From: jil@uts.uucp (Jamie Lubin)
Subject: Re: "Natural" vs. synthetic supplements, etc.
Organization: Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 15:44:44 GMT
Followup-To:  jil@donuts0.bellcore.com

In article <1993Jan4.214054.27047@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.153316.24731@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> jil@donuts0.bellcore.com (Jamie Lubin) writes:
>>As I was attempting to formulate a semi-intelligent response, I noticed how
>>broad the topic was becoming.  I'll try to limit my remarks without jumping all
>>over the place (but I'll probably fail :-)
>
>Yeah, I don't know what you're saying here.  The biggest thing I take
>away from your article here is that you need to define "natural supplement"
>more precisely, because much of what you're saying doesn't make much sense
>if by supplement you mean something in pill or capsule form, or any such
>concentrated nutrient source different from whole foods.
 
I stated that the topic was broader than just "natural" (tablets/capsules) vs.
synthetics as there are differences among "naturals" (again, sources, amount/
method of processing, etc.) & among synthetics (included in both disintegration
tests & tests of not living up to labelled values).  I'd prefer to get all I
need from whole foods, but since I don't feel that I can (for countless reasons,
unless I spend all day eating :-)))--note the double chin, I prefer, for many
reasons to use "natural" food supplements.

>>The MAIN reason why I take natural supplements is that I achieve noticeable
>>results from them & no noticeable results from the synthetics.
>
>What "noticable results" are these?
 
No headaches vs. headaches, no stomacheaches vs, stomacheaches,  infrequent
colds of short duration vs. frequent colds of long duration,  proper weight vs.
overweight, more energy & stamina vs. less, anecdotal: yes, anecdotal to me: NO

>>I also have the paper "Further Research Into A Chromatographic Technique For
>>Vitamin Analysis" by M. Justa Smith, Ph.D. (biochemistry with emphasis on
>>enzymology), ass't. director of education Roswell Park Memorial (Cancer
>>Research) Instute & director of research for the Human Dimensions Institute at
>>Rosary Hill College, Buffalo, N.Y.  If either of you want a copy, let me know
>>(I still have your FAX #, Sean).
>
>Yes please.  I'll send you my FAX #.
 
Haven't gotten it yet.

>>As an aside, Dr. Smith mentioned the following in the paper:
>>"Another scientific giant, Dr. Albert Szent-Gyorgi (Nobel prize
>>included work with vitamin C),
>
>Dyer's Law #2: anyone who uses the phrase "scientific giant" or
>"Nobel Prize" in an assertion is automatically suspect. :-)
 
She had just finished a paragraph discussing Linus Pauling (giant?) & how it
was unfortunate that he stated without investigation that "there is no differ-
ence between natural and synthetic vitamin C."

>>used experimental animals to determine
>>if there is in fact any metabolic difference between natural &
>>synthetic vitamin C.  Most biochemical textbooks today carry the
>>results of these experiments.  According to Szent-Gyorgi, those animals
>>given the natural vitamin C showed less tendency of hemorrhage in the
>>small blood vessels than those given the synthetic vitamin C.  This is
>>obviously a metabolic difference.  It follows that natural C is more
>>effective in preventing bruising, bleeding gums, nose bleeds, etc."
>
>I have never ever seen references to these experiments (insofaras they
>try to point to a difference between "natural" and "synthetic" vitamin C.)
>What's the Szent-Gyorgi reference?
 
A. Szent-Gyorgyi & I. Rusznyak, Nature, 138:27, 1936.
Also A. Bentsath, I. Rusznyak & A. Szent-Gyorgyi, Nature, 138:798, 1936.

>>In an unrelated study, Dr. Smith's lab tested 73 different vitamin E
>>products & found that 46 of them contained less than the amount of
>>alpha tocopherol stated on the label.  A similar study re vitamin C
>>showed similar results (e.g., 30-40 mg. for a label stating 100mg.).
>
>This is not relevant to the synthetic vs. natural discussion, surely.
 
As stated several times, the topic is broader than that--to me anyway.

>>NBC's Today Show, 11/29/90, presented results of an independent
>>laboratory test on nutritional supplement disintegration.  A
>>nutritional supplement must first break down, or disintegrate, & then
>>dissolve before it can be absorbed into the bloodstream.  According to
>>testing standards set by Howard University's School Of Pharmacy based
>>on governmentally mandated tests used for pharmaceuticals, uncoated
>>tablets must disintegrate within 30 minutes, & coated tablets in one
>>hour, in order to be absorbed into the system.  Under these stringent
>>testing conditions, some nutritional supplements tested took up to 4
>>full hours to disintegrate.  If a tablet has a coating that is too
>>tough or lacks an ingredient necessary to help it break down, it may
>>just pass right through the body without any benefit.  36% of the
>>supplements tested failed.  Bonnie Liebman, nutritional director of the
>>Center For Science In The Public Interest, cautioned that the lack of
>>standards for testing nutritional supplements means that many
>>manufacturers may not accurately test for disintegration time to ensure
>>their products actually provide the nutrients claimed on their labels.
>
>So what does this have to do with natural vs synthetic vitamins?
>Nothing.  Unless you're saying that natural vitamins don't come in
>pill form.
 
See last comment.  Point is that since > 40% in U.S. use supplementation,
it would be nice to know what you're getting.

>>When intrinsic or associated factors, synergists, etc. are separated or
>>removed, their utilization within the body is disturbed.  We simply do
>>not enough to ever be able to improve on nature's plan of enzyme
>>interrelationships.
>
>This is an argument for getting your vitamins and other nutrients from
>whole foods, something which I would certainly agree with, even if I
>don't subscribe to this enzyme mumbo-jumbo.  How do natural vitamins
>in supplement form avoid this?  They don't.  It's as if you're resorting
>to some kind of vitalism from their origin.

It's not me, but do you want names again, just to belittle them.  Speaking
of vitalism, Pfeiffer referred to it as a "life force."  Again, in a perfect
world, getting all the nutrients you need from whole foods (in RDA amounts)
might be possible.  But this isn't a perfect world & it's becoming obvious
(even to you) that it is beneficial to have > the RDAs for certain nutrients,
at the least.

>>Many nutritional doctors (not always an oxymoron ;-) doing parallel
>>studies with their patients & ending up prescribing natural supplements
>>(including the Institute Of Preventive Medicine, Washington, D.C.).
>
>Well, THAT's persuasive! :-)
 
Have you done testing on your patients??

>>Dr. Abram Hoffer, mega-vitamin pioneer: "When dealing with synthetics, as 
>>opposed to natural, too much can cause toxicity."
>
>This guy is either being quoted out of context or he's wrong.  Of course,
>the advantage of getting nutrients from whole foods is that it's highly
>unlikely you could ever take too much of a vitamin.  But I don't think
>this is what you're arguing.
 
It's just a knock on synthetic vitamins from someone well-versed in their use.

>>American Physical Fitness Research Institute & Adelle Davis Foundation
>>recommending natural over synthetic.
>
>Wow.  Vitamins didn't help Adelle.
 
Funny because some people believe that the only way a nutritionist can die is
to be hit by a low-flying airplane.  From what I've heard (& no, she's not my
hero), she lived to the age of 70 only because of the way she took care of
herself, in spite of having massive radiation treatments at an early age.

>>Synthetics taken in high amounts too long can have the equivalent of whipping a
>>tired horse.
>
>???
 
Names & sources again??  Has a drug-like effect.

>>"A synthetically derived substance may cause a reaction in a chemically
>>susceptible person when the same material of natural origin is
>>tolerated.  There is a frequency of clinical (allergic) reactions to
>>synthetic vitamins, especially vitamins B1 & C, while those naturally
>>occurring vitamins are tolerated."-- Dr. Theron Randolph, well-known
>>allergist.
>
>I have never heard of an allergy to B vitamins or vitamin C.  Perhaps
>allergies from the excipients in a pill or capsule.
 
Well you just did.  So now you've heard it.  Isn't sci.med.nutrition being
informative today;-)  If you disagree, take it up with him.  In general, many
of my nutritional beliefs are represented in my postings, but specifically, my
postings are giving the views of nutrition scientists, biochemists, M.D.s,
nutritionists, researchers, etc.
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition