From: jil@donuts0.bellcore.com (Jamie Lubin)
Subject: "Natural" vs. synthetic supplements, etc.
Reply-To: jil@donuts0.bellcore.com (Jamie Lubin)
Organization: Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 15:33:16 GMT

This is in response to some of the comments/questions posted by Sean O'Neil &
Steve Dyer in response to my post under the subject "Enrichment/nutrient
replacement question."

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 :-)

The MAIN reason why I take natural supplements is that I achieve noticeable
results from them & no noticeable results from the synthetics.  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 dehy-
dration).  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).

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).  As an aside, Dr. Smith mentioned the follow-
ing in the paper:  "Another scientific giant, Dr. Albert Szent-Gyorgi (Nobel
prize included work with 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."

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.).

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 ingre-
dient 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.

As far as why I INITIALLY TRIED certain natural supplements, I just kept reading
the same threads over & over from countless sources:

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.

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.).

Dr. Abram Hoffer, mega-vitamin pioneer: "When dealing with synthetics, as 
opposed to natural, too much can cause toxicity."

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

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 suscept-
ible 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.

"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.

Etc., ad nauseum.

Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition