cell cultures and it is readily excreted from the body which currently puts it in the gray zone so to speak. Conversely, many people suffered from joint problem while taking resveratrol and under normal conditions it only has 1% bioavailability.....

[nightlight]

Where is the evidence that the home-made liposomal products deliver what you say they do, JChief?

Direct experience (by me and hundreds of other experimenters) suffices for me, whatever the mechanism of action (although there is evidence, too, e.g. check Liposomal C wiki). Since I have used both components (Vitamin C and lecithin) separately and in larger quantities without perceiving any effects, the unmistakeable sense of well being kicking in about 10 minutes after taking 2 tablespoons of properly made Liposomal C, cascading down from the top of the head throughout the body and lasting for hours, is good enough proof (of usefulness) for me.

[joelcairo]

Philosophically, I have to wonder if we should be forcing exogenous compounds into human cells when their natural properties prevent them from entering our cells in any significant amount. Why do we think that artificially forcing curcumin or resveratrol is in our best interest?

This is subject to empirical testing. For a person in general good health I would tend to agree with you. For someone with cancer, diagnosed Alzheimer's, or rheumatoid arthritis, maximizing curcumin intake seems unlikely to do harm and might be enormously beneficial.

[ChristineH]

I doubt that it is possible to achieve an intracellular concentration of curcumin high enough to have any effect whatsoever on cancer cells unless the cells are enterocytes. Even liposomal forms to increase bioavailability are unlikely to have any effect. Preventing cancer is one thing - treating it is quite another. Curcumin, in my opinion, has received an unjustified favourable reputation. The reason is that the studies that are picked up and sensationalised by science journalists are typically in vitro studies which have never been shown to be matched in clinical trials. Science journalists have a lot to answer for and of course Big Supplement isn't going to contradict their alleged 'findings'. A recent study was reported with a headline to indicate that curcumin is effective as Prozac in depression. Even the author of the original Abstract to the paper reported that the results did not reach significance.

[joelcairo]

Again, this is subject to empirical testing. There's a lot more than just in vitro evidence.

[cargocultist]

I doubt that it is possible to achieve an intracellular concentration of curcumin high enough to have any effect whatsoever on cancer cells unless the cells are enterocytes.

I believe curcumin's effect on angiogenesis is quite profound and the effect or resveratrol is even greater. I wouldn't dismiss either but I would be careful to use high doses with unknown bioavailability. Angiogenesis isn't all bad obviously.

Anyway, monotherapy with either substances to treat cancer is obviously absurd.

[JChief]

Some of you may be familiar with the story of New Zealand dairy farmer Alan Smith, who recovered rapidly from a coma induced by flu complicated double pneumonia and leukemia. Many online accounts make it seem as though only IV C led to his recovery.

But following several legal attempts from Alan's family to continue administering 50 to 100 grams of IV C after showing positive results when they were ready to pull the plug on his life support, the hospital cynically conceded to continue with only two grams IV C daily.

That's when his family members found out about a newly produced liposomal C, which they brought to Alan daily. Each packet contained one gram of encapsulated vitamin C. Alan consumed six daily and achieved the miraculous results he had experienced with the 50 to 100 grams daily of IV C.

Yes, six grams of liposomal C did the work of 50 to 100 grams of IV C.

He walked out of the hospital in days on his own power. A year later, he was examined and there was no trace of leukemia either. Here's a New Zealand 60 Minutes video clip that covers his story well:

Edited by JChief, 22 November 2013 - 04:11 AM.

[cargocultist]

Yes, six grams of liposomal C did the work of 50 to 100 grams of IV C.

Then what is the mechanism? Are saying that liposomes both keep their integrity in the body and have special properties as well? I don't dismiss it but do you have some research to back this up? AFAIK, the hydrophic head of the phospolipids naturally repel the cell membrane in the body so at least an intermediary step would be required to somehow open the vesicles locally and do something special.

Or do you believe 6g/day IV would have worked just as well?

[joelcairo]

A lot of this is based on the writings of Dr. Stephen Hickey, easily googled. IV ascorbate washes out of the body in a few hours, so any protocol where patients receive transfusions a few times a week is going to be unable to maintain serum ascorbate at a high level. Liposomal ascorbate can be taken orally every few hours, and serum levels kept at almost IV levels continuously, greatly enhancing the cytotoxic effect.

That's the theory. I believe there is good clinical evidence showing that serum levels can be kept extremely high. AFAIK the effect on cancer remains anecdotal.

Note that this applies to true liposomal ascorbate, not necessarily the product that comes out of a jewelry cleaner.

Edited by joelcairo, 22 November 2013 - 06:18 AM.

[ChristineH]

Again, I question the merit of forcing into human cells doses of ascorbate impossible to achieve via diet. This is where the boundary between nutrients and pharmaceuticals gets very blurred. i.v. ascorbate is pharmaceutical, not nutritional so we need to stop considering this as 'natural'. As a drug in various conditions, it is useful. As a nutrient at high levels, it can mask the cell's finely-regulated signalling, so that upregulation of endogenous defences is inhibited. Consequently, it can do harm. Over the last 5 or so years, it has become apparent that even modestly elevated intake of supplemental ascorbate can interfere with normal cellular function by blocking the action of transcription factor, Nrf2. This has been demonstrated in its blunting effect on the beneficial effect so exercise. See Michael Ristow's 2009 paper readily found by searching PubMed. "Antioxidants prevent health-promoting effects of physical exercise in humans."

[joelcairo]

Philosophically, I have to wonder if we should be forcing exogenous compounds into human cells when their natural properties prevent them from entering our cells in any significant amount. Why do we think that artificially forcing curcumin or resveratrol is in our best interest?

If you believe that to be true of resveratrol, and curcumin, and now of ascorbate, why are you promoting doing the exact same thing with sulforaphane?

[zorba990]

Again, I question the merit of forcing into human cells doses of ascorbate impossible to achieve via diet. This is where the boundary between nutrients and pharmaceuticals gets very blurred. i.v. ascorbate is pharmaceutical, not nutritional so we need to stop considering this as 'natural'. As a drug in various conditions, it is useful. As a nutrient at high levels, it can mask the cell's finely-regulated signalling, so that upregulation of endogenous defences is inhibited. Consequently, it can do harm. Over the last 5 or so years, it has become apparent that even modestly elevated intake of supplemental ascorbate can interfere with normal cellular function by blocking the action of transcription factor, Nrf2. This has been demonstrated in its blunting effect on the beneficial effect so exercise. See Michael Ristow's 2009 paper readily found by searching PubMed. "Antioxidants prevent health-promoting effects of physical exercise in humans."

Well, for me (n=1), Vitamin C only enhances my exercise performance. Colds, flus and other infections are no match for Liposomal Vitamin C. If someone desires more oxidation, simple ramp up the exercise intensity and do it first thing AM when water soluble antioxidants are at their lowest levels. (I don't think this is necessary as those that have gained strength on C60oo have discovered).

Humans are weak, and the lack of endogenous Ascorbate production is just another weakness. Every try to catch a goat on a Scottish highland while it is making Vitamin C at

200 mg/kg each day? Who do you think is going to recover faster, the goat or the subclinical scurvy human?

I witnessed very extreme feats of strength by athletes (requiring loads of exercise adaptation) on high levels of antioxidants (C, E, CoQ10, balanced vitamins and minerals) even way back in the 80's. A study needs to run for a year or more to reflect what optimal nutritional intake does for an athlete. Short time frames (short term studies), without testing for biochemical individuality to asses optimal dosages, are not reflective of long term performance and adaptation on optimal nutrition.


Induction of cell death in renal cell carcinoma with combination of D-fraction and vitamin C.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23341484


Americans with Highest Blood Levels of Vitamins C and E have Lowest Mortality Rates

http://www.vitamincfoundation.org
(above and lots more good info)

http://www.youtube.c...U--wadrMY#t=108

Edited by zorba990, 22 November 2013 - 07:25 PM.

[timar]

On the philosophical issue here:

We have to strongly discern the treatment of sickness (the pharmaceutical approach) from the promotion of health and longevity (the nutraceutical approach). In the first case, something already has gone wrong and the end usually justifies the means to correct that wrong. In the latter case, however, we have to be much more careful not to mess with the bodys natural homeostasis in a self-defeating way. It is far easier to scientifically understand sickness than to understand health and longevity - as sickness is usually caused by some specific dysfunction that can be reductionistically analyzed and handled, whereas health is a holistic phenomenon, which requires an understanding of the vast complexity of all the interacting systems that constitute an organism. Therefore, when we try to facilitate optimum health we have to follow a much more conservative approach then such being apt for the treatment of a disease. This means, first and foremost, that must not thoughtlessly try to outsmart the body's own regulatory mechanisms which have evolved for good reasons. The probability that our limited understanding wreaks havoc is much higher in this case than the probability that we change something fot the better. Millions of years of evolution are usually wiser than we are. This it not to say that we should freeze with respect and echew the quest to understand aging and to develop scientific approaches to slow it down. It is to say that we should be wary of hubris and excessive optimism while being on that quest. Otherwise we will end up doing more harm than good. The story of the rise and fall of antioxidant-megadoses serves as a primary example for such a dangerous over-optimism.

Liposomal vitamin C may be a promising pharmaceutical agent for the treatment of various diseases. However, as ChristineH has explained, we have evidence to suggest that it will do more harm than good for a healthy person if taken regularly.

Edited by timar, 22 November 2013 - 08:16 PM.

[ChristineH]

Philosophically, I have to wonder if we should be forcing exogenous compounds into human cells when their natural properties prevent them from entering our cells in any significant amount. Why do we think that artificially forcing curcumin or resveratrol is in our best interest?

If you believe that to be true of resveratrol, and curcumin, and now of ascorbate, why are you promoting doing the exact same thing with sulforaphane?

Recommending a 100% whole broccoli sprout supplement is NOT the same thing as recommending a compound such as resveratrol which is found in tiny amounts in food and then administered in megadoses but which have also to be modified to force more to get into human cells, countering the natural barriers of these cells to keep such molecules out. Absolutely NOT the same thing for resveratrol, curcumin or any of the polyphenols. By contrast, sulforaphane is a molecule which can be consumed in supplements at clinically-effective doses similar to that able to obtained in food. These are NOT megadoses. When one consumes 1000mg of ascorbate, this would be like eating about 160 oranges all at the one meal. When one consumes a myrosinase-active sulforaphane-yielding supplement, it is no more than once could consume by eating a large (but not impractical) serve of fresh broccoli sprouts produced from quality seed grown in the right manner. In addition, a whole sprout comes with a vast array of other naturally-occurring compounds which may well be important for the metabolism of sulforaphane. Ascorbate as is commonly-consumed has never seen an orange or an acai berry - it is made in a factory through chemical processes which degrade and rearrange the molecules from sugar! How can that be 'natural' or even 'dietary'???

[ChristineH]

On the philosophical issue here:

We have to strongly discern the treatment of sickness (the pharmaceutical approach) from the promotion of health and longevity (the nutraceutical approach). In the first case, something already has gone wrong and the end usually justifies the means to correct that wrong. In the latter case, however, we have to be much more careful not to mess with the bodys natural homeostasis in a self-defeating way. It is far easier to scientifically understand sickness than to understand health and longevity - as sickness is usually caused by some specific dysfunction that can be reductionistically analyzed and handled, whereas health is a holistic phenomenon, which requires an understanding of the vast complexity of all the interacting systems that constitute an organism. Therefore, when we try to facilitate optimum health we have to follow a much more conservative approach then such being apt for the treatment of a disease. This means, first and foremost, that must not thoughtlessly try to outsmart the body's own regulatory mechanisms which have evolved for good reasons. The probability that our limited understanding wreaks havoc is much higher in this case than the probability that we change something fot the better. Millions of years of evolution are usually wiser than we are. This it not to say that we should freeze with respect and echew the quest to understand aging and to develop scientific approaches to slow it down. It is to say that we should be wary of hubris and excessive optimism while being on that quest. Otherwise we will end up doing more harm than good. The story of the rise and fall of antioxidant-megadoses serves as a primary example for such a dangerous over-optimism.

Liposomal vitamin C may be a promosing pharmaceutical agent for the treatment of various diseases. However, as ChristineH has explained, we have evidence to suggest that it will do more harm than good for a healthy person if taken regularly.

Thank you, Timar. I see we are on the same page! However, I suspect that the principles associated with the ways in which human cells defend themselves will take a long time to filter into the community. In truth, for 6 decades, we have embraced a flawed model that holds that 'all free radicals are bad and all antioxidants are good'. Through a giant leap of implausible faith, we/they decided 60 years or more ago that because those who consumed plant foods were the healthiest populations, it must have been due to the vitamin C in those foods. We now know that there are many more phytochemicals which are far more protective of human cells than is ascorbate and we also know that the quest to drive more and more antioxidants into the cells can result in disaster. (The CARET study where smokers developed lung cancer faster on beta-carotene is a good example). What makes it all the more difficult for the naysayers to accept is that human cells upregulate their own defences not by being fed direct-acting antioxidant (such as ascorbate) but be being exposed to weak pro-oxidants (sulforaphane is one example) capable of triggering signals the cells uses to activate its own defences. This is the mechanism underpinning nutrigenomics. Molecules such as sulforaphane are nutrigenomically-active; they are not 'antioxidant' in their own right - they are weak pro-oxidants that aren't strong enough to alter the redox balance of the cell. May I suggest that those who are still on the ascorbate megadose trail familiarise themselves with these newer principles?

[joelcairo]

... By contrast, sulforaphane is a molecule which can be consumed in supplements at clinically-effective doses similar to that able to obtained in food. These are NOT megadoses. When one consumes 1000mg of ascorbate, this would be like eating about 160 oranges all at the one meal. When one consumes a myrosinase-active sulforaphane-yielding supplement, it is no more than once could consume by eating a large (but not impractical) serve of fresh broccoli sprouts produced from quality seed grown in the right manner. In addition, a whole sprout comes with a vast array of other naturally-occurring compounds which may well be important for the metabolism of sulforaphane. Ascorbate as is commonly-consumed has never seen an orange or an acai berry - it is made in a factory through chemical processes which degrade and rearrange the molecules from sugar! How can that be 'natural' or even 'dietary'???

Just because these levels of sulforaphane can be physically obtained through large quantities of "fresh broccoli sprouts produced from quality seed grown in the right manner" doesn't mean this is a relevant dietary dose. A better comparison would be how much steamed broccoli you'd have to eat to achieve the type of sulforaphane levels used in clinical trials. It would probably only be achievable if you ate nothing but broccoli in your diet.

I'm not disagreeing about the benefits of sulforaphane of course, or of phytonutrients in general, but when a sulforaphane specialist says curcumin has an "unjustified favourable reputation", that's ridiculous and you have no basis other than professional jealousy for saying it.

Edited by joelcairo, 22 November 2013 - 09:14 PM.