Talk:Vitamin C/Archive 1

message: Vitamin C can be used to manufacture iron? What is this, cold nucleosynthesis or something? Get Pons and Fleischman on the phone!
--dja
:Not to manufacture iron, but I heard (unsubstantiated claims) that it reportedly facilitated the intestinal uptake of iron, and would thus possibly help to elevate blood iron levels. In my own personal single case (ie. this is not at all scientific evidence) this seems to appear plausible: I am an (ovo-lacto-) vegetarian. Vegetarians are typically an at-risk group as regards blood iron levels getting too low. However I also take 1,000mg Vit C supplements daily (as deemed save by the UK FSA www.food.gov.uk) and blood tests have repeatedly shown excellent blood iron levels in my case. (Again, that's me as one single isolated case, so while it seems plausible to me it's far from being proof.)
:Ropers 05:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron 

message: Isn't Vitamin C also a pop musical group ? ~BF
:Not a pop group, but rather the stage name of a solo artist, Colleen Fitzpatrick. -- Paul Drye
::Perhaps you are thinking of the 80s pop group Vitamin Z? Katalaveno 13:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop group 

message: Mortene  wrote that:
"Positive medical effects of such treatments are however not well documented by evidence."  This is not a true statement see Ascorbate web for a list of published science on health benefits of vitamin c. Lumos3 23:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vitamin C advocacy section 

message: I think the information added by 80.5.160.8 is important.  The authors are associated to important vitamin C researchers.  I have re-included the proposed changes by trimming its militancy a bit.
--Congruence 17:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how allowable the Steve Hickey research is.  Its publication seems to have been using the vanity press Lulu.com.  If no one has anything to say about it, I am going to remove all the information clearly drawn (at times verbatim) from Hickey's work. Turly-burly 02:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The book Ascorbate by Hickey and Roberts is well-written and has an extensive bibliography at the back.  It's an excellent source of information.  It's a "secondary source", reviewing a large number of other studies.  --Coppertwig 13:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hickey, Steve & Roberts challenge / changes by 80.5.160.8 

message: Potatoes are mentioned as a Vitamin C source, but are not listed in the comparative table that shows the amount of vitamin C in various plant sources. Perhaps this is because potatoes are cooked while many of the other sources are not?
Any more info available?
zoney ♣ talk 18:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potatoes 

message: "His book How to Live Longer and Feel Better was a best seller and advocated a regime of more than 10,000 grams per day."
This just can't be right.  Is it supposed to be 10,000 milligrams? Bkkbrad 14:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 kilos of Vitamin C a day? 

message: Question -- what is the probability of Potassium Ascorbate being used for commercial Vitamin C products?  And, what would the measurable content of potassium if used in this manner?
I am concerned about the use of commercial Vitamin C products by persons sensitive to potassium -- dialysis patients specifically.  Could this be a problem?
Well, I am not a chemist, but I guess that one K atom binds to one AA molecule, and thus if you get 1 gram of ascorbic acid in potassium ascorbate form, you get 39/176 = about 220mg of K.  The safety value for K is about 2 to 3 grams.  This means that you can safely get about 10 grams of potassium ascorbate per day.
--Congruence 21:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably be noted that most of these "safe values" are for those who don't have severe kidney problems.  The same applies to water.  Pakaran 16:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential of Potassium as a measurable part of VITAMIN C 

message: Which source claims that the Billy Goat Plum has 5000mg Vitamin C per 100g? The Billygoat plum article itself mentions a figure of 2300-3150mg ascorbic acid per 100g of edible fruit, and a link there also mentions 2000-3000mg/100g . Greenman 20:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billy Goat Plum 

message: Same (but worse) inconsistency for Wolfberry. Here says 2500, article on Wolfberry says: "Vitamin C content in dried wolfberries has a wide range (from different sources) from 29 mg per 100 grams to as high as 148 mg per 100 grams." Dried should surely have higher content if anything. FWadel 12:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolfberry 

message: In addition, many parts of the article comprise arguments back and forth between advocacy and skepticism of Vitamin C high-disage therapy, as well as arguments back and forth on the effects of cooking and boiling Vitamin C. The article reads like a long and frequently alternating argument, including partisan espousal of points of view outside any consensus, rather than an encyclopedic entry. This whole article needs a thorough overhaul, most of all by condensing all the dosage controversy into a single objective section rather than being spread throughout the article.
To the high-dosage enthusiast contributors - maybe you're right and science will settle on a consensus that vindicates you at some point, but in the meantime, in the words of Tommy Lee Jones, "I don't care." It doesn't make advocacy encyclopedic.
Reaverdrop 07:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article reads like a POV advocate for high or overdosage of Vitamin C.  For example, it states that RDA is not enough.  This is highly controversial - I've don't see the need for supplementation if one eats a balanced diet, and if so are all our ancestors living in the pre-supplementation period unhealthy weaklings?  The one time I took a high dosage Vitamin C supplement I suffered from peeling hands, sore lips and tongue and diarrhea. Mandel 01:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not recommend high doses, it reports a genuine disagreement within science about the role and appropriate dose of Vitamin C. True the majority view of established science is that it is only a vitamin for which a small dose is adequate. However a number of well qualified and expert people have supported the high dose argument. It is not Wikipedia's role to only report a majority view on a subject but to fairly describe all opinions an interested  reader may encounter elsewhere. Mandel, your own experience with a high dose is unfortunate but does not bear on the overall argument. Regimes for safe high consumption can be found on the advocacy pages linked from the article. I will review the article and ensure that the minority view is always reported as such. Lumos3 18:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The original article says these: "However, a person who is just freed from a scorbutic condition with only a small amount of ascorbate (i.e. RDA quantities) is arguably a very unhealthy individual, and certainly not one in optimum health."; "Many such reports have never been published in peer reviewed journals, which casts some suspicion on their credibility."  If these doesn't recommend high doses, I don't know what do.  I agree with much you say, but I never said don't report the minority view, I said don't endorse the minority view with a clear bias. Also, this article does not yet touch on the side effects of overdosage, namely a reduced intake of other important nutrients such as Vitamin B12 and copper. And also, if Vitamin C antibacterial like so many people claim, can it cause a disruption in our intestinal microbe balance? Mandel 05:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentences you quote have been removed or altered. I have also added some citations to the Reported potential harmful effects section and will add more. The affects on Vitamin B12 are not noted anywhere I can find. I have added a link to one site which claims copper absorption problems but this seems of dubious quality as it makes no citations itself. Vitamin c is not antibacterial in its own right but works in the blood stream to increase the immune response and neutralise bacterial toxins. It does no harm to gut bacteria that I know of. I hope this answers your questions. I am removing the NPOV Lumos3 15:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Looking at the anti-Vitamin C section, it's clear that it's meant to debunk the fact that high dosage Vitamin C could potentially be harmful.  Every sentence is followed by a counter-argument.  Yet nothing at all is made against claims that high dosage Vitamin C is useful.  This is clearly POV, isn't it?  Anyway I give up on this article, like lots of Wikipedia. Mandel 02:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be at least honest, I've place the NPOV tag back.  Lumos3 claims that he/she is removing NPOV.  I'm not so sure. Mandel 02:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV: Much of this article itself comprises advocacy for the high-dosage camp 

message: I am taking the aspirin comparison out as I’m not sure what argument this is trying to promote. Aspirin an example of a therapeutic agent that has been around a long time , and like Vitamin c is no longer patentable.  But this is an established agent in general use and the research has been conducted retrospectively into harmful side effects
Whereas vitamin C has never been recognised as a therapeutic agent except by a few isolated practitioners.
The question is who will fund research in a potential therapeutic agent for which there is little potential profit to a future manufacturer. Lumos3 09:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with Aspirin 

message: I congratulate the author(s) on the production of a fair and balanced summary of what is known or surmised about Vitamin C. As an avid reader of Linus Pauling, however, there is a correction that needs to be made. He never suggested that the  lack of ability to synthesize Vitamin C was a "defect". Quite the contrary. He suggested that the primate's shedding of that costly metabolic machinery gave it an evolutionary advantage. The "defect", if any, is in the environment we have manufactured--one that contains so little natural food that we no longer acquire the Vitamin C we need in our diet.
ericArmstrong 11:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree; Our inability to produce Vitamin C is more a kickback from our heavily herbivorous ancestors than an evolutionary "error" or "defect." Generally, less molecular machinery results in a lower overall energy need, and is generally advantageous in light of the fact that it was easy to obtain the finished product from other sources. In addition to what I surmise was stated by Linus Pauling, there's also a section on it in Why We Get Sick by Nesse and Williams, when they refer to kickbacks from our ancestral habitation/eating habits. As with most evolutionary science this is all theoretical, but the word "defect" seems to be inappropriate. Might I suggest, instead, that it is a "deficiency?"--UnFlammable 02:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I haven't seen powder for sale in the US, in drugstores or otherwise.  That said, bulkfoods.com has a facility to order powder (in quantities up to several gallons).  Pakaran 23:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Genetic Defect 

message: See Man in the wikipedia (i'm sure you've heard of the wikipedia ;). The first line (disambiguation) says:
:This article concerns man in the sense of "human male". For other meanings of man see Man (disambiguation).
So let's avoid this ambiguous term. If you like, put in human, for people unaware of the scientific name of their own species... If you are a robot reading this, then you probably already know that you are generally not classed in any biological category - sorry, this is anti-robot bias. :P Boud 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV usage of "Man" 

message: This is going to take some writing; several times.
Semantics
Various literature over 75+ yrs of relevant human experience covers vitamin C daily consumption ranges from about 0.3 mg/day up to about 300 grams/day, 6 orders of magnitude.  Terminology needs to unified so that accrurate, reliable communication can occur about vitamin C.   The "RDA conservative" vocabulary stymies and disrupts orderly discussion.  One is the "anchoring" of conversation with trival amount/inappropriate test failures and descriptors that steadfastly refuse to recognize reality - substantial numbers of people use ascorbates in ranges of 2 to 200 g/day! 
Describing ~1  gram/day as "large" relative to the local RDA may seem descriptive to "RDA conservatives" but is a mathematically inaccurate representation of current experience and reality.  It is actually in the middle of the logarithmic scale of human use. Historically many people lived miserably, and died, in the 0.3mg-3mg/day regime. 200 to 300 g/day orally/iv is occasionally used therapeutically. 
The words "large" and "small" are certainly used differently between vitamin C / orthomolecular "proponents" and "RDA conservatives".   Both groups have experienced drift toward somewhat higher values over the years.   "therapeutic" is a dangerous word because of potential legal - regulatory problems
vitamin C      	effect                                     	possible description
<0.3 - 3 mg/day	frankly scorbutal diet                     	dangerously small amount
3-10 mg/d      	slowly scorbutal diet                      	unhealthy small amount
30-200 mg/d    	ascorbic prophylaxis                       	basic RDAs, ascorbic minimums if not stressed by environment or illness
200-2000 mg/d  	general health claims                      	larger, intermediate, medium?
2-20 g/d       	orthomolecular maintenance doses           	medium to large
15-200+g/d     	orthomolecular therapeutic, bowel tolerance	"large" to "very large"
: Above comment by User:69.178.31.177 was cleaned up by me. SeventyThree(Talk) 20:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantics and Testing 

message: Raspberries are listed in the table twice, once as having 30 units and once as having 20 units.  Which is it?  Scott Ritchie 10:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the lower figure which seems the least widely quoted. As mentioned in the article the figures are just a guide and individual raspberry harvests will produce different levels depending on a wide variety of local conditions so this is not a precise science.. Lumos3 11:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raspberry in the table twice 

message: I picked up a bottle of "Ester-C" -- "Ph buffered Vitamin C with Calcium".  I'm interested to learn more about this, and how it differs from the other forms I've seen.
It says that each tablet contains 1000mg of Vitamin C from Ester-C brand calcium ascorbate.  This piques my curiosity (and sets off warning bells).
The fine print says:  Manufactured for and distributed by wn pharmaceuticals Ltd., under a trademark licence agreement with Sunkist Growers Inc.  Ester-C is a registered trademark of Oxycal Laboratories, Inc.  Used under license by Inter-Cal Nutraceuticals.  Manufactured under U.S. Patent No. 4,822,816.  Other foreign patents pending.
* What is this "Ester-C"?
* How is it different?
My research is a bit limited at this point.  Maybe someone in these parts will know how to get more information.
-- Sy / (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ester C is a brand name for ascorbyl palmitate, a fatty acid ester of ascorbic acid.  The idea is that when consumed, the ester is hydrolized in the stomach or bloodstream to release the free ascorbic acid.  Wikipedia doesn't have an article yet for ascorbyl palmitate, or the related stearate.  I'll do a little research and start the articles. Edgar181 15:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to correct myself.  I looked at the patent you mentioned.  Ester C is actually a brand name for calcium ascorbate and is often confused with vitamin C esters such as ascorbyl palmitate.  The difference between "Ester C" and other (non-hyped) mineral salts of ascorbic acid is likely to be inconsequential. Edgar181 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information on Ester-C 

message: I heard on BBC that strawberries have more vitamin C than kiwis, but the list says otherwise. Could someone clarify this?
: As the article says, there are many factors that can affect the amount of vitamin C in any particular fruit.  Some kiwis may have more than some strawberries or vice versa depending on variety, growing conditions, etc.  Edgar181 21:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I think it's a good idea to keep the figures rounded to the nearest ten millgrams. --Uthbrian (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiwis vs. Strawberries 

message: Reading this article about vitamin C reminds me of salespeople that sell vitamin C bottles. Most information that you can find on the web is presented to the public by people that have a conflict of interest because they sell vitamin C bottles. I am almost 100% certain that this article was written by one or several persons who work in the retail of vitamin and mineral supplements. This article is very favorable to the idea that people should supplement themselves with vitamin C. Beware people, don't go running to the store to mega-dose yourselves with vitamin C or any other vitamin or mineral. ITS FOR SALE, THEY MAKE A PROFIT. Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.54.199.117 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon User who wrote above. Please be more specific in your criticism. Nowhere does this article tell people how much Vitamin C to take or to take supplements. It does report, accurately  I hope, the recommendations from various bodies. Lumos3 00:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivity 

message: Doesn't exactly comply w/ standards:
"Vitamin C enriched teas and infusions have increasingly appeared on supermarket shelves. Such products would be nonsense if boiling temperatures did indeed destroy vitamin C at the rate it had previously been suggested. It should be noted however that as of 2004 most academics not directly involved in vitamin C research still teach that boiling temperatures will destroy vitamin C very rapidly."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sganjam (talk • contribs) 06:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A casual inspection of the ascorbic acid article shows that it decomposes around 190-192°C, well above the boiling point of water.  Clearly, vitamin C is not destroyed by brewing enriched teas with boiling water.  It would take pressure-cooker temperatures to achieve that, but most food canning operations don't get anywhere close to that temperature, usually staying below 250°F (121°C).  The problem isn't that vitamin C is destroyed, but rather, its solubility in water.  Cooking dissolves it out of fruits and vegetables, and the water is usually discarded, along with the ascorbic acid it contains. It may not be great prose, but it is scientifically accurate.  The only thing at issue might be lack of a citation for "most academics". —QuicksilverT @ 22:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad writing 

message: I placed vitamin C supplements first, because they are vitamin C, not merely plant material or meat with vitamin C in it, and as such most closely matches the article's and section's subject.  So, vitamin C itself comes first, followed by food items containing vitamin C.  --Pantothenate 04:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're reading things into the section that aren't there.  Putting vitamin C at the top merely presents it as the highest potency source.  It doesn't turn it into anything.  What vitamin C is is the subject of this article.  It may or may not be considered a drug by some, but the source section doesn't mention anything about vitamin C being anything.  It may be considered a macronutrient by others, but this stance is irrelevant to the source section, since we are dealing with where the reader can find it.  --Pantothenate 11:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of Vitamin C - order of presentation 

message: Rather than report an argument this section argues one side only . It needs substantial revision to also present the side of the government agencies involved. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view . Lumos3 12:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you provide references to source material supporting the government agencies' position, I'll be happy to take a look. --Pantothenate 00:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics of Vitamin C 

message: It seems that megadose proponents have gone through the article and added numerous comments supporting their position. Most of the time it is only obliquely mentioned that 'large dose therapy' is not considered well supported by the mainstream. We need to make sure that conventional medical opinion is clearly differentiated. 
Pauling's Nobel prizes and his status as a scientist (unrelated to his VitC theories) are used multiple times as an appeal to authority to make his theories seem better supported. The reader has to go to other pages to discover that his VitC ideas are quite controversial.
I'm not talking about censoring megadose material, but it all needs to be labelled appropriately and grouped together for clarity.
Ashmoo 03:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megadose info 

message: This section has been added by annons with no supporting citations and conflicts with what is written elsewhere in the article on dose. Please cite sources or it will be deleted. Lumos3 22:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of Overdose 

message: As I recently had a cold, I had been intaking Vitamin C in the form of water-soluble pills. One pill, dissolved into a glass of water, gives 1 g of Vitamin C. There are 20 pills in a tube. What would happen if I were to dissolve the entire tube's contents in a glass of water and drink it? Based on the article, I wouldn't be in any real danger of dying from overdose unless I used ten or twenty tubes at once. JIP | Talk 17:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not recommended — 20 grams of tablets is very sour and hard to get down. • 20 grams is a "heroic" serving when one wakes up in the morning sick with a cold, and one is desperate to attempt to get some work done that day, but nearby to a toilet just in case. When I tried it, it was late in a cold, and the result was all symptoms disappeared within three hours, for the rest of the day. I repeated that every day for four days to the end of the cold. It might not work for someone else's genes, or differing viruses. • I assume that you wouldn't be able to get down ten or twenty tubes; also, you would shortly be too busy in the bathroom to continue. Milo 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to spread it out over the day:  maybe 1 gram each waking hour, as I think Adelle Davis recommended for people sick with a virus.  Different sicknesses and different people will need different amounts.  If it's a really bad cold maybe 2 grams each hour. If you get diarhea-like symptoms it's time to reduce the dose a bit -- but not suddenly stop.  --Coppertwig 05:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theoretically every cold/flu has a different grams per day need, so the logical step is to serve to up to BT when one gets home. Getting through the night is tough by trying to take a gram or two per hour. What worked for me last time was 5 grams (1 teaspoon of C powder and 2 tsp of Gatorade powder premixed into mini zip pill bags), whenever symptoms broke through at night, maybe every 1-1/2 to three hours. Milo 10:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't waste the time to dissolve them, our ascorbic acid tablets contain 1 gram C + flavinoids (1.2 grams total) and wash them down with water (how large are yours?). Personally never did more than 12 grams in one shot (per 1.5 - 2 hours, maybe a flu, be careful not to choke on too many at a time), but will usually initially load to bowel tolerance at 2 to 8 grams per half hour as necessary (not lately, take C daily 4 or 5x). More than 20 in one shot? Unless you have some man-eating disease, I doubt you will dissolve the second tube for a quick second round before you visit the bathroom, but it will probably pass in a little while... 1/3 usual sweetened lemonade concentrate + AA powder isn't bad if you like sour lemonade, although the sugar is not optimal. Smaller, more frequent steps are usually better. Reread Cathcart, Vitamin C Foundation or Andrew Saul.--I'clast 07:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ascorbic acid tablets can damage the stomach, according to the book Life Extension (if I remember correctly).  Better to use a powder.  Better to use a buffered form.  I buy it as a powder so I don't have to bother crushing tablets.  It's better that way anyway;  lower price maybe, and more pure -- they don't need to add starch or whatever to make the pills stick together.  Sometimes helpful to take with food, but I don't bother when I'm taking it every hour.  I don't wake up specifically for the purpose of taking vitamin C.  Sleep is also important and helps overcome the illness.  I keep a glass of water with vitamin C dissolved next to the bed and have some if I happen to wake up.  It degrades, but I think it's not too bad for 12 hours or so in the dark.  Arginine taken at bedtime (without other protein) is reputed to stimulate the immune system.  Going to sleep at a good, regular time or a little early can help too. Many other nutrients, e.g. vitamin A and zinc, are also important for overcoming illness.  --Coppertwig 14:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Other things I've done:  when I have a bad cold, it feels good to put vitamin C powder on the back of my throat.  It feels as if that's where it's needed.  It seems to alleviate sore throat somewhat for about half an hour at a time.  Hot drinks are good, too (maybe not at the same moment as the vitamin C.) I've also used vitamin C sublingually.  I mix vitamin C powder with a small amount of water and put a few drops under my tongue.  I keep it there for a few minutes, then swallow.  I have the impression that about half of it gets absorbed into the blood vessels of the mouth and the other half gets swallowed.  If I have a bad cold I might repeat this every few minutes for a while.  The purpose is to get the vitamin C into the blood stream, bypassing the digestive system and avoiding the symptoms of uncomfortable stomach or diarrhoea.  It seems to work. I assume it's bad for the teeth, but maybe not very bad if it's buffered vitamin C -- maybe similar to doing the same thing with sugar.  Doing this occasionally during an illness may not hurt the teeth much.  --Coppertwig 03:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overdose of Vitamin C? 

message: Note that there is discussion re deletion of the one sentence about vitamin C as a treatment for AIDS in the AIDS article and neutral point of view.  --Coppertwig 12:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view re vitamin C in AIDS article? 

message: I understand the health effects of Vitamin C is a contentious topic.  I noticed some of the statements in this article contradict other statements elsewhere or in other articles.
One exmaple, under Therapeutic_uses is "Vitamin C's effect on the common cold has been extensively researched and shown to have no effect."  This contains a link to the Wikipedia article, "Vitamin C's effect on the common cold".  The second paragraph of that article reads "The results of three meta-analyses show that vitamin C in doses ranging from 200 mg to 2 grams per day reduce duration, but not incidence, of the common cold by 8% for adults and 14% for children."
A 8%-14% reduction in the common cold's duration for certain populations certainly is an effect!
I get the impression that people on both sides of the issue contributed parts of this article, leading to inconsistency across the overall article.  I humbly suggest a volunteer review the entire article and reconcile these differences and inconsistencies.
167.136.242.30 (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: The evolutionary claims advanced by Mathhias Rath have no bearing in science whatsoever. Giving him an entire paragraph in this article lends him undue respectability.Can you imagine an article on the element mercury say, with a paragraph about the controversial doctor-x who theories that evolutionary deficiencies of it result in tennis elbow or some such nonsense. This article is replete with dubious nutrition as it is,without adding spurious evolutionary theories into the mix.Im removing the mathias paragraph for this reason.If people want to read about his crack pot theories they can look him up in his main article. Gerfinch 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: The article begins with: 
"Vitamin C ... is an essential nutrient required in small amounts"
When we read the rest of the article, we realize that what small means is actually the root of the debate on vitamin C (emphacized two sentences later). Small amounts, yes: smaller than protein, lipids, and sugars, yes. But as small as other vitamins? It would be partial (biased) to let this be suggested. The reference provided in the section "Natural mode of synthesis"  : 
Milton, K. (1999) "Nutritional characteristics of wild primate foods: do the diets of our closest living relatives have lessons for us?" Nutrition. 1999 Jun;15(6):488-98.
which supports:
Most simians (higher primates who cannot produce vitamin C) consume the vitamin in amounts 10 to 20 times higher than that recommended by governments for humans.
Has its importance. If we accept that vitamin will mean "small amounts" in this case as well, without perceiving the very problem caused by this choice of words, we are not neutral. I would suggest something like the following:
instead of:
Vitamin C or L-ascorbic acid is an essential nutrient required in small amounts in order to allow a range of essential metabolic reactions in animals and plants. Vitamin C is widely known as the vitamin that prevents scurvy in humans.[1][2][3] The joint US-Canadian Dietary Reference Intake recommends 90 milligrams per day and no more than 2 grams per day (2000 milligrams per day),[4] although the amount that humans require for optimum health is a matter of on-going debate.
I suggest:
Vitamin C or L-ascorbic acid is essential to allow a range of essential metabolic reactions in animals and plants. The unability to produce vitamin C (gulonolactone oxidase deficiency) is rare(ref avail.). It is shared by all great apes/primates/simians, including humans. The former consume vitamin C in amounts 10 to 20 times higher than what the latter consume. The amount that humans require is a matter of on-going debate. Vitamin C is most widely known as the vitamin, which, in small amounts, prevents scurvy.[1][2][3]
The following research, which also summarizes earlier results by others, poses well the problem that we are facing when speaking of vitamin C:
Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2003 Sep;136(1):47-59.
Micronutrient intakes of wild primates: are humans different?
Milton K.
Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, Division Insect
Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3112, USA.
kmilton@socrates.berkeley.edu
Low micronutrient intake is implicated in a diversity of human health problems,
ranging from problems associated with food insufficiency to those associated
with food over-consumption. Humans are members of the order primates, suborder
anthropoidea, and are most closely related to the great apes. Humans and apes
are remarkably similar biologically. In the wild, apes and monkeys consume diets
composed largely of plant foods, primarily the fruits and leaves of tropical
forest trees and vines. Considerable evidence indicates that the ancestral line
giving rise to humans (Homo spp.) was likewise strongly herbivorous
(plant-eating). The wild plant parts consumed by apes and monkeys show moderate
to high levels of many minerals and vitamins. The estimated daily intake of
specific minerals, vitamin C and some other vitamins by wild primates is often
quite high in comparison to intake levels of these same micronutrients
recommended for humans. Are the high micronutrient intakes of wild primates
simply a non-functional, unavoidable by-product of their strongly plant-based
diets or might they actually be serving important as yet undetermined
immunological or other beneficial functions? A better understanding of the basis
for this apparent difference between humans and wild primates could help to
clarify the range and proportions of micronutrients best suited for optimal
human development, health and longevity.
PMID: 14527629 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
FULL TEXT: 
http://nature.berkeley.edu/miltonlab/pdfs/kmilton_micronutrient.pdf
Any ideas on how to improve on fairness ?
Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 07:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my addition to this Talk page, below, to see some comments on this issue. Antelan talk 22:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the opening sentence 

message: Moved uncited, oversimplified stmt here for discussion, improvement, and references. "Additonally, high doses of Vitamin C can reduce the effectiveness of chemotherapy as the Vitamin C neutralizes some of the free radicals generated by the chemotherapy intended to destroy malignant cells."--TheNautilus 04:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, vitamin C is used by the immune system to create free radicals in order to kill cancer cells.  (See the book Ascorbate by Hickey) --Coppertwig 12:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemotherapy interaction 

message: The section "Vitamin C hypothesis" has this sentence: The fact that man possesses three of the four enzymes that animals employ to manufacture ascorbates in relatively large amounts, has led researchers such as Irwin Stone and Linus Pauling to hypothesize that... is this factually correct? As far as I know, most humans actually have two, instead of three, enzymes that play a part in the biosynthesis pathway. All humans lack l-gulonolactone oxidase due to the GULOP mutation. However humans who have only this mutation can still produce enough Vitamin C to stave off scurvy, i.e. at least 15mg. But 70% of humans also lack the lactonase enzyme that starts off the biosynthesis chain, and hence cannot produce any Vitamin C at all, thus being susceptible to scurvy. Source: http://centernet.okstate.edu/students/electives/nutrition/vitamin_c.cfm
Is this correct? And if it is, shouldn't the page be edited to reflect that? Added by User:Shernren 13:54, 3 January 2007 (unsigned at the time)
:These claims are very interesting. I have not seen it claimed anywhere else that around 15% of humans can still synthesise some vitamin C . As this paper is unsourced , unattributed and is in a Student area of the site,  I would like to see other references before its added to the article. It could be someones original pet theory. Lumos3 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many Vitamin C biosynthesis enzymes do humans have? Two or three? 

message: In the contraindications section, it states that deficiency of a particular enzyme can make a person prone to anemia, and that it can be exacerbated by consumption of things that induce oxidizing stress.  It then goes on to imply that consumption of high doses of Vitamin C should be avoided for this reason in persons with this condition.  
This makes absolutely no sense.  Vitamin C is a reducing agent, not an oxidizing agent.  If anything, it should be used to treat the condition.
--Uberhobo 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contraindications Section 

message: I can't help but be curious, is there anything in this article that goes over this, even briefly?  I know it prevents scurvy, and helps certain diseases or whatever, but other than that what does it do to help the human body?  I'm in 10th grade doing a Biology paper, and one of the questions I had to answer was the importance of Vitamin C to the body, which isn't in my notes, and I can't find the section for it in my textbook.  I could just write down that it prevents scurvy, but that's my answer to the next question 'what might result if we have a deficiency of Vitamin C?'.  If I somehow missed it in the article, I'm sorry for that.  But if I did, and it was there, I don't know how reliable this article could be if I couldn't even find it with the index or my skimming.
:I'm not entirely sure of all the uses (there are a few), but by far the most important one is that Vitamin C is an essential cofactor required for the production of collagen, which happens to be the human body's most prevalent protein. Collagen is a hugely important structural component found in skin, bones, blood vessels, fibrous tissue, cartilage and hair. So, I guess you could say that without Vitamin C, we literally fall apart! It's in the article, but in a very obscure place; I'll try and sort that out - Jack · talk · 22:06, Monday, 19 February 2007
::I have restored the Functions in the Body section which appears to have been deleted by a vandal (Ip 195.194.218.251) last 14th November and somehow gone unnoticed. Lumos3 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, (despite the edit conflict :P) I was trying to sum that up but failing miserably. I changed the section header levels back to how they were, I feel it looks better this way - Jack · talk · 22:48, Monday, 19 February 2007
I have not seen mentioned Vitamin C in treatment of vision problems, particularly using formulations designed to forestall or limit damage from macular degeneration.  For example, Bausch & Lomb's PreserVision supplement contains 226 mg (377% DV) as ascorbic acid in one gel capsule, and the recommended dosage is two per day, one in the morning and one in the evening.  This is combined with Vitamin E, zinc, and copper, and, in some formulations, with beta carotene or, in others, lutein. There are other brands of similar preparations as well.  A physician at the University of Rochester (NY) Eye Institute has prescribed it for very early signs of macular degeneration. CMcCrell (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of Vitamin C to the Body? 

message: Wikipedia is supposed to be a compendium of facts, not advice or instructions.  This sentence needs to be deleted or modified:  "Patients with a predispostion to form oxalate stones or those on hemodialysisSullivan JF, Eisenstein AB. Ascorbic acid depletion in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1970; 23:1339–1341 Deicher R, Horl WH.Vitamin C in chronic kidney disease and hemodialysis patients. Kidney Blood Press Res. 2003;26(2):100–6. should avoid excess use of vitamin C.".  Besides, I disagree:  for some such people, there may be a strong reason to take large amounts
of vitamin C which might outweigh the concern expressed here.  This sentence can be deleted or can be replaced
with a sentence along the lines of "such-and-such institution recommends that ...".  --Coppertwig 14:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it's been changed to a NPOV statement.  Thanks! --Coppertwig (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  facts, not advice 

message: Dr. Thomas Levy's Curing the Incurable: Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins has been removed because it is already cited in the notes. (#39, for the moment) There is no need to repeat the book's name in the reference section. --BorgQueen 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curing the Incurable: Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins 

message: The vast majority of animals and plants are able to synthesize their own vitamin C, achieved through a sequence of four enzyme driven steps, which convert glucose to vitamin C.
It is important to specify that glycogen is actually the primary substrate. There is no direct glucose-to-ascorbate pathway. I encourage others to check it out. I'll find the references anyways.  Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 06:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glycogen specifying 

message: Hi, I have moved the "Therapeutic applications of high doses" section away from the "vitamin c as a macronutrient" section because I understand nutritional and pharmacologic considerations to be different things. This change was reverted on the basis of neutrality. I don't perceive that this can be supported. Have I missed something? 
Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 06:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Therapeutic uses section 

message: At first glance, I found this title to be a little redundant. A Web search shows that this phrase is used is similar contexts. I apologize for the hasty removal. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 06:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the title section "History of human understanding" 

message: Substituted at 20:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment