Talk:Vitamin C/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


What good is Vitamin C? What are its many uses in the body?

In general, the entire article needs to restructured to support the theories presented in the opening paragraph. Additionally, all of the Vitamin articles should have the same structure. In particular, the opening paragraph should give the user what they're most likely to be looking for (What it is, How much do we need and What is it used for) and it should do so at the 4th grade level. Subsequent paragraphs can then introduce more complex information and social debate.

If verified, the following might be paraphrased or quoted: "The only established role of the vitamin appears to be in curing or preventing scurvy. Vitamin C is the major water-soluble antioxidant within the body. The water-soluble properties of vitamin C allow for the quenching of free radicals before they reach the cellular membrane." from (unknown information quality) in the section on Physiological Role

3D Modelling

Looks like when talking about vitamin C, the question of the chirality of ascorbic acid is systematically occulted and as far as I know the effect of ascorbic-L (vitamin C) are very different from the effect of ascotbic-R! As a non chimist I even have sometimes a little doubt that could be dissipated with a 3D model of the Vitamin C. As far as I know only a 3D model allows anybody to reallise that the mirror image is not the same as the original!


Vitamin C can be used to manufacture iron? What is this, cold nucleosynthesis or something? Get Pons and Fleischman on the phone!


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 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)

--A tribe of natives who ate from iron cauldrons suffered from iron toxicity immediately after being given Vitamin C. Vitamin C increases the bioavailability of iron (see above).

Old source of Vitamin C

The use of lemons and limes to prevent scurvy dates back hundreds of years - and the use of spruce leaves even further. They just didn't know the chemical name for vitamin c.

Ascorbic Acid vs Vitamin C

Why isn't this on Vitamin C? And why is the name, "Vitamin C," put in bold each time it is used? --LMS

Should Vitamin C redirect to Ascorbic Acid or Ascorbic Acid redirect to Vitamin C ?
I think Ascorbic Acid should be main, and Vitamin C redirect, but I made it (maybe temportarily)
the other way not to make too much mess. -- Taw
Neither. "Ascorbic acid" should be an article that describes the chemical itself, briefly mentioning the fact that it is also a human nutrient known as "Vitamin C" (with a link). The "Vitamin C" article should emphasize the history of its discovery as a nutrient that prevented scurvy, and that it was later discovered to be the chemical "Ascorbic acid" (with a link). --LDC
What ? That's plain absurd from biochemical p.o.v.
Ascorbic Acid is a Vitamin due and only due to its chemical properties.
And you can't describe vitamin in a way that would satisfy a chemician w/o refering to biochemical reactions
it is required for. --Taw
You misunderstand my point. The word "vitamin" implies a relationship to human health; the term was used for chemicals whose composition was unknown, but whose effects were. Any article using the word in its title should be from the human-health point of view. "Ascorbic acid" itself, from a purely chemical point of view, is just a chemical with properties all its own independent of humans. We discovered at some point that Vitamin C was in fact ascorbic acid, but that doesn't mean we should forget all the science that was known about both before we knew that they were the same thing. Let's not ignore the history of scientific discovery by assuming that we always knew things that we happen to know now. --LDC
If anything, Vitamin C should redirect into ascorbic acid, because ascorbic acid is more general. Otherwise they should be kept as separate entries. This is one of the unresolved issues of Wikipedia philosophy--should we merge related topics into one page, or have separate entries which link to each other? How closely do they have to be related or subordinate in meaning to merit merging? (Anarchy/anarchism is another good example.)
In this case, if we prefer merging, then Vitamin C should merge into Ascorbic acid, and its info would go under a subhead of something like Ascorbic acid as a vitamin.
Vitamin C is not the equivalent of ascorbic acid. Ascorbic acid describes the chemical properties of a molecule. Vitamin C describes the Nutritional , Historic, Economic and Cultural role of one kind of ascorbic acid molecule in human experience. See earlier discussion of this on this page.
Lumos3 00:46, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Apart from which, quite a lot of "Vitamin C" is sodium ascorbate, not ascorbic acid per se - David Gerard 14:26, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
Also dehydroascorbic acid , Calcium ascorbate , Potassium ascorbate , and fatty acid esters of ascorbic acid such as Ascorbyl palmitate and Ascorbyl stearate are all vitamin C Lumos3 17:17, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Doctor Within also asserts vitamin C is more than ascorbic acid, saying Szent-Georgi found he couldn't cure scurvy with ascorbic acid alone, so he hunted for other parts...rutin being one. Citing Empty Harvest p120 22:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Have a look at --Magnus Manske
I think the argument is overdone. What matters is the knowledge is there and people can get to it whether they type Vitamin C or Ascorbic Acid - Andy A.M. 2005-11-04


Why is Ascorbic Acid capitalized?

Pop group

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)

Harmful effects

no harmful effects have been reported even in doses of 10,000 mg per day or more. This is contary to what is written here. Which is correct? Crusadeonilliteracy 15:33, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This article makes little mention of the sources of these claims of harm.
Although many authors site theoretical risks I have found no studies demonstrating actual risk. Also the question of how most mammals can remain healthy on high serum levels of ascorbic acid has to be answered.
For a detailed look at high dose effects see

I deleted the bit about dietary modificaitons to treat iron overload. The paper referenced is odd. It is a case report of a single patient and the changes in Ferritin level in the article were not clinically significant on treatment. Sine the referenced paper was published it has become clear that hemochromatosis is due to disregulation of iron absorbtion at the level of the intestinal mucosa. Kd4ttc 03:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Experiment proposal moved to talk

How heat-sensitive is vitamin C?

An experiment

This experiment should be easy to conduct for most adaequately equipped professionals:

  1. Pour water into a heat resistant container, eg. a suitable glass beaker.
  2. Dissolve a certain amount of vitamin C in the water.
  3. Set up a sensor to measure, in real time, the vitamin C content in the water (sensor must be capable of returning reliable data at varying temperatures).
  4. Likewise, set up a temperature sensor, for real time temperature data.
  5. Place a heat source, for example a bunsen burner under the container.
  6. With the help of a watch, monitor the vitamin C content over time. Optionally repeat the experiment at varying temperatures.

Measuring the vitamin C content of water eliminates the error source of the vitamin leaking from vegetables into water (see above).

Could people conducting the above experiment possibly please add a link to their results here? Results of this experiment are otherwise hard to find on the Internet and I'm not now personally equipped to repeat the experiment myself; least of all in an academically accredited setting. Thanks.

This is not an "experiment proposal". This is an experiment that has been conducted and was included in the article as backup for specific claims. As I sadly cannot find relevant sources/records of the experiment anymore and especially since I cannot find such sources on the Net, it is very important to include this experiment description in the article:
  1. Without the (for relevant professionals) easily accomplishable experiment, the pertinent statements will appear unfounded.
  2. Because the scientific myth of vitamin C's extreme "temperature sensitivity" is so unquestioningly repeated and thus deeply ingrained in common teaching, it is important that academically accredited results be added which can reliably establish (or hypothetically also refute, but I don't believe it) what I wrote. There simply will be no one who will conduct the said experiment unless the question is put on the table. This will benefit all sides.
  3. The added comment in italics makes the "ongoing"/"open" nature of the issue plain for everyone to see, so there will be no misunderstandings about the current situation as regards the burden of proof.
For these reason, I am putting the experiment back into the main article and I would ask for discussion prior to any repeated removal (if there is still anyone considering removal).
Ropers 05:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This has no place in an encyclopedia article on Vitamin C. The Wikipedia is not a place for results of personal research, and is still less the place for proposals that someone carry out personal research. - Nunh-huh 05:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I find it more than unacceptable that Nunh-huh just dropped the above note (against the wording of which I also object) in here and then immediately went ahead and again deleted my said contribution when I had clearly asked for a discussion prior to removal.
(Admittedly, on the revert without notice issue, I could be seen as being guilty of the same crime, because when I hit an edit conflict before going to bed yesterday, I just semi-consciously went ahead and saved my version, thereby actually reverting Nunh-huh's deletion again.)
However, I put it to Nunh-huh that he not even read the article as I left it and did not even make an attempt to understand where I was coming from. He just deleted what seemed kinda conspicious to a fleeting eye — and he even didn't make an effort to stop and double check before he re-deleted my contribution: He even left a dangling link (later removed by Lumos3).
I am extremely offended by what I feel was Nunh-huh treating me condescendingly (also see his comments in the history).
I am seeking help to resolve this through some kind of mediation and/or arbitration. As a still moderately new Wikipedian, I have not yet been in a situation quite like this and would be grateful for any help and guidance about how best to proceed and where to take this. I don't believe there is any merit in me talking directly to Nunh-huh at this stage because I feel he rudely insulted me. I feel that the way he disputed my statements by implication means that he accused me of making up things that I was accurately recounting. He referred to "proposals to carry out personal research" — as if the said experiment was a personal pet project of mine that I sought to promote. It isn't. It is — in the absence of known links to results or print references — backup towards the validity of statements I made (because it's reproducable). The article as I left it yesterday: [1] - [User:Ropers|Ropers]] 17:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can find no material on the internet that supports the claim that Vitamin C is heat stable. I am doubtful that this claim should be left in the article unless some citations can be found to support it. I don’t think the inclusion of an experimental method to support this claim is appropriate to the encyclopedia article. An encyclopedia is a summary of knowledge, even if disputed, not a discussion. Disputed knowledge may be included if it can be reported who is making the claim for it but the article should not be used as an area to build an argument. So I would ask User:Ropers to find the reports which support this finding. Lumos3 19:13, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this bit should be left in either:

"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."

This appears to be an attempt to insinuate that anyone who teaches that vitamin C is destroyed by vitamin C is not involved in research on the topic. There is no evidence for this, and I would say it is most likely false. The more likely situation is that vitamin C enriched teas are being sold as a gimmick without any proof of their efficacy, as is the case with so many other health foods. I am removing the above paragraph from the article until its author can come up with some evidence to support its content. Gamsarah

Vitamin C advocacy section

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)

The Hickey, Steve & Roberts challenge / changes by

I think the information added by 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)

I'm not sure how allowable the Steve Hickey research is. Its publication seems to have been using the vanity press 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)
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)


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)

10 kilos of Vitamin C a day?

"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)

In his book, page 8, Pauling states :

Take vitamin C every day, 6 grams (g) to 18 g (6000 to 18,000 milligrams [mg]), or more. Do not miss a single day.

--Congruence 21:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Potential of Potassium as a measurable part of VITAMIN C

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)

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)

Billy Goat Plum

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 [2]. Greenman 20:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


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)

Vitamin C cures all diseases, including leg amputations

This article says that you should eat tons and tons of vitamin C everyday for the rest of your life. One paragraph I saw was a cut and paste from a website owned by a vitamin C salesman. He sells vitamin C becuase it practically cures everything, makes you feel better and feel more energetic. Vitamin C will also make your girlfriend love you some more. Should we include in this article the links to all the websites where people can buy these vitamin C bottles? One salesman even said that vitamin C improves your IQ by killing viruses that attact the brain. Well, thats their story. Somebody please re-write this article to be objective and not to promote vitamin supplements. Seriously, 5 grams a day is not recommended by any nutritionist, except the ones that sell the vitamins.

NPOV: Much of this article itself comprises advocacy for the high-dosage camp

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

I have split the Harmful effects section into those which are known and not contested and those which are the subject of a debate amongst researchers. The question here is how Wikipedia represents a genuine debate amongst the scientific community. I think this is best done by highlighting what is consensual and what is contested and unproven. Lumos3 22:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I now consider the Harmful effects section to be back on NVOP and will shortly remove the tag. Lumos3 22:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Moving comment here

User:Pakaran inserted the following in the section which states Advocacy recommendations and so does not make sense. Lumos3

It is unclear what quantities most advocates actually take, however one online merchant,, sells ascorbic acid powder in quantities up to 27 lb (12.3 kg, or enough for 350 years at the maximal RDA of 95 mg).

Comparison with Aspirin

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)

Not a Genetic Defect

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)

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)

Looking at the poor overall health of mankind I think it is a defect, at least from today's view. There is plenty of food energy so there's no point in saving energy (at least not in the wealthy countries), but being unable to produce some 5000mg/d (when being well, or even much more, when being ill) in the body as it would be maybe the case without that defect, is a severe problem, as it is hard to get that amounts of Vitamin C into the body by food. Supplements obviously help.

I have personally tested continuous vitamin C doses in the range of 2..30grams/d (mostly taking about 10g/d when feeling well) since about fall 2004 and I can confirm that some problems I had just went away or got much better. I can also confirm that it does NOT prevent you from any cold (but maybe from SOME?), but you feel better while having it, it is less severe.

BTW, I also found it not that great that sells VC now. When I found the site some time ago, they didn't do that. Maybe they could have avoided being accused of conflicts of interest by continuing not selling stuff. But OTOH it can be seen as some compensation for the time and resources they spend on collecting / offering all that information - I don't think they get rich by that.

BTW, a cheap source of vitamin C is just buying ascorbic acid powder at the drugstore. Usually you get 100g for about 1.5 - 2.5 EUR - even cheaper is buying it by kg, I got 1kg for 7 EUR here in Germany. Pills are often much more expensive and I consider them not being worth the money - as far as VC is concerned. -- tw

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

NPOV usage of "Man"

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)

Semantics and Testing

This is going to take some writing; several times.


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: was cleaned up by me. SeventyThree(Talk) 20:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


In the industrial world of specialty chemical marketing, Mandel's reference[3], the study's authors might qualify for a reward, a pretty good job of sandbagging the study. The study looks good to the average skilled person, but the protocol is severely undermined in several distinct ways. Orthomolecular approaches to cold suppression with vitamins occur at three levels: (higher than RDA) maintenance levels to reduce likelihood, duration and severity; abortive dosing to use smaller/shorter but significant amounts to abort an incipient attack or illness; and high therapeutic dosing (see FR Klenner's IV results or Cathcart's oral bowel tolerance method with vitamin C) to overcome an established illness.

In the specific case of the Australian test, reasons why it was unlikely to succeed:

The initiation condition and timing for a lowest abortive dose requirement were way off. The protocol targeted 4 hours delay after early but definitive symptoms of illness. They reported actual averages of 10-18 hrs delay for the higher content vitamin C pills. An abortive othomolecular protocol would be at the first sign, *a* throat scratch or tickle, perhaps -1 hr to -5 hr "delay" by this test's threshhold of recognition and would likely use more vitamin C. Figuring that a virus might replicate several hundred or several thousand fold in a 4 to 12 hour replication cycle that dramatically increases the viral load with much greater dissemination, this is too late. This might be analogous to hand extinguisher instructions saying "spray immediately on a trashbasket fire" and then criticizing the manufacturer for product failure when you only attempted it after the entire house is ablaze. Too little now, way too late. Even alone, this factor made the test very unlikely to succeed. It used an inadequate amount for even abortive dosing to attempt recovery from an established illness that would likely now require high therapeutic dosing.

The division of doses was poor, perhaps even counter productive, figuring C absorbtion is typically 1.5 - 3 hours to peak blood concentration with a rapid decline due to short half life. 6+ hours after oral intake, blood levels are rapidly approaching the original blood level. 3x / day is only an orthomolecular health maintenance regime. Also % absorbtion with larger doses is less efficient, so 3x/day might deliver ~2/3 as much as 8x/day with a constant daily total. Orthomolecular therapeutic oral treatment of an illness is typically one dose per 2 hr to as little as 6 minutes using tablets to almost continuous with a high C drink to bowel tolerance. The pronounced high-too low "sawtooth" concentration is a real concern. Absorbtion blood level work from the 1930s-40s should actually be enough for any competent researcher to develop a more effective protocol frequency using more frequent doses per day.

The dosing regimes were obsolete by some fraction of a century. Prescient glimpses, studies in the 1940s-50s indicated more grams per day. Pauling himself initally suggested/published an estimate of 1g+/hour, and then increased to 2g/hr for improved recovery, not an instant, sure fire cure. Pauling's review and reanalysis of a number of studies indicated statistical improvements in the 1 - 8 gram day supplement regime over the background vitamin C levels. Repeated experience with vitamin C has indicated more C, sooner and more frequently to BT has a high probability of success soonest. In some cases individuals either can't absorb or tolerate enough vitamin C orally to succeed, their vitamin C alternative is IV if circumstances allow/ dictate. Orthomolecular oral daily dosages for colds are typically 40-100+g/day, more for flu. An oral 1 - 3g/day dose therapeutically is nonsense, used only if more is not available or allowed, perhaps to prevent gross depletion. In essence they temporarily used amounts roughly equivalent to 25% to 75% a common minimal daily, orthomolecular health maintenance program (4 x 1g per day) while claiming therapeutic level failures!

The duration of dosing was wholly inadequate. A fairly loose orthomolecular high dose therapeutic regime, 85-90+% bowel tolerance with 2 hr dosing might initially break a severe cold in ~three days. Continuing, an all out continuous/6 min regime at 99+%BT (ahem) may well initially break it in some cases in a day, assuming the individual has sufficient absorbtion (large individual variation here). Typically dosing continues at variable, reduced intakes for 2-3 days then tapering back to a maintenance schedule over a week. Just three days at such small subtherapeutic levels, naaaaahh, no one really expected it to fly.

Overdrawn conclusions (i.e. the product failed vs the protocol failed - too little, too late, too infrequently, too short), disparagement despite failure to meet or exceed Pauling's specific recommendations for a cold, and an overstated/sensationalized title ("Megavitamin" for 1 to 3 g/d when multiple, published results have long indicated mega- might be better associated with the therapeutic levels above 20 or 40 g/d and a 3 day total treatment for colds would be even higher.) Such conclusions and title suggest primary or secondary bias. By secondary bias I mean that caused by ignorance or indirectly such as "education" by secondary parties. By primary bias I mean bias knowingly introduced, or caused, by a knowledgable person or with a reckless disregard for pertinient information. Perhaps a majority of doctors may qualify as secondary bias, many "experts" and "authorities" have exhibited primary bias. Pharmas propel primary bias by funding, grooming and promoting friendly/favorite "authorities" and overly restricting the definition of evidence rather than analyzing the available information with respect to its uncertainties with respect to other observations. Recent scandals vividly demonstrate the problems we have with the pharmas and FDA.

I have not taken time to criticize some other points and detail about this particular study. Some of the studies Linus Pauling relied on over 30 yrs prior were better implemented for effect and better controlled in important aspects than the 2001 study discussed here.

Raspberry in the table twice

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)

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)

Vitamin C conversion to Oxalate

I've read that the research which asserted to find that Vitamin C increased the level of Oxalates in the urine was flawed, as the test was unable to distinguish between oxalates and Vitamin C, and confused the latter for the former.

Information on Ester-C

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)

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)
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)

I know there are a lot of variations on various kinds of supplements, but this is a weird one to me. Thanks for the lead.. if an article springs up, I'll sure be interested in it. =) -- Sy / (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

--I found an article from the Vitamin C foundation on EsterC, but that's a bit too biased a source for my tastes. It is still vitamin C, just buffered. It's possible that this would have less risk of indigestion when consumed in mega doses since this is essentially neutral pH-wise.

Kiwis vs. Strawberries

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)

I checked the USDA SR18 nutritional database. It says raw kiwifruit has 92.7 mg Vitamin C (n = 16; SE = 3.367), while raw strawberries have 58.8 mg Vitamin C (n = 9; SE = 2.473). 'n' is the number of samples used, while SE is standard error. --Uthbrian (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The table in the article is meant to be a comparison not a quotation of precise values, so it is rounded off to the nearest ten mg. It clearly states this. Different researchers will always get different values since there are so many variables that contribute to the concentration found in the fruit. The article lists these as the precise variety of the plant, the soil condition , the climate in which it grew, the length of time since it was picked, the storage conditions, and the method of preparation. It might be worth increasing strawberries to 60 mg per 100 grams on the strength of these figures. To give precise values is misleading since they imply that the fruit is guaranteed to supply this amount. Lumos3 00:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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)


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 (talkcontribs) 09:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Bad writing

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 (talkcontribs) 06:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Sources of Vitamin C - order of presentation

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)

I have placed natural sources first because this is where C was discovered and how the human body has evolved to find it. Artificial sources and the chemically pure form historically are recent additions. A vitamin is a substance in the natural environment that an organism needs to maintain life and health. Lumos3 08:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin C is vitamin C. The synthesized molecule is exactly the same as the molecule found in nature. The pure form of vitamin C most closely matches the term "vitamin C", for it is the actual thing itself, not merely something with vitamin C in it. So, when we say "sources of vitamin C", it makes perfect logical sense to put actual vitamin C first. --Pantothenate 01:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, the sources are all presented in the order of highest to lowest potency in terms of mg of vitamin C per 100 grams of source. Vitamin C supplements are the highest potentcy source (the powder being 100 g out of 100 g), and therefore should be presented at the top of the scale. --Pantothenate 02:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vitamins are by definition food sourced life essential molecules. Artificial synthesis may produce the same molecule but the food source is where humans and other organisms which need it found it for millions of years. Manufacture is a 80 year old human invention and comes last in order. Putting it first make the article look like a promotion of vitamin C supplementation. Lumos3 12:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's plain silly. That's like saying putting fruit first makes the article look like a promotion for fruit. --Pantothenate 00:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

For millions of years, species struggled for their immediate survival constantly. But with technological progress has come increased ease of survival. So to say something isn't as important because it is new, ignores the benefits it provides. From a technological standpoint, newer technologies are generally superior to older ones. That's the nature of advancement. Therefore, if a source is superior in some important way (in potency, range of applications, benefits, etc.), then it stands to reason that it should be presented first. Do you know what people used before toilet paper? Should we go back to the old way just because it was used longer? That argument isn't a valid one: the length of time a practice has existed is not a valid argument for its continued dominance. That depends entirely upon value. And the value which the items presented in the section are being measured by is obviously potency. To not apply that same criteria to Vitamin C itself is blatantly biased. --Pantothenate 00:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, you have not addressed this issue of presentation in order of potency. The entire section is sorted from high to low potency, yet you wish to place the highest potency source at the bottom of the scale. --Pantothenate 00:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added an intro paragraph which allows supplementation to be mentioned early but keeps the sources sections in the rough order in which the worlds population obtains vitamin c. –that is Veg sources, then Meat sources, then supplements. I think chemical strength is not a clear way to order these sections. An encyclopaedia needs to describe the world as it is. We are also describing a food here. Putting supplements at the front turns C into a pharmaceutical and a medicine which it is not, under normal circumstances. I have also returned the world production to the manufacturing section where its more relevant. I suspect but cannot prove that most manufactured C goes as a food preservative not a supplement. Lumos3 10:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

But since the section does focus primarily on the potency of sources, the potency of vitamin C as a supplement should be presented for comparison purposes. At the top of the scale. --Pantothenate 11:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Politics of Vitamin C

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)

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)

For now I have moved this section to follow the history section and the hypothesis section which it logically follows. Lumos3 10:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Megadose info

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)

Effects of Overdose

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)

I find the assertion that vitamin C causes nosebleeds to be both interesting and suspect. Many references list nosebleeds as a symptom of scurvy. I can find no supporting evidence for vitamin C causing nosebleeds. If the assertion is true however, then Vitamin C would both cause and cure nosebleeds under certain circumstances! 03:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted this section and replaced it with verifiable information.--Jedsen 20:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


"However, vitamin C is destroyed by the process of pasteurization, so babies fed with ordinary bottled milk sometimes suffer from scurvy if they are not provided with adequate vitamin supplements. Virtually all commercially available baby formulas contain added vitamin C for this reason." I think this is in contradiction with what one can read on the Vitamin C page...this page is bull shit!!!

Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C)

Say, does anybody know that how does pure Vitamin C taste like? Is it that sour taste what the Vitamin C supplements have? 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ascorbic acid pure cystals or powder tastes sharp like lemon juice
Sodium ascorbate tastes neutral
Calcium ascorbate tastes a little metallic. Lumos3 22:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I taste calcium ascorbate as slightly bitter.
Magnesium ascorbate is sour. Milo 03:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Overdose of Vitamin C?

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Neutral point of view re vitamin C in AIDS article?

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)


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. (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The reference concluding lack of effectiveness of "megadoses" involved a 200 mg test amount, which is not a megadose. I've been taking 500 mg a day for 3 years without a cold.WFPM (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

More pseudoscience

"Alternative medicine" is double-speak. If it is not medicine, then it cannot be called medicine. I am changing "alternative medicine" to "alternatives to medicine" to emphasize that "orthomedicine" is not medicine. An encyclopedia is not a forum for pseudoscientists to use double-speak to make their quackery sound legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully understand why you chose to talk about this topic. Is it a response to something? Is it in the article anywhere?
You should really make new comments at the end of the discussion not the top as it is generally the accepted place to put new posts in the discussion page.
On the topic of your comment I can't see why anyone using the phrase "alternative medicine" could be accused of being a "pseudo-scientist". I study pharmacy and while that doesn't make me a doctor or a scientist in the strictist sense I am more than familiar with medicines.
All lectures touching on the subject refer to term "alternative medicine". It is generally the accepted usage of the term.
Maybe it's a matter of opinion but anyone working in health care that I have worked with has referred to it as alternative medicine, regardless of whether they are working in the more typical medical setting or the alternative field.
Maybe it is double-speak and I am giving more credit than is due and I will admit I have strong opinions against homeopathy (other branches to me have more credability), but I don't think it is designed to mislead.
I also don't think categorically denying it on a seemingly random talk page on Wikipedia will have any effect on the way people will use the term. Why not go to the Alternative medicine talk page as it will have more imact there. Medos (talkcontribs) 16:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


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)

C Vitamin

Another indication (proof) of the myopia, insolence, and arrogance of the contributors from the Land of Intelligent Design: not only is this article incorrectly called 'Vitamin C' instead of 'C Vitamin' but THERE IS NO REDIRECT from 'C Vitamin' either. It's time people with this lack of savvy retired from Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Just created the redirect now :P ...although, I'm not totally sure it was needed — Jack · talk · 05:29, Wednesday, 21 March 2007
And GOD spoke, and C, there was a vitamin? Sorry, the pun's so bad, had to get rid of it :) 04:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

About the opening sentence

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" [4] :

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. 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: Any ideas on how to improve on fairness ? Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 07:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my addition to this Talk page, below, to see some comments on this issue. Antelan talk 22:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Chemotherapy interaction

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)

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)

How many Vitamin C biosynthesis enzymes do humans have? Two or three?

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: 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)

This hypothesis appears to be untrue. See link. TimVickers 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Contraindications Section

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)

Importance of Vitamin C to the Body?

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 last 14th November and somehow gone unnoticed. Lumos3 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
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)

facts, not advice

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[citation needed] or those on hemodialysis[1][2] should avoid excess use of vitamin C.[citation needed]". 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)

I see it's been changed to a NPOV statement. Thanks! --Coppertwig (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

racemic mixture?

The article currently claims, in the Biological significance section, Commercial vitamin C supplements contain a racemic mixture of both enantiomers of ascorbate, with both existing as a mix of ascorbic acid and mineral ascorbates. This statement seems to have been added by User:Jrockley on Feb. 19. I don't think it's true. I think vitamin C is normally synthesized as l-ascorbic acid and sold as such. It says later in the article that vitamin C is synthesized from glucose. Glucose is chiral, so that would tend to suggest that the vitamin C synthesized in that way would also be chiral. Small amounts of d-ascorbate being present (as claimed in the previous version) is different from a "racemic" mixture of equal amounts of both enantiomers. --Coppertwig 13:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have a source for that, and the source given doesn't state that. I just didn't think my statement through, and the source is probably an archaic reminant.
I think it's safe to assume that if Vitamin C is chemically produced, it will form equally in both forms, and if the undesirable form shows no biological activity, it'll be left in (see the thalidomide article) as that is cheaper. However, if the vitamin C is biologically produced (with enzymes) you're absolutely right, only the L form will be produced and sold. Probably best not to state either, without a source. Feel free to do as you will - Jack · talk · 14:21, Monday, 26 February 2007
Thanks. OK, I took out the part about racemic mixture. The footnote attached to that sentence (end of 2nd paragraph of Biological significance; link to "Vitamin C -- risk assessment") probably needs to be moved. It's probably a useful reference, but probably has little or nothing to do with the sentence it's attached to. Maybe to be moved to the bibliography, or attached to a different sentence. I'm not sure where to put it so I may leave it where it is -- maybe it supports various stuff said in that section. --Coppertwig 13:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The line "D-enantiomer has no physiological significance" has no reference and I can't find any studies that show that is is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Prooxidant effects

Should this article contain some information on the pro-oxidant effects of vitamin C? Here is a review on this topic for a starting-point. TimVickers 20:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what you write. Is it controversial? I thought vitamin C was an antioxidant, or can it be both? Perhaps you could draft it here, or just be WP:BOLD? — Jack · talk · 18:54, Thursday, 8 March 2007
If it does, it should make a point to distinguish that the pro-oxidant effects were found only in artificially produced vitamin C (supplements). There have been no pro-oxidant effects found in natural sources of vitamin C. See link 12:50, 26 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)


Here are my minor suggestions:

  • "This article describes its biological functions..." - an article mustn't contain such a sentence
  • This reference: Milton, 1999 should be expanded should be referenced properly as I found it at the end of the Reference section

My main problem is that whether we should include dose related information in a medical article. BTW, a well-referenced, well-structured article. NCurse work 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) I've implemented your minor change suggestions, and I've previously tried removing all of the dosage info here (to split into vitamin C megadosage), and here is where I added back a short summary. Do you think I re-added too much? — Jack · talk · 22:07, Thursday, 8 March 2007
Thank you, it seems to be good. Only one: It has been hypothosised that the vitamin can protect against: is it surely important? NCurse work 16:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I thought it would be a good example of the suggestions made by megadosers. If you have a look at Vitamin_C_megadosage#Therapeutic_applications_of_high_doses, you'll see that...

It has been hypothesised that the vitamin can prevent and cure a wide range of common and/or lethal diseases, ranging from the common cold and cataracts to controversial statements involving it being a cure for AIDS SARS and bird flu. There have even been suggestions that vitamin C can cure lead poisoning and autism. a very trimmed down version. I don't think it is particularly biased in anyway, and you could interpret it as "yes, us megadosers suggest that" or "ha! look at what those crazy megadosers are suggesting", and it is clearly important to the subject of the article. What would you include? Perhaps we could drop the last sentence — Jack · talk · 19:02, Friday, 9 March 2007

I just noticed that this page does not link to the German equivalent. Instead, the German article links to [ In my opinion, the "Deutsch" link in the left bar should then direct to [5].

BTW, the German [6] also redirects to [7] and I don't see why this doubling should be maintained.

Please, could anyone fix this who knows their way around with those Interwikis? I don't. ;-) Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA on hold

Please take care of the {{fact}} tags.--Rmky87 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done :) was that the only thing holding it back from GA status? — Jack · talk · 19:49, Friday, 9 March 2007
As far as I could see, yes.--Rmky87 05:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You should move ref#10 to the end of the sentence.--Rmky87 14:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

I am going ahead and passing this article as the {{fact}}s have been taken care of. This article needs the gaps to be fixed, the external link cleanup to happen, and some repetitive information that needs to be dealt with. As soon as this happens, I would recommend nominating it for Featured Article status.--Jorfer 03:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

^_^ yay! Thankyou! I'll get right on it. Only, could you specify what you mean by "gaps"? — Jack · talk · 05:41, Monday, 12 March 2007
The blank spaces. Nothing too serious; it takes seconds.--Jorfer 03:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've taken a shot at removing possible whitespace causes here, although it doesn't seem to have made much difference to me. Blankspaces depend largely on screensize, font, textsize, your personal thumbnail choice etc. I see no spaces, besides unavoidable ones surrounding the food summary tables. Any information about the way others see the article would help. — Jack · talk · 06:35, Tuesday, 13 March 2007

I went ahead and did it myself. Look here to see how I did it.--Jorfer 00:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Still looks the same to me. Yeah, I wouldn't have been able to fix that, I never saw any whitespace. But if it fixes it for some people, great! Thanks for that — Jack · talk · 11:47, Wednesday, 14 March 2007

Curing the Incurable: Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins

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)

To shorten the length of the article

Hi colleagues! For now on, I'll try to edit parts of this article that seem too wordy. I'll write "wordy" each time I think I encounter occurences of such problems. I intend to meet the challenge of having a concise and dense article for such an immense topic. If I sacrifice too much (I'll be very cautious), do not hesitate to revert! Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 06:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Although, I still think maintaining absolute neutrality is still your sticking point — Jack · talk · 03:36, Wednesday, 21 March 2007
Yes, and care must be taken to leave the necessary room for all points of views. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionable carnitine statement

"Two other vitamin C dependent enzymes are necessary for synthesis of carnitine."

I believe that only one vit. c - dependent enzyme is involved in carnitine synthesis (the first, I believe, to add an hydroxyl). This should be checked and the reference should be refreshed. Some open access documents must exist. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 06:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong: Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Dec;54(6 Suppl):1147S-1152S.
Ascorbic acid and carnitine biosynthesis.
* Rebouche CJ.
It has been suggested that early features of scurvy (fatigue and weakness) may be attributed to carnitine deficiency. Ascorbate is a cofactor for two alpha-ketoglutarate-requiring dioxygenase reactions (epsilon-N-trimethyllysine hydroxylase and gamma-butyrobetaine hydroxylase) in the pathway of carnitine biosynthesis. Carnitine concentrations are variably low in some tissues of scorbutic guinea pigs. Ascorbic acid deficiency in guinea pigs resulted in decreased activity of hepatic gamma-butyrobetaine hydroxylase and renal but not hepatic epsilon-N-trimethyllsine hydroxylase when exogenous substrates were provided. It remains unclear whether vitamin C deficiency has a significant impact on the overall rate of carnitine synthesis from endogenous substrates. Nevertheless, results of studies of enzyme preparations and perfused liver in vitro and of scorbutic guinea pigs in vivo provide compelling evidence for participation of ascorbic acid in carnitine biosynthesis. PMID: 1962562
Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Glycogen specifying

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)

Therapeutic uses section

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)

About the title section "History of human understanding"

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)

NPOV in first paragraph

The first paragraph is subtle, but induces bias for a person not already familiar with Vitamin C. A particularly precarious sequence is the following: The North American Dietary Reference Intake recommends 90 milligrams per day and no more than 2 grams per day (2000 milligrams per day).[6] Other related species sharing the same inability to produce vitamin C and requiring exogenous vitamin C consume 20 to 80 times this reference intake. The first statement is sourced and uncontroversial. The second sentence is unsourced, and needs support to be considered valid. From my experience with this material, I am confident someone will be able to find a peer-reviewed or otherwise acceptable source to back up this statement. Nevertheless, the juxtaposition of these two sentences leads the reader to question why the NADRI is 20 to 80x below what it is for other species. The inevitable conclusion is that the NADRI is set too low. This is a controversial point; as can be seen in Reference 24, there are thought to be evolutionary reasons behind the decreased need for vitamin C (involving uric acid). Glutathione and other molecules are also believe to fulfill similar antioxidant roles. As it stands, readers are not exposed to this additional information, and merely see that humans are getting 1/80th as much Vitamin C as do similar species. Therefore, I propose that either:

  1. A sentence be added, with references, saying something along the lines of However, it has been hypothesized that uric acid and glutathione have taken on many of the roles of Vitamin C in humans; or,
  2. The second sentence referenced above simply be removed as it is not a major contributory point of this article.

Any thoughts on the matter? --Antelan talk 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph also states that "its uses and requirements are matters of on-going debate" . Either the debate around vitamin C is not mentioned or some allusion to its nature must be made. Vitamin C is the only vitamin where there is a continuing debate within the scientific community and I believe this needs to be said at the opening. Therefore some form of words which describe it are needed in order to give a hint of its nature. Either we point to higher consumption levels in non ascorbic acid synthesisers or we mention that most organisms produce it endogenously in what must be considered vast amounts. Lumos3 01:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Those are actually two different ways of proffering the same point of view, not two halves of the issue. Because we mention that other non-ascorbic-acid synthesizers consume Vitamin C in higher amounts than humans, therefore we should also present the other half of the issue - that there is evidence pointing to compensatory mechanisms that account for our decreased requirements. Antelan talk 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The controversy is exactly that. Megadose proponents say the primates rely on fragile systems of second best molecules like uric acid and an essential fruit diet to perform a range of body functions. The original mammalian model they evolved from on the other hand self metabolises the ascorbate molecule in what seem to us vast amounts. The metabolic pathways for the ascorbate molecule are still there within the primates waiting to be utilised. Megadose proponents say our systems are broken and have picked up a range of patches to get by. Skeptics believe this patched system is the optimum one. Some kind of summary of these different views needs to appear in the introduction. Lumos3 23:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
In addition, it is justified to mention the intake of primate relatives because, in fact, primate dosers and non-primate dosers (I'wont use the term megadosers, it is not neutral, just like the term vitamin is not neutral), both sides of the controversy, agree on the following (quoted from the authoritative Online Mendeleian Inheritance in Man, but also agreed upon by Pauling):
The mechanism whereby an organism loses a particular metabolic function which is of no use in a particular environment was discussed by King and Jukes (1969). The accumulation of random mutations in the gene for the relevant enzyme might be expected to destroy the functional capacity of the enzyme, most mutations being disruptive. If the enzyme is not required in the particular environment, the constraint of selection is removed. Primates and the guinea pig, by this hypothesis, have lost the capacity to synthesize ascorbic acid because of the adequacy of dietary intake.
So what is this adequate dietary intake? What's mentioned here. It might be seemingly biased to state the facts but... it isn't! (of course)
I would add that those "second best molecules" are not well identified yet; uric acid is one candidate, yes, but lipoprotein(a) is another (more convincing one to me); there also exists a view according to which viruses, more specifically retroviruses, might have played an active role in human evolution, i.e. that such pathogens, considered higher in species not producing ascorbate, accelerated mutation rates and the selection of new, favourable traits in humans (but I don't remember well, I should get the ref.).
To be straightforward, I don't think that non-primate dosers support their views (that we need no more than 200 mg per day) with such rationales. I don't think that they generally mention uric acid or lp(a). Really. I read a lot of this, and what I consistently found is references to pharmacokinetic studies (correctly analyzed elsewhere in the article) suggesting that more than 200 mg a day is just "expensive urine".
I thus find questionable to add urate or lp(a) or glutathione, etc, to support the views of non-primate dosers while those molecules were actually brought and discussed by primate dosers who, contrary to non-primate dosers, felt that they had to understand how primates can live without endogenous ascorbate (mammalian doses, if I may).
To avoid any appearances of non-NPOV and to enrich the article, I would summarize this quote above in order to appropriately introduce the sentence on primate intakes. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 07:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
For greater neutrality, the single contested sentence could just be removed from the introduction, since the controversy is already alluded to in another introductory sentence. I think this is the preferable solution, since alluding to the controversy should be substantial enough for the intro paragraph; the conflicted viewpoints need not be elaborated until the body of the article. Antelan talk 17:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
What contested sentence? Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 03:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The sentence around which our discussion has been revolving. Antelan talk 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The sentence is now sourced. Please engage in the discussion. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 05:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The sentence has been sourced even since before I lodged my complaint. It's now double sourced. Read my discussion again; I'm concerned that it introduces bias; even supported sentences, when placed and worded in a certain way, can introduce POV. See WP:NPOV for more on that. See the discussion above for my suggestions on how to correct this. Antelan talk 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Before going further. You say: "The sentence has been sourced even since before I lodged my complaint." But after reading, again, the discussion, I am puzzled: you said "The second sentence is unsourced, and needs support to be considered valid." Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, forgive me for the timeline: sources have been added since I began the discussion. However, my statment was as follows: From my experience with this material, I am confident someone will be able to find a peer-reviewed or otherwise acceptable source to back up this statement. Nevertheless... As you can see, I fully agreed from the outset that the statement would easily find a source to back it up - nevertheless, that is not even close to the point of my entire discussion. It's a strawman. Please read above and you'll see that NPOV is the core of my concern, not the sourcing of one sentence. Antelan talk 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I have made the change - a single copy and paste - in order to put both (1) the RDA statement and (2) the megadose statement into their proper context, removing them from the introductory paragraph and leaving the briefer and more neutral introductory statement indicating that there is controversy. Antelan talk 05:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fact Check

The article currently contains this claim: Goats, like almost all animals, make their own vitamin C. An adult goat will manufacture more than 13,000 mg of vitamin C per day in normal health and as much as 100,000 mg daily when faced with life-threatening disease, trauma or stress. There is a source given for this claim, but it does not support, or even mention, the 100,000 mg/day figure. Can a stressed goat really pump out 100 grams (3.5 ounces) of pure Vitamin C every 24 hours? This sounds quite extraordinary so it would be great to have an actual source for this claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC). The best source I can find for this is a 1978 paper by Irwin Stone enttled Eight Decades of Scurvy. The Case History of a Misleading Dietary Hypothesis. He cites the work of two earlier researchers, Chatterjee, and Subramanian. [8]

Biochemical research in the 1950’s showed that the lesion in scurvy is the absence of the enzyme, L-Gulonolactone oxidase (GLO) in the human liver (Burns, 1959). This enzyme is the last enzyme in a series of four which converts blood sugar, glucose, into ascorbate in the mammalian liver. This liver metabolite, ascorbate, is produced in an unstressed goat for instance, at the rate of about 13,000 mg per day per 150 pounds body weight (Chatterjee, 1973). A mammalian feedback mechanism increases this daily ascorbate production many fold under stress (Subramanian et al., 1973).
Lumos3 10:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through a handful of the other sources and updated the article to read what the sources actually claimed, which in many cases was quite different from what was stated in this article. It's a bit spooky that even some of the sourced statements are untrue to their sources. Antelan talk 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I imagine that's quite common with community built resources. Perhaps someone added a source to give credibility to their OR, hoping no-one will see it? Well done for spotting that, btw :) — Jack · talk · 03:11, Monday, 16 April 2007
Thanks, Jack. I've also removed another statement: The implication of those calculations, if correct, is that vitamin C was misnamed as a vitamin and is in fact a vital macronutrient like protein or carbohydrate. I removed this because it was not sourced, and the Wikipedia article on macronutrients defines them as being required to provide energy, not just being required for health. That article is not sourced, either; if that article incorrectly defines macronutrients, by all means it should be corrected and this sentence could be reinserted into this article. Antelan talk 03:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Vitamin C/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Substituted at 20:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Sullivan JF, Eisenstein AB. Ascorbic acid depletion in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1970; 23:1339–1341
  2. ^ Deicher R, Horl WH.Vitamin C in chronic kidney disease and hemodialysis patients. Kidney Blood Press Res. 2003;26(2):100–6.