From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: "Natural" vs. synthetic supplements, etc.
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:40:54 GMT

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.

>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?

>But saying
>natural & synthetic is too broad.  Not all naturals are created equal (sources,
>ingredients, what % is synthetic, amount/method of processing, etc.) & not all
>synthetics are the same.  In '91, Michael Pazdon re an extensive Organic
>Research Project at U. Of New Hampshire: "Of the vitamin supplements being
>marketed in the U.S. today, we found that there are basically 3 types:
>synthetic (chemical), crystallized (heat processed) & lyophilized (low
>temperature dehydration).  These 3 types were tested by chromatograms
>prepared by the method of Pfeiffer (Bio-Dynamics 50, 2:1959) with slight
>modification."  (the latter was found to be the best).

Um, as it stands, this paragraph is meaningless.  Are you addressing
questions of potency?  The "best what?"  There is only one chemical
entity known as vitamin C.  The molecule is the same regardless of
whether it comes from an orange or an orange bottle.  So what _is_ it
that these people are measuring?

>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 #.

>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. :-)

>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?

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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! :-)

>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.

>American Physical Fitness Research Institute & Adelle Davis Foundation
>recommending natural over synthetic.

Wow.  Vitamins didn't help Adelle.

>Synthetics taken in high amounts too long can have the equivalent of whipping a
>tired horse.

???

>"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.

>"The FDA & FTC can stand here & tell you that there isn't any difference
>(between a natural vitamin & a synthetic), but I can line up biochemists from
>here to the street who are world reknowned researchers, & they will argue the
>point at the drop of a hat."--Sam Walters, one of those nutritional doctors
>using natural supplements in his clinics.

Gee, who are these "world reknowned researchers"?

>Etc., ad nauseum.

Indeed.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer