Practically everyone "knows" vitamin C is good for you... but I'm not sure many really understand how good. Identification of its import dates back to early explorers crossing the ocean by ship who suffered from something called scurvy -- caused by a deficiency of vitamin C.
For a long time now, the recommended daily allowance of vitamin C has been at levels that prevent such a deficiency -- but decades ago, some scientists, including Nobel Prize-winner Linus Pauling, began to argue that much higher doses of vitamin C are needed for optimal health. There is now a continual stream of research on vitamin C and its related health benefits -- which include antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-aging properties, along with the fact that it has been shown to be a heart-health booster. I called naturopathic physician Mark Stengler, ND, author of Bottom Line Natural Healing newsletter for the latest thinking on the many positive attributes of vitamin C, along with guidelines on how much we need to reap its benefits.
HEART HEALTH
Much of the new buzz on vitamin C relates to its value in reducing risk for cardiovascular disease, Dr. Stengler told me, citing numerous research studies showing its protective role in heart health. Among these is research based on the Nurses' Health Study which followed more than 85,000 women for up to 16 years, and that demonstrated that a higher intake (in this case, more than 359 mg/day from dietary sources and supplements) reduced cardiovascular risk by 27%... and an analysis of nine other studies tracking more than 290,000 adults that showed a 25% reduction in risk in those who took more than 700 mg of supplemental vitamin C, compared with those who took none.
In addition, a Finnish study examining the health of middle-aged men who had no evidence of pre-existing heart disease found that those who were deficient in vitamin C were 3.5 times more likely to suffer heart attack.
Not only has vitamin C been shown to decrease risk for heart attacks, it also seems to reduce damage following one. In a study called the Myocardial Infarction and Vitamins (MIVIT) trial, researchers found that patients who suffered an acute heart attack and then supplemented for one month with 1,200 mg of vitamin C (along with 600 mg of vitamin E) after an initial IV infusion of vitamin C had a reduced rate of complications from the heart attack. The supplemented group also had fewer additional heart attacks and deaths, reducing by nearly 20% the combined rate of death, new heart attack and other severe complications. "This doesn't surprise me," Dr. Stengler told me, "since vitamin C has so many protective functions, including increasing blood vessel flexibility (so they do not rupture as easily) and preventing the oxidation of LDL cholesterol." Readers may recall from previous stories that cholesterol becomes problematic when it oxidizes -- and vitamin C helps prevent that, he said.
IMMUNE BOOSTING
In addition to acting as a powerful antioxidant and helping protect the body from free radical damage, vitamin C also supports immune function. It enhances the activity of white blood cells, the body's first defense against pathogens. And it improves immune response partly by activating an antiviral chemical produced by the body called interferon.
Additionally, vitamin C helps to regenerate other antioxidants, including vitamin E, by acting as a "recycling service" for antioxidants in the body, causing them to re-circulate in the bloodstream and thus delivering "double duty" protective action.
Inflammation is a component of major degenerative diseases and other conditions including diabetes, Alzheimer's, obesity and heart disease -- and C-reactive protein is one effective measure of inflammation levels. "Vitamin C as a supplement has been shown in studies to reduce C-reactive protein," Dr. Stengler said.
AND YET MORE HEALTH BENEFITS
"Vitamin C has powerful healing effects on many other systems in the body as well," Dr. Stengler added. "I'd say it's one of the most versatile, multi-factorial nutrients for our bodies."
In particular, vitamin C is...
A collagen builder. Collagen is an important structural component of bones and tissues -- and Dr. Stengler notes that vitamin C plays a critical role in the human body's synthesis of collagen, helping replace what is degraded by normal wear and tear.
A detoxifier. "Vitamin C is involved in the production of bile acids, which carry toxins out of the liver," Dr. Stengler explained.
An agent for longevity. Two major studies have associated vitamin C status with longevity. In a study of more than 19,000 adults, those with the highest blood levels of vitamin C had about half the risk for mortality compared with those with the lowest levels of vitamin C in their blood. Also, a decade-long study from UCLA of more than 11,000 adults showed that men with high vitamin C intake (at least 50 mg daily from their diet and regular vitamin C supplement) had a total death rate that was 41% lower than the rate among the men with low intake (less than 50 mg daily).
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT VITAMIN C SUPPLEMENTATION
Recently, there's been reason to worry about the safety of food and other products imported from China, and I was personally distressed to hear that about 80% of the ascorbic acid -- vitamin C -- made in the world originates in that country. I asked Dr. Stengler if we should be concerned. He noted that there is little reason to fear toxicity. "American companies import the raw ingredients but the reliable manufacturers verify quality," he said. "They're doing their own tests before putting their labels on the products. If you stick with the big name brands when buying vitamin C, you have very little to worry about."
Though the current recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for vitamin C is only 90 mg for men and 75 mg for women (add an extra 35 mg for smokers), Dr. Stengler believes a far higher intake is beneficial. "For general prevention and overall health, studies suggest 400 to 500 mg daily," he said. For those with heart disease he recommends 500 mg to 1,500 mg daily. "For my patients with existing disease, such as cancer, I prescribe oral (or sometimes intravenous) doses that are much higher. These should be taken only under supervision -- especially when undergoing chemotherapy or radiation."
Source(s):
Mark A. Stengler, ND, a naturopathic physician and leading authority on the practice of alternative and integrated medicine. He is director of the La Jolla Whole Health Clinic, La Jolla, California, and associate clinical professor at the National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland, Oregon. He is author of the newsletter Bottom Line Natural Healing, www.DrStengler.com.
DQ, thanks for this report. Just wanted to let you know, I'm not attacking you, but am somewhat disagreeing with this report since, in my opinion, it sort of glosses over some other important things people should know when it comes to the topic of vitamin C.
Pauling was mentioned in the same breath as a somewhat exploitive plug for RDA. Just from the historical perspective, the "RDA" for C this report alludes to was established during a time when it was well after the fact of being known, for years, by way of research "tests"...and "studies" as it were, that the use of C as a daily suppment helped the human body to combat numerous conditions related to disease. The benefits were so numerous that it was (and remains today) difficult to summarize in a few words what all these benefits may be, but an analogy will help: intake of C helped the body to either combat OR outright prevent a vast spectrum of health conditions that themsevles were underlying causes of numerous disease, to the extent that it's benefits in terms of Scurvy can fairly be characterized as "bottom of the barrel". In other words, there are many many serious conditions the use of C helps to remedy, and for the most part Scurvy is least among them. What people need to take away from this history so as to know it is - why did orthodoxy seemingly throw a dart rather half-heartedly into the ocean of benefits to be realized by the use of C in varying amounts, and come away with a standard that barely addressed one tiny drop's worth of diseaseby use of a relative few grains worth of C; scurvy?
Based on my recollection of this particular hunk of medical history, the numerous benefits of C when given in increasing amounts (upwards to ounces daily, not grains) had already been unearthed through research by Pauling and others before him long before there ever was a catch-phrase health standard called "RDA". In actuality, the establishment of an RDA with respect to C was a retrofit of sorts, something orthodoxy was chartered to address well after the fact. Still, people need to confront the question - why did orthodoxy establish their so-called RDA for C at such a puny level far below what had (and continued to be) proven to be necessary by way of the same laboratory methods that orthodoxy itself often exploits - "study" and "tests"? Does not a two-time Nobel winner know how to conduct tests, studies and research to satsify the institution from whence he came?
I don't have a conclusive answer to this question, but I have my hunches; People like Pauling and other's before him, such as Fred Klenner and all the way back to Svaint Giorgi (sp?) had, gradually, through their work, sort of let the C-cat out of the bag, so to speak. Afterwhich, all that orthodoxy was really doing was reacting to their research results - damage control, by way of coining this thing they called "RDA for C" that, at best, minimized at that time the best they knew how for decieving and distracting from the far-reaching impact portented by legitimate C research info leaking into the public consciousness. For as long as it's been publicly stated, orthodoxy's "RDA for C" is all about orthodoxy maintaining control & sway over one particualr something among the spectrum of somethings they consider their exclusive playground & doimain; diseases, and how to "treat" them. "treating" is another way of saying what orthodoxy's plan is to maintain & manage various illnesses rather than eliminating them and their causes, and their tactis & methods that have been applied to the growing industry of commercial vitamin sales is no different.
Pauling stands out for being a prominent "doctor" who proved that the limits to what C can help from the perspective of treating disease were still largely unknown. His work uncovered how there remains seemingly no end in site (at least this was the status during his hay-day), no limits to what C - when given in sufficient amounts, can help the body fight / eliminate / reduce / address. So, FDA comes along and establishes a puny, nonsensical standard for C, calls it an RDA, which is so low it only helps to prevent the obvious outward symptoms of scurvy; what about diseases affecting the heart, like cardio-pulomonary, arterio-sclerosis just to name a few? Judging by their actions, the FDA and gang are not interested and don't care to genuinely address such questions through the use of necessary amounts of C. What about schizophrenia and numerous other mental conditions that Pauling's researched shed light on by way of proof that C can even help these kinds of mind/body diseae conditions? Apparently the proclaimers of that RDA thing do not care to genuinely address these disease concerns either..... diabetes (both real and the newer fake "adult onset" type) ?.....diseases of the blood?....cancerX?.....cancerY?......cancer Z?......they don't care, not in their interests, they don't care, they don't care!. It is not in their interests to care. Where are their interests?; serving the profit needs of increasing numbers of commercial industry better known as "the American economy" plugged into orthodoxy's regulatory racket. Nope, as far as this collective industry was concerned during Pauling's day, scurvy is where it's at, scurvy is where they have always drawn the line, scurvy is the end of the C road as far as they are concerned. Over the years since his day, even after his death, the RDA has continued to creep up, grain by grain, giving some people reason to hope "gee, maybe orthodoxy IS finally coming around after all.....? Don't count on it.
This brings me to the passage of the posted report that really got my interest.
Recently, there's been reason to worry about the safety of food and other products imported from China, and I was personally distressed to hear that about 80% of the ascorbic acid -- vitamin C -- made in the world originates in that country. I asked Dr. Stengler if we should be concerned. He noted that there is little reason to fear toxicity. "American companies import the raw ingredients but the reliable manufacturers verify quality," he said. "They're doing their own tests before putting their labels on the products. If you stick with the big name brands when buying vitamin C, you have very little to worry about."
Taking this piece by piece: there has long been a need for concern safety of food / drug products, and this has long been the case since waaaaaaaaaay before China became a factor. The only thing that's genuinely been "recent" about this concern phenom is the prevalence of MSM headlines now that China has been made into the prominent factor of things "food/drug" imported into the bowells - figuratively & literally, of America & Americans. For as logn as long as the FDA has increasingly had their grubby mitts "regulations" wrapped around things "food & drug" that can conceivably touch the American human body - internally and or externally, there has been a need for genuine concern and this predates the Chian factor by many decades.
distressed to hear that about 80% of the ascorbic acid -- vitamin C -- made in the world originates in that country.
Technically speaking "vitamin C" is the name medical-science (a specfic division of collective orthodoxy) came up with for the isolated compounds originally derived from natural food & drugs - from foods like fruits and vegetables (but not limited to just fruits and vegetables). People, even in this day 2007, need to know that no matter what anyone calls the beneficial compound - Vitamin C or otherwise, was found to naturally exist in natural foods, but by the time it showed up in plastic jars at a pharmacy or health-food-store, it was coined "vitamin C". Over the years of it's factory-evolutions, "vitamin C" has come to be derived primarily from Corn, which itself has come to be derived primarily from geneticially tampered-with strains of seed stock "hybrids". To recap, the food benefits we now know as "vitamin C" come from natural foods, like fruits and vegetables, including corn, that once were known to be grown widely across the continent of America. By and large, the masses have since allowed themselves to get their C, allegedly, by way of sources imported from... China? THAT is what people should know they need to be concerned about... to find distressing about all of this... which is to say, as long as people are content to get something shipped in from a foreign country something that was once common place in and around their own country - regardless of it's "quality", well, they are quite possibly getting what they deserve; disease by the truck loads. Deal with it.
"American companies import the raw ingredients but the reliable manufacturers verify quality," he said. "They're doing their own tests before putting their labels on the products. If you stick with the big name brands when buying vitamin C, you have very little to worry about."
Just between you, me and the lamp-post, based on what many people have come to know about "American companies", while statement seems to be made in an effort to ease people's fears, the opposite is true, which is to say, this statement is by no means a ringing endorsement. It's actually a reason for heightened distress.... because we people increasingly know the sordid, mostly untold stories going on behind the curtain of "American Companies". The sad fact is, Americans by and large have become a people that really do not know what it is they need to know to be concerned about unti somebody points out to them the need to first turn a situation upside down so that they can see get closer to the truth of seeing what it is they really need to be concerned about.
The truth is, since the days of Pauling, the FDA and it's cabal of regulatory agencies have incessantly continued to gain much ground in their endeavor to literally control with an iron fist anything and everthing - including commonly manufactured "vitamin C", that can conceivably touch the human American body. Back in Pauling's day and earlier, those natural green & growing things some people call "plants" were still a treated as a nuisance by orthodoxy because they had not yet acquired for themselves the authority to patent plants. That was then. Today we are a long ways away and removed from that particular Kansas, Toto. Today, orthodoxy is just about ready to complete their end-run around the plants/patent issue. Plants - fruits, vegetables, herbs, "weeds" are all things that, technically, from the jaundiced eye of an FDA, are all things that can conceivably come in contact with the human body, and therefore must be put under their regulatory control. A rediculous notion you say? If one were to go back in time, say 2 to 5 years, back then how rediculous of a notion would it have been for somebody to tell you that raw almonds will one day soon be put under strict regulatory control, effecitively illegal?
No prob - I didn't write the article, I just thought it was a good one overall and posted it.
However, I do not read the article as plugging the RDA at all. It appears to me to do just the opposite and support Pauling's larger doses. The author of the article, Dr. Stengler, recommends much higher amounts that the RDA and goes on to say that he uses consideralbly larger amount still in patients he treats.
As far as China - yeat, that is a concern. However, Japan recently completed a study that found China ranked somewhat behind Europe in the quality of their food imports and somewhat AHEAD of the USA. I would prefer that the USA clean up our act and use our own foods, vitamins, minerals and supplements, but when you look at the fact that 75% or our food supply now contain GMO's, it does not appear we are moving in the right direction.
Of all the things that stood out for me in that article, there was a chain reaction that started with mention of "that about 80% of the ascorbic acid -- vitamin C -- made in the world originates in (China)..." To me, this statement is tryign to set a hook....one tethered to all the freshly hyped press about poisonous commercial products left and right coming out of China. Then chain continues with mention that there is little reason to fear toxicity becaue "....American companies import the raw ingredients but the reliable manufacturers verify quality".
Come on folks, lets be serious for a moment. On what grounds do American companies in the present have for trying to stand on ...to rely on what their reputation once was? Those days are gone, long gone, NAFTA gone, free-trade gone! This article's statement smacks of deception that subtly says "Chinese companies?; bad! have you not heard/seen all the bad news on CNN/ABC/FOX lately?.....but, American companies?; good!, 'cause, well, everyone remembers how good American companies used to be!". Those days are gone, folks. In the past 1 to 2 decades, ever since the advent of free-trade, that old reputation of American quality is gone! Yes, this may be painting with broad strokes, and while I suspect there still are a relative few good, honest American companies out there, they have become the exception rather than the rule. And, while people are busy having their thoughts trained to think sound bytes - China - bad, America, good - it's like everybody has instantly forgotten who it was that decided it a good idea to off-shore their manufacturing operations to China in the first place; American companies! They can try to hide behind their disclaimers all day long, they can play the blame game all day long, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how the poisons are coming into America from China - be it in dog food or human food, American companies are to blame!; period!!
Home
Why Vitamin C Gets A's from the Experts 
