Guest guest Posted September 5, 2002 Report Share Posted September 5, 2002 For those of you who want to know about the different forms of vit C and their efficacy, check out the following link: http://www.orst.edu/dept/lpi/ss01/bioavailability.html :-) Gabriela Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2002 Report Share Posted September 5, 2002 This is a clever display of true intellectual dishonesty. They pose comparisons of synthetic ascorbic acid vs. natural and never make mention of the fact that ascorbic acid is no more vitamin c than a tire is a car. Notice they did not make comparisons of bioavailability of ascorbic acid vs. real vitamin c from a food source. And the reason is its not even close. Large amounts of vitamin C are great however to get them via ascorbic acid is absurd. DMM Gettingwell, naturalradical@a... wrote: > > For those of you who want to know about the different forms of vit C and > their efficacy, check out the following link: > > http://www.orst.edu/dept/lpi/ss01/bioavailability.html > > :-) Gabriela > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2002 Report Share Posted September 5, 2002 - drmichaelmarasco This is a clever display of true intellectual dishonesty. They pose comparisons of synthetic ascorbic acid vs. natural and never make mention of the fact that ascorbic acid is no more vitamin c than a tire is a car. Notice they did not make comparisons of bioavailability of ascorbic acid vs. real vitamin c from a food source. And the reason is its not even close. Large amounts of vitamin C are great however to get them via ascorbic acid is absurd. DMM Dr. M: Your point is a very interesting one, but without supporting citation of sources or evidence it reads as little more than opinion. Could you please direct us to studies that substantiate your claims. Thanks, Colin Yardley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2002 Report Share Posted September 6, 2002 Linus Pauling used ascorbic acid did he not? You may say that ascorbic acid needs other factors, but (to the best of my knowledge) ascorbic acid *is* vitamin C by definition. Or do you know some things I do not? Alobar - " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco Thursday, September 05, 2002 4:49 AM Re: Different Forms of Vitamin C > This is a clever display of true intellectual dishonesty. > They pose comparisons of synthetic ascorbic acid vs. natural and > never make mention of the fact that ascorbic acid is no more vitamin > c than a tire is a car. Notice they did not make comparisons of > bioavailability of ascorbic acid vs. real vitamin c from a food > source. And the reason is its not even close. Large amounts of > vitamin C are great however to get them via ascorbic acid is absurd. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2002 Report Share Posted September 6, 2002 Just because someone popularly defines toothpaste as food does not make it any more accurate or appropriate than calling ascorbic acid vitamin C. I am not brining Pauling's work into question here, what I am saying is that Paulings results came using the most substandard non food vitamin c substitute available. The point is vitamin c is as useful as he demonstrated only far more useful and effective when vitamin c is the actual substance used. Ascorbic Acid is NOT vitamin C and the results acheived with one are NOT the same as the other. They are NOT synonymous regardless of the enormity of this cultural error. DMM Gettingwell, " Alobar " <alobar@b...> wrote: > Linus Pauling used ascorbic acid did he not? You may say > that ascorbic acid needs other factors, but (to the best of my > knowledge) ascorbic acid *is* vitamin C by definition. Or do you > know some things I do not? > > Alobar > > > - > " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...> > <Gettingwell> > Thursday, September 05, 2002 4:49 AM > Re: Different Forms of Vitamin C > > > > This is a clever display of true intellectual dishonesty. > > They pose comparisons of synthetic ascorbic acid vs. natural and > > never make mention of the fact that ascorbic acid is no more > vitamin > > c than a tire is a car. Notice they did not make comparisons of > > bioavailability of ascorbic acid vs. real vitamin c from a food > > source. And the reason is its not even close. Large amounts of > > vitamin C are great however to get them via ascorbic acid is > absurd. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2002 Report Share Posted September 6, 2002 Collin, I am not certain what you want proof of ascorbic acid is NOT vitamin C. I can't prove that anymore than I can proof that your arm is not your head. It just ain't. The comments I made about the comparisons that were made are from a post earlier in this thread. DMM Gettingwell, Amrit <yardley@s...> wrote: > > - > drmichaelmarasco > This is a clever display of true intellectual dishonesty. > They pose comparisons of synthetic ascorbic acid vs. natural and > never make mention of the fact that ascorbic acid is no more vitamin > c than a tire is a car. Notice they did not make comparisons of > bioavailability of ascorbic acid vs. real vitamin c from a food > source. And the reason is its not even close. Large amounts of > vitamin C are great however to get them via ascorbic acid is absurd. > > DMM > > Dr. M: > Your point is a very interesting one, but without supporting citation of sources or evidence it reads as little more than opinion. Could you please direct us to studies that substantiate your claims. > Thanks, > Colin Yardley > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2002 Report Share Posted September 6, 2002 Collin, I am not certain what you want proof of ascorbic acid is NOT vitamin C. I can't prove that anymore than I can proof that your arm is not your head. It just ain't. The comments I made about the comparisons that were made are from a post earlier in this thread. DMM DMM: You may well be right, but as it stands, your argument is a tautological absurdity. It comes off sounding like, " I can't prove what I'm claiming but I'm right because I'm claiming it. " Colin Yardley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2002 Report Share Posted September 6, 2002 - " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco Friday, September 06, 2002 5:47 AM Re: Different Forms of Vitamin C > Just because someone popularly defines toothpaste as food does not > make it any more accurate or appropriate than calling ascorbic acid > vitamin C. I am not brining Pauling's work into question here, what > I am saying is that Paulings results came using the most substandard > non food vitamin c substitute available. The point is vitamin c is > as useful as he demonstrated only far more useful and effective when > vitamin c is the actual substance used. Ascorbic Acid is NOT vitamin > C and the results acheived with one are NOT the same as the other. > They are NOT synonymous regardless of the enormity of this cultural > error. > > DMM > Correct me if I am wrong here, but I was under the impression that vitamin C was defined as being Ascorbic Acid. If so, then re-defining it without consensus does not really do much. Personally, I feel bioflavanoids are quite necessary for vitamin C (ascorbic acid) to do certain aspects of its job -- which is why I take bioflavanoid supplements as well as eat one lemon & 1/2 orange per day. If you have some websites which prove me wrong, please post them. I am sure no expert in this field & am as prone to error as most folks. Alobar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.