Re: Ascorbic Acid thread

[Guest guest]

On 9/5/07, tarinya2 <tarinya2@...> wrote:

> Perhaps the reason that we don't synthesize our own vitamin C like

> most animals is because (when eating a healthy diet) we simply don't

> need very much vitamin C except in cases of illness.

Sounds possible to me and I think it's kind of strange that this

possibility is being overlooked as if it didn't exist...

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> > Perhaps the reason that we don't synthesize our own vitamin C like

> > most animals is because (when eating a healthy diet) we simply don't

> > need very much vitamin C except in cases of illness.

>

> Sounds possible to me and I think it's kind of strange that this

> possibility is being overlooked as if it didn't exist...

I think when things are looked at from an evolutionary viewpoint a lot

of things tend to be viewed as a malfunction rather than a (correct

intentional) design.

[Guest guest]

> > Perhaps the reason that we don't synthesize our own vitamin C like

> > most animals is because (when eating a healthy diet) we simply don't

> > need very much vitamin C except in cases of illness.

>

> Sounds possible to me and I think it's kind of strange that this

> possibility is being overlooked as if it didn't exist...

But the animals that do produce it produce it in much greater amounts

when ill. In the goat, 13g ascorbate per 150lbs is produced per day

normally but over 100g per 150lbs when ill or stressed.

If we don't need very much ascorbate except in cases of illness, how

would we survive times of illness? As anyone who's had a cold can tell

you, eating a few extra oranges a day doesn't seem to make a bit of

difference.

It's possible that uric acid, which seems to have taken over some of

ascorbic acid's role in humans, is produced in much greater amounts by

the stressed body just like ascorbic acid in other animals. But even

if this is true, the clinical evidence that ascorbate can drastically

shorten or prevent many illnesses suggests that it is useful

therapeutically even if humans have gotten by without it all along.

Tom

[Guest guest]

Good point - I forgot the adrenals were divided up by the whole tribe.

I also didn't realize that they contained so little C by weight. I've never

seen real numbers, just the mention in NAPD.

Perhaps the high purine content of their organ meat rich diet keeps their

uric acid high enough to compensate?

-Lana

On 9/5/07, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

>

> Remember also that not only are the adrenals a small gland, but this

> group would kill a moose, and then they would divide up the adrenal

> glands into portions among the entire tribe. What they were probably

> getting was the tiny amount necessary to prevent scurvy.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

A loss of function (which is what we see in this particular case) is

not the same as a malfunction. It is likely that the selective

pressures within the primate lineage for this gene were, at one

point, relaxed. As a result, a fortuitously well placed single (yet

random) mutation in the gene could have disrupted its function and

been maintained. For it to be maintained for such a long time,

however, there must have been some advantage to not having the

functional gene. It would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that

there could have been a cost to having the functional gene in

ancestral primates at a time when vitamin C was plentiful in food.

Dietary availability would have then relaxed selection on the gene

further, allowing even more mutations to accumulate. See also http://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=240400 for additional

references.

-jennifer

On Sep 5, 2007, at 1:33 PM, tarinya2 wrote:

>

>>

>>> Perhaps the reason that we don't synthesize our own vitamin C like

>>> most animals is because (when eating a healthy diet) we simply don't

>>> need very much vitamin C except in cases of illness.

>>

>> Sounds possible to me and I think it's kind of strange that this

>> possibility is being overlooked as if it didn't exist...

>

> I think when things are looked at from an evolutionary viewpoint a lot

> of things tend to be viewed as a malfunction rather than a (correct

> intentional) design.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 9/5/07, Tom Jeanne <tjeanne@...> wrote:

> > > Perhaps the reason that we don't synthesize our own vitamin C like

> > > most animals is because (when eating a healthy diet) we simply don't

> > > need very much vitamin C except in cases of illness.

> But the animals that do produce it produce it in much greater amounts

> when ill. In the goat, 13g ascorbate per 150lbs is produced per day

> normally but over 100g per 150lbs when ill or stressed.

From what I've read, it takes a lot less than 100 grams of vitamin C

to combat a cold -- more like 8 -10 grams.

> If we don't need very much ascorbate except in cases of illness, how

> would we survive times of illness? As anyone who's had a cold can tell

> you, eating a few extra oranges a day doesn't seem to make a bit of

> difference.

I don't really understand the question. A few oranges might not be

enough to combat a cold, but most people who don't supplement C during

illness still *survive* it.

> It's possible that uric acid, which seems to have taken over some of

> ascorbic acid's role in humans, is produced in much greater amounts by

> the stressed body just like ascorbic acid in other animals. But even

> if this is true, the clinical evidence that ascorbate can drastically

> shorten or prevent many illnesses suggests that it is useful

> therapeutically even if humans have gotten by without it all along.

I know it's useful therapeutically, but that doesn't mean we require

it at high levels on a daily basis.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 9/5/07, Steinbachs <jen@...> wrote:

> A loss of function (which is what we see in this particular case)

We don't see a loss of function; we infer a loss of function after

seeing what *could* be a descendant pseudogene. I make the

distinction because that isn't the *only* possible inference.

> not the same as a malfunction. It is likely that the selective

> pressures within the primate lineage for this gene were, at one

> point, relaxed. As a result, a fortuitously well placed single (yet

> random) mutation in the gene could have disrupted its function and

> been maintained.

There must be something non-random about it, because there is high

agreement between the substitutions in the human pseudogene and the

guinea pig pseudogene, and clearly neither are descended from the

other:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed & Cmd=ShowDetailView & TermToSear\

ch=14703305 & ordinalpos=2 & itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.\

Pubmed_RVDocSum

> For it to be maintained for such a long time,

> however, there must have been some advantage to not having the

> functional gene. It would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that

> there could have been a cost to having the functional gene in

> ancestral primates at a time when vitamin C was plentiful in food.

> Dietary availability would have then relaxed selection on the gene

> further, allowing even more mutations to accumulate. See also http://

> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=240400 for additional

> references.

That's a good point. Emma Davies suggested last year that it was to

increase glucuronide levels, if I remember right.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> From what I've read, it takes a lot less than 100 grams of vitamin C

> to combat a cold -- more like 8 -10 grams.

According to Cathcart, try 8-10g per *hour* in the case of severe

cold. FWIW, I have a cold at the moment, symptoms started on Sunday,

and I've been taking between 25 and 35 grams a day and the cold is

still going strong. (Can't easily take more due to my work.) According

to Cathcart and other orthomolecular docs, you only really stop a

viral illness when you " titrate to bowel tolerance " . In other words,

if you're not on the verge of diarhhea, you're not getting enough to

cure or even alleviate symptoms. From personal experience, I can say

that this does seem to be true--you can take " huge " amounts and not

see much effect because it's just not enough for your particular case.

I will note that today I had completely normal stool, yet I took 25

grams of vitamin C. Had I not been sick, this amount surely would have

given my upset stomach and the runs. Anecdotal evidence that demand

for ascorbate skyrockets in times of illness.

http://www.orthomed.com/titrate.htm

> I don't really understand the question. A few oranges might not be

> enough to combat a cold, but most people who don't supplement C during

> illness still *survive* it.

Colds are easily survivable even on a low-C diet, of course. What

about other diseases, though? The cold is the mildest example. Ebola

has a very high fatality rate. If the orthomolecular theory of

ascorbate is right, Ebola can be reliably cured by intravenous ascorbate.

> > It's possible that uric acid, which seems to have taken over some of

> > ascorbic acid's role in humans, is produced in much greater amounts by

> > the stressed body just like ascorbic acid in other animals. But even

> > if this is true, the clinical evidence that ascorbate can drastically

> > shorten or prevent many illnesses suggests that it is useful

> > therapeutically even if humans have gotten by without it all along.

>

> I know it's useful therapeutically, but that doesn't mean we require

> it at high levels on a daily basis.

Certainly not 100g a day, but perhaps as high as 10g a day when in the

normal healthy state. Again, this interesting theory of bowel

tolerance would suggest that if you don't get diarrhea from it, your

body is using all of it. I believe there are quite a few

epidemiological studies showing positive correlations between serum

ascorbate levels and indicators of good health (sorry I can't be more

specific). I need to check whether there are any that look at tissue

ascorbate levels because they are a much more reliable indicator of

body stores, the half-life of ascorbate in blood being 30 minutes.

Tom

[Guest guest]

Hi Tom,

> According to Cathcart, try 8-10g per *hour* in the case of severe

> cold. FWIW, I have a cold at the moment, symptoms started on Sunday,

> and I've been taking between 25 and 35 grams a day and the cold is

> still going strong. (Can't easily take more due to my work.)

Well, ok -- that might mean you aren't taking enough C, or just that C

by itself is not a cure-all for the cold. I personally take about 8

grams of C per day, 50-100 mg of zinc, and some extra fat-soluble

vitamins, and I generally kick a cold in a day or two. But, I can't

guarantee that it's because of the nutritional protocol. It could be

my personal biochemistry or the viruses I happen to come in contact

with or a combo of all those things.

I have never heard of 10g/hour anywhere, but I don't know who Cathcart

is and I'm not initiated into the C megadose literature, so I guess

I'll just concede the point.

> According

> to Cathcart and other orthomolecular docs, you only really stop a

> viral illness when you " titrate to bowel tolerance " . In other words,

> if you're not on the verge of diarhhea, you're not getting enough to

> cure or even alleviate symptoms.

I wonder what evidence there is for this, aside from the intuitive

connection of this symptom with the maximization of the dose.

> From personal experience, I can say

> that this does seem to be true--you can take " huge " amounts and not

> see much effect because it's just not enough for your particular case.

Or because the remedy for your particular case required more than a

megadose of C.

> I will note that today I had completely normal stool, yet I took 25

> grams of vitamin C. Had I not been sick, this amount surely would have

> given my upset stomach and the runs. Anecdotal evidence that demand

> for ascorbate skyrockets in times of illness.

>

> http://www.orthomed.com/titrate.htm

That's pretty interesting. I'd be hesitant to make a big conclusion

from it without knowing the mechanism of bowel tolerance and how it

might relate to need, but that's definitely something to factor into

the picture.

> > I don't really understand the question. A few oranges might not be

> > enough to combat a cold, but most people who don't supplement C during

> > illness still *survive* it.

> Colds are easily survivable even on a low-C diet, of course. What

> about other diseases, though? The cold is the mildest example. Ebola

> has a very high fatality rate. If the orthomolecular theory of

> ascorbate is right, Ebola can be reliably cured by intravenous ascorbate.

Ok -- I don't remember the original question we're addressing but I

have no doubt that C megadoses can be useful for certain therapeutic

uses. What I doubt is that very large doses are necessary on a daily

basis to prevent degenerative diseases.

> > > It's possible that uric acid, which seems to have taken over some of

> > > ascorbic acid's role in humans, is produced in much greater amounts by

> > > the stressed body just like ascorbic acid in other animals. But even

> > > if this is true, the clinical evidence that ascorbate can drastically

> > > shorten or prevent many illnesses suggests that it is useful

> > > therapeutically even if humans have gotten by without it all along.

> >

> > I know it's useful therapeutically, but that doesn't mean we require

> > it at high levels on a daily basis.

> Certainly not 100g a day, but perhaps as high as 10g a day when in the

> normal healthy state.

That doesn't follow from it's therapeutic usefulness. That is what I

mean. It has to be based on its own evidence.

> Again, this interesting theory of bowel

> tolerance would suggest that if you don't get diarrhea from it, your

> body is using all of it.

Ok but does this really qualify as a " theory " or is it just an

imaginative speculation?

>I believe there are quite a few

> epidemiological studies showing positive correlations between serum

> ascorbate levels and indicators of good health (sorry I can't be more

> specific).

I'm sure there are but I have also read that blood levels plateau at a

dose somewhere around 200 mg/day.

> I need to check whether there are any that look at tissue

> ascorbate levels because they are a much more reliable indicator of

> body stores, the half-life of ascorbate in blood being 30 minutes.

That would be useful, and also whether tissue levels keep correlating

with intake after blood levels stop.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I wonder if titrating to bowel tolerance causes microbial selection? After

all, wouldn't some ascorbic acid reach the colon intact?

It seems to me bowel balance has a lot to do with organic acids - selecting

for good organisms requires lactic acid with some butyric and acetic acids.

I wonder if ascorbic acid has a similar effect...

-Lana

> According

> > to Cathcart and other orthomolecular docs, you only really stop a

> > viral illness when you " titrate to bowel tolerance " . In other words,

> > if you're not on the verge of diarhhea, you're not getting enough to

> > cure or even alleviate symptoms.

>

> I wonder what evidence there is for this, aside from the intuitive

> connection of this symptom with the maximization of the dose.

>