• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Need help debunking Vitamin C megadosing

This is a pretty cool chart I found yesterday giving the harmful side effects of various natural substances in high doses, vitamins included

http://1stholistic.com/nutrition/hol_nutr-toxic-dosages.htm

I purchased a book at the bookstore the other day that made my day , a complete list of all herbal interactions. It is a rather thick little book ( that with a little google ninjary one could find. Unfortunately i do not want to get specific as promoting illegal downloading of the book is not something i want to do. I really do suggest buying it. ) and something i intend to keep on hand quite a bit to counter claims of " It's natural, it is not going to hurt you."
 
I will have a closer look at each of the studies, however, the majority of studies on vitamin superdosing indicate that they do far more harm than good.

No "however" needed, since nobody outside the OPs "friend" has suggested megadoses. I think the largest dose in any of the studies I mentioned was still only about 2000mg. By comparison Pauling suggested daily intakes of 10000mg and above.

I just picked a few studies while doing a quick search, there's quite a bit around so have a look yourself. Again though, the research is a bit haphazard.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately i do not want to get specific as promoting illegal downloading of the book is not something i want to do. I really do suggest buying it.

Why do you assume everyone will illegally download this book instead of buying it?

If I'm that interested in a book I purchase it from either eBay or abebooks.

RayG
 
I'd like to see that from your "good friends" homeopathic remedies
Yup, me too. They feel personal experience trumps all. Why the scare quotes? I'm godfather to one of their daughters...
 
... it certainly isn't in the realm of homeopathy, as dlorde suggested
I was comparing the anecdotal claim from personal experience, not the remedy (this was before you posted the research you were basing the remedy on).
 
Is vitamin C megadosing useful against certain allergies?

After reading some of the replies to my thread on a similar topic, I was wondering if megadosing on Vitamin C has any effect on certain types of allergies (rather than on the common cold), such as runny noses and the like.

As hay fever is a allergy, the thread "Is vitamin C megadosing useful against certain allergies?" has been merged into this thread.
Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited by a moderator:
After reading some of the replies to my thread on a similar topic, I was wondering if megadosing on Vitamin C has any effect on certain types of allergies (rather than on the common cold), such as runny noses and the like.

Vitamin C

Ascorbic acid. A water soluble vitamin which is easily destroyed by cooking and by contact with alkaline substances. Some vitamin C is lost in freezing and preserving, and it is also easily oxidised.

Deficiency

At its extreme, vitamin C deficiency causes scurvy, a disease characterised in its early stages by swelling and bleeding gums, loosened teeth, followed by muscular weakness, joint damage and subcutaneous haemorrhages. Less extreme shortage of this vitamin leads to tender joints, bleeding gums, fatigue, general weakness, lowered resistance to disease and muscle degeneration. The body needs to build up a reserve of ascorbic acid, by receiving regular daily supplies: scurvy is still a problem today during the long winter months in Scandinavian countries where fresh fruit and vegetables are in short supply, and the body's reserves are depleted.

Overdose

Large doses of vitamin C can generally be taken without any problems, though some people may find that they have stomach problems with an intake of several grams a day. It is best to increase and decrease the amount taken gradually, as a sharp increase in vitamin C can cause diarrhoea, while suddenly cutting off a high daily dose can cause fatigue.

Benefits

Vitamin C is vital for the formation of collagen and connective tissue - tendons, ligaments and cartilage. It maintains the strength of the walls of blood vessels and helps the body to absorb iron. It helps fight infection and diseases such as high blood pressure, arteriosclerosis and cancer.

In larger doses, it is an antioxidant, mopping up the oxygen free radicals that destroy cells and cause ageing. It also makes an important contribution to the antioxidant action of other vitamins, particularly vitamin A and vitamin E. Caution is required in preparing foods to gain maximum benefit from the vitamin C. If the vitamin itself becomes oxidised, it will encourage the production of free radicals, rather than fighting them. Oxidation can be caused by the metals iron and copper in food when the vitamin C's cell membranes have been weakened by cooking.

It is believed that ascorbic acid in larger doses may help prevent cancer by stopping the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines from nitrates and nitrites present in food. It also improves the function of while blood cells, which fight viruses, bacteria and cancer cells.

In conjunction with vitamin B1 and the amino acid cysteine, vitamin C helps to counteract the damaging chemicals produced in the body by alcohol, nicotine, exhaust fumes and the toxic heavy metal, cadmium.

Recent studies show that vitamin C also helps to prevent the formation of bad cholesterol and reduces levels of LDL cholesterol in the body. It may thus be involved in protecting us from high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis.

Sources

Vitamin C is found in citrus fruit, berries, tomatoes, peppers, broccoli, cauliflower, potatoes, fresh green vegetables and chillies. Remember how easily it is destroyed by heat, light and freezing - try to eat fresh, uncooked fruit and vegetables for maximum vitamin C.

RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance)

The RDA for vitamin C is 60 mg for a healthy adult. Pregnant women, smokers and heavy drinkers need more. All RDAs are calculated as the minimum levels required in order to prevent the occurrence of well-known vitamin deficiency symptoms.

Since the idea of RDAs was generally accepted, much more has been learnt about the benefits of various vitamins, and doses well above RDA levels are commonly used to help prevent disease and boost the immune system, as shown above.

too much and it will give you a really bad stomach for a start..
 
As a parent of a child with multiple severe food allergies, I can say that all of our doctors - pediatricians, pulminologists, allergists, the team at the Jaffe Food Allergy Institute at Mt. Sinai - agree that Vitamin C as an allergy cure is utter woo.
 
In vitro, animal, and studies which measure non-specific physiological changes serve the same function as screening tests for the presence of disease. A negative result is very good at ruling out the possibility of effect, but a positive test is quite useless at ruling in the possibility. All it does is identify a smaller group on which to perform more specific tests (outcomes based interventional trials) which are capable of ruling in an effect, so that resources are directed towards a group with a somewhat higher yield than an unselected group. However, most of the members of the group selected by screening still do not actually have a useful effect. So to act on the result of a screening test means that either you have to act on the entire group (there are hundreds of substances which haven't yet failed in vitro and animal studies with respect to inflammation, which would make your typical day quite busy and expensive), or that you are most likely wrong. What icerat suggests is the equivalent of lopping off breasts every time an abnormal mammogram is encountered.

Linda
 
What icerat suggests is the equivalent of lopping off breasts every time an abnormal mammogram is encountered.

You're seriously equating ingesting of a harmless yet technically feasibly helpful amount of a natural, essential nutrient with lopping off a breast?

Personally I place greater value in breasts, but that's just me.

Loss Leader said:
As a parent of a child with multiple severe food allergies, I can say that all of our doctors - pediatricians, pulminologists, allergists, the team at the Jaffe Food Allergy Institute at Mt. Sinai - agree that Vitamin C as an allergy cure is utter woo.

I'd agree with them. What do they say about it possibly helping alleviate symptoms?
 
You're seriously equating ingesting of a harmless yet technically feasibly helpful amount of a natural, essential nutrient with lopping off a breast?

In both cases, you are acting off the results of a screening test. That one of them involves something innocuous is why the foolishness does not draw the same reaction (not because it's any less foolish from an evidentiary stand point).

Personally I place greater value in breasts, but that's just me.

That's what you're supposed to say. :)

Linda
 
In both cases, you are acting off the results of a screening test. That one of them involves something innocuous is why the foolishness does not draw the same reaction (not because it's any less foolish from an evidentiary stand point).

Sorry but that's poor science and even poorer logic. It's poor science because we don't have good studies showing it's ineffective, and we have some studies showing it is. Not what I'd consider approaching "proof", but on balance it's more likely to be a real effect than not.

It's poor logic because you've ignored externalities and outcomes, which in the analogy you gave are pretty significant variables to consider.
 
Sorry but that's poor science and even poorer logic. It's poor science because we don't have good studies showing it's ineffective, and we have some studies showing it is. Not what I'd consider approaching "proof", but on balance it's more likely to be a real effect than not.

Studies with good reliability and validity show it is ineffective. The studies which support the possibility of effect have low reliability and validity. Under those circumstances, the possibility of a real effect is lower than that of no real effect.

It's poor logic because you've ignored externalities and outcomes, which in the analogy you gave are pretty significant variables to consider.

That's exactly what I did not ignore - studies looking at outcomes with good external (and internal) validity.

Linda
 
I once tried taking a lot of Vitamin C for a cold.
The cold did clear rather faster than usual (though well inside the sort of time range you might expect for an untreated cold) - but one marked side effect was a rather serious dose of the squitters.
No idea how common that is, but I'd avoid megadosing for that reason if no other.
 
Studies with good reliability and validity show it is ineffective.

sources? And remember, we're simply arguing about potential effect on inflammation here.

The studies which support the possibility of effect have low reliability and validity.

sources?

That's exactly what I did not ignore - studies looking at outcomes with good external (and internal) validity.

I suspect you misunderstood my use of the term externalities. Equating taking vitamin C with breast removal as treatments is most certainly ignoring externalities.
 
sources? And remember, we're simply arguing about potential effect on inflammation here.

The trials you mentioned earlier on histamine sensitivity and CRP do not address efficacy or effectiveness - that is, we do not have trials which demonstrate either. Trials of efficacy and effectiveness for a related condition - asthma - do not show an effect (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19160185). Absent information which can confirm efficacy or effectiveness, we are unable to distinguish vitamin C from any other substance which shows some pre-clinical effect with respect to inflammation. For example, there are homeopathic preparations with equivalent or better 'evidence' as to their possible efficacy in allergic rhinitis (http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7259/471.full).


http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Based-Medicine-Sackett-Illustrator-1_0443056862/dp/0443056862

I suspect you misunderstood my use of the term externalities. Equating taking vitamin C with breast removal as treatments is most certainly ignoring externalities.

What externalities are you thinking of here? That there are differences in the risks of undertaking one vs. the other? It has been argued (not by me) that our evidentiary requirements are different when something is innocuous. Which brings us back to what I said earlier. This gives us hundreds of substances (including homeopathic preparations) to include in our daily regimen on the off chance that one or a few are effective.

Linda
 
Last edited:
For example, there are homeopathic preparations with equivalent or better 'evidence' as to their possible efficacy in allergic rhinitis (http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7259/471.full).

(1) better? It was self administered tests for cryin out loud
(2) better? What's the mechanism? There's little argument that vitamin C is bioactive and has influence on various systems, including for example T cell production and death

Following your logic, all science should now be dismissed because a homeopathy study was positive!

http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Based-Medicine-Sackett-Illustrator-1_0443056862/dp/0443056862

Primary sources please.

What externalities are you thinking of here?

Potential complications and other risks from serious surgery. Cost. Issues with self esteem. Trouble buying a bikini. How long a list do you want?

This gives us hundreds of substances (including homeopathic preparations) to include in our daily regimen on the off chance that one or a few are effective.

(1) if you subjectively feel it makes you feel better and that is worth the cost - then absolutely, go for it. And not based on "off chance", but because it actually worked for you. Frankly (deception issues aside, which may not even be necessary) I don't care if it is placebo.

(2) if you're going to dismiss all science that is not confirmed by multiple independent double-blind placebo crossover studies, with no contrary studies, you are going to be dismissing an awful lot of science. Heck, you'll be dismissing entire fields of science. Throw in those that don't have properly controlled placebo standards and you not going to have much left. There's not even any point studying nutrition since it's pretty much impossible to design a rigorous study that can cope with all the various interaction issues.

But hey, if that's the way you choose to live, that's your choice. Me, if something has a plausible mechanism, has some studies that indicate it may work, subjectively gives benefit, and is low cost and low risk - well, give it a go I say!
 
(1) better? It was self administered tests for cryin out loud
(2) better? What's the mechanism? There's little argument that vitamin C is bioactive and has influence on various systems, including for example T cell production and death

Better in the sense that it was directed at testing efficacy and effectiveness.

Following your logic, all science should now be dismissed because a homeopathy study was positive!

Huh?


The series of articles published in JAMA.

http://www.ebem.org/usersguidecitation.html

Potential complications and other risks from serious surgery. Cost. Issues with self esteem. Trouble buying a bikini. How long a list do you want?

I asked if that was what you meant. You could have just said "yes". :)

(1) if you subjectively feel it makes you feel better and that is worth the cost - then absolutely, go for it. And not based on "off chance", but because it actually worked for you. Frankly (deception issues aside, which may not even be necessary) I don't care if it is placebo.

Except that this definition of "worked" is meaningless. We are interested in preventing disease or death, or even in feeling better in a way that is somewhat substantial. Placebo doesn't do that. All it seems to do is alter your reports about a few subjective perceptions a clinically trivial amount.

(2) if you're going to dismiss all science that is not confirmed by multiple independent double-blind placebo crossover studies, with no contrary studies, you are going to be dismissing an awful lot of science. Heck, you'll be dismissing entire fields of science. Throw in those that don't have properly controlled placebo standards and you not going to have much left. There's not even any point studying nutrition since it's pretty much impossible to design a rigorous study that can cope with all the various interaction issues.

What are you talking about? Evidence-based recommendations mean that evidence exists for our recommendations and they reflect the strength of that evidence. Pretty much all of medicine would be left.

But hey, if that's the way you choose to live, that's your choice. Me, if something has a plausible mechanism, has some studies that indicate it may work, subjectively gives benefit, and is low cost and low risk - well, give it a go I say!

I'm just curious what you have against the hundreds of other substances you should be taking, then.

Linda
 
Better in the sense that it was directed at testing efficacy and effectiveness.

Huh? A double blind placebo study on bronchial function isn't testing efficacy and effectiveness?

The series of articles published in JAMA.

At a quick browse, none of those articles support the assertion that, for example, the study on vitamin c and bronchial function I cited has "low reliability and validity"

I asked if that was what you meant. You could have just said "yes". :)

which would have been nowhere near as much fun :D

Except that this definition of "worked" is meaningless. We are interested in preventing disease or death, or even in feeling better in a way that is somewhat substantial. Placebo doesn't do that.

Who gets to define "feeling better in a way that is somewhat substantial"? I'd suggest it's the person feeling better, not you. (unless of course it is you in that particular case!)

What are you talking about? Evidence-based recommendations mean that evidence exists for our recommendations and they reflect the strength of that evidence. Pretty much all of medicine would be left.

Oh come off it. You dismissed a quality study because there were other studies in the area that showed something similar and no effect, or something similar from something that should have no effect.

Do you really believe that "pretty much all of medicine" is based on science that has never had studies that were inconclusive or negative?

Event at it's best medical practice is based on an accumulation of evidence. It's almost never consistently positive.

I'm just curious what you have against the hundreds of other substances you should be taking, then.

Ignorance of the substances mostly. If you can show me stuff that

(a) may plausibly be beneficial to health
(b) has little or no evidence to indicate it is risky to health
(c) has some supporting science, even if equivocal, that it may be beneficial to health
(d) has minimal other risk or cost
(e) my personal experience indicates it's beneficial to me

Then yeah, I'll give it serious consideration!

PS (e) isn't even necessary, given the potential long term benefits eg something like resveratrol, or heck, olive oil
 
If you are referring to this study you linked to earlier:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2221490
The answer is no. You may want to consider researching the meaning of those two terms in relation to medical studies because they have specific meanings.

Please, do enlighten, in the context of the discussion where this study -

http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7259/471.full

is considered to show it, but apparently this study -

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2221490

does not.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom