Comments
SuburbanSquare t1_j96eesu wrote
Vitamin C by IV because eating it, your body maintains a lower dose than was tested by this study
[deleted] t1_j96qnte wrote
[deleted]
SuburbanSquare t1_j96r5d6 wrote
Except if you eat a megadose, your intestines only absorb up to “X” blood concentration, and they are dosing 3X or something.
cobrafountain t1_j96vl5d wrote
You can absorb quite a bit more by taking liposomal vitc, which you can buy or make yourself
elralpho t1_j96r8x5 wrote
x = 80-100 micro moles
soflasurfr t1_j99hydo wrote
What about vitamin injections. Local doc always trying to sell shot sod vitamin B, etc.
Darkhorseman81 t1_j98ivtb wrote
Mega dose is stupid. The body uses what it needs in the moment and excretes the rest.
Slow release Vitamin C, 24 hour slow release, is what you need.
Ancient humans had genes to produce their own constant low supply Vitamin C. These genes were lost or silenced.
This has lead to loss of epigenetic quality control, particularly in blood. As Vitamin C regulates a quality control gene called TET2, which is related to DNMT DNA methyltransferases.
Means we can mutate more and evolve quicker, but makes us more predisposed to cancer, oxidative damage, and dysfunction.
When we were monkeys eating lots of fruit, almost constantly, I guess our body thought it was a good trade-off.
Now with drought flood drought flood levels of Vitamin C in the modern diet, it's lead to epigenetic chaos.
Deficiency in Queuine, unpredictable Vitamin C and Folate levels leads to aberrant oxidation states in Tetrahydrobiopterin, for starters.
Loss of Mitohormensis, as one of a million things this leads to.
[deleted] t1_j96r6ou wrote
To be fair I've never heard of vitamin c overdose, though I've also never looked into the possibility.
Sheeple3 t1_j97wbeb wrote
Ever eat too many oranges or another fruit? You just get diarrhea, that’s the overdose. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/vitamin-c/faq-20058030
finguhpopin t1_j97z185 wrote
One time after soccer I ate like 8 oranges and then puked all over my parents car on the way home
CharsKimble t1_j98nqn5 wrote
Back in my day we got a 1/4 orange slice at half time and we were happy to get it.
Gainzwizard t1_j9fplu1 wrote
A whole quarter of the orange? Luxury!
[deleted] t1_j98fhkr wrote
[deleted]
florbinjerp t1_j97cj73 wrote
It's water soluble so you shouldn't be able to without a lot of help
MuchFaithInDoge t1_j98324p wrote
Too much Vit C can make you more prone to kidney stones. That's the worst outcome I've heard of
[deleted] t1_j97bbyp wrote
[removed]
entechad t1_j99hz4d wrote
You can’t overdose on vitamin c. It’s water soluble.
Mega__Maniac t1_j9a1mqz wrote
So is cocaine
MrPapillon t1_j9cuhw5 wrote
So is coke+mentos
Grilledcheesedr t1_j989vtn wrote
There always was but the usual corrupt big pharma puppets “disproved” the studies by deliberately using oral vitamin C.
cjankowski t1_j96adxr wrote
It means very high dose
rdizzy1223 t1_j9am8x9 wrote
That isn't all it means, it means it needs to be administered via IV, it will not reach blood serum levels high enough if you take it orally, regardless of how much you take, you are just wasting it.
cjankowski t1_j9atjki wrote
That isn’t inherent to the term (which also applies to cell culture studies) - pharmacologic ascorbate typically just means > 1 mM, which yes is only possible in human serum via IV
Niceotropic t1_j95t7vb wrote
To be clear, you're not missing anything, there is no difference between "pharmacological vitamin C" and vitamin C. They are both ascorbic acid.
The motivations for using this obfuscating term are unsupported in the text and make no sense.
RepresentativeFox149 t1_j95ukh9 wrote
Emphasis added.
“The intracellular VC concentration is strictly regulated in order to maintain levels of 80–100 μM in the plasma [2, 3]. However, intravenous injection bypasses this strict regulation, allowing specific VC concentrations to be maintained within a specified period, thereby providing a pharmacological basis for its therapeutic application [4]. Several pioneering studies have demonstrated the efficacy of pharmacological VC in improving the survival of patients with advanced cancers [5, 6]. In contrast, two randomized double-blind controlled trials failed to demonstrate any benefit of VC against advanced malignant disease [7, 8]. Therefore, the route of administration is important for high-dose VC to have a therapeutic effect, and only intravenous administration results in sufficiently high plasma and urine concentrations to allow potential antitumor activity [9].”
Niceotropic t1_j95y6z8 wrote
Then its intravenous nature should be what is described. IV ascorbic acid is not new, nor were the pharmacokinetics of IV ascorbic acid a mystery.
Pretty-Theory-5738 t1_j973pod wrote
Technically you could also deliver a low dose intravenously as well, so that’s not really a complete descriptor either. A more clear descriptor for a lay audience might be “high dose intravenous”.
But this actually still misses a small nuance, which can be understood once we know the context of how scientists tend to use the jargon of “pharmacological dose”. In bio research, we use this term mainly in contrast with “biological dose”. A biological dose refers to something relatively within the range of what could occur naturally within the body, through food consumption and/or the body’s creation of that chemical, depending on which chemical we’re talking about.
A ‘pharmacological dose’ is something significantly higher than what would occur naturally in the body. In this case with vitamin C, it’s more possible to achieve a “pharmacological dose” through IV (although with many other chemicals you can achieve a “pharmacological” dose orally if there’s not much restriction on absorption). Anyways, the point is that even saying “high dose” is not fully informative, because the scientist could be referring to just a high ‘biological dose’. Saying pharmaceutical dose gives a nod to the relative scale of the dose that we’re talking about.
Niceotropic t1_j97qcsj wrote
High dose intravenous would be good for the informed audience. Pharmacological is a superficial meaningless superlative term in this context.
[deleted] t1_j96giol wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j96sjjn wrote
[removed]
Innundator t1_j96ievd wrote
Your argument is that there should be no differentiation between a rock containing iron, and an actual hammer composed entirely of iron. Because it'd be confusing to call them both anything but iron.
The difference between a pharmacological dose and what's found in an orange is many orders of magnitude, which warrants a new term.
Time8u t1_j96r9dw wrote
No new term is needed. It should be called "intravenous" vitamin C. Calling it "pharmacological" is a way of making something that is concrete and simple abstract instead and whoever came up with it is intentionally trying to make this appear more sophisticated than it actually is.
Innundator t1_j96y7ye wrote
You should tell the people doing the research! You're obviously more aware of how things work than they are, and that they haven't heard from you yet is really a travesty of science.
Why are you hiding your brilliance from the world
[deleted] t1_j96zk5i wrote
[removed]
Niceotropic t1_j97p5ce wrote
You deeply misunderstand science.
[deleted] t1_j96wzw8 wrote
[removed]
Amesenator t1_j96f2f0 wrote
Is lypo spheric Vit C of potential utility in lieu of intravenous delivery?
Kailaylia t1_j96txc2 wrote
>Liposomal-encapsulated Ascorbic Acid: Influence on Vitamin C Bioavailability and Capacity to Protect Against Ischemia–Reperfusion Injury
>
>The data indicate that oral delivery of 4 g of vitamin C encapsulated in liposomes produces circulating concentrations of vitamin C that are greater than unencapsulated oral but less than intravenous administration
triffid_boy t1_j96kqfb wrote
Maybe but you should assume no, since this has not been tested in the above study.
Zeratul_Artanis t1_j95vh2c wrote
They've made a distinction that intravenous Vit C I'd effective but oral isn't because absorption rates vary wildly.
greyham11 t1_j95u1lk wrote
it seems to me theyre just trying to avoid saying "megadose"
Zeratul_Artanis t1_j95vcuz wrote
No, they're saying oral isn't effective, but intravenous is.
Niceotropic t1_j95y2xe wrote
Then this is of course the description that should have been used.
Zeratul_Artanis t1_j95zmsm wrote
Well, no because the description is still correct. Pharmacological use of XYZ just means clinical controlled treatment of a disease using XYZ.
KourteousKrome t1_j968xkw wrote
Yeah but if they say pharmacological it seems scary and naturopath blogs can’t say “eat an orange to cure cancer”
Niceotropic t1_j96bjdz wrote
No, it’s not correct. Most pharmacological interventions are oral.
Innundator t1_j96itzc wrote
Yes, random redditor, you tell those PhDs they're wrong about their field. You obviously would know!
Justtryme90 t1_j97fd5t wrote
We are not infallible, even in niche topics which we are very highly experienced with.
Innundator t1_j97l9hv wrote
Cool. That means terms we don't understand should be converted to ones we do, right?
Justtryme90 t1_j97t6d3 wrote
No, it likely means you should spend more time learning how to read academic literature, or if you can't handle how it's written leave it to others who can.
[deleted] t1_j98jtau wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j95w92h wrote
[removed]
could_use_a_snack t1_j96gqxa wrote
Or try to keep people from eating bottles of the stuff off the shelf.
harbison215 t1_j96ewvl wrote
It may be so that people don’t read the title and go to the store and start eating whole bottles of vitamin C?
[deleted] t1_j96h7ni wrote
[removed]
Niceotropic t1_j96fldc wrote
That kind of subjective advocacy has no place in a hard sciences paper.
harbison215 t1_j96gxsw wrote
Maybe it means at intravenous dose that doesn’t really exist outside of medical settings? I’m not sure
motus_guanxi t1_j96h9gu wrote
It’s literally bad fir your liver to eat that much at once..
Niceotropic t1_j96hxss wrote
I'm sure it is. I'm confused as to how you think that relates to this.
motus_guanxi t1_j96i1c1 wrote
It’s not subjective..
[deleted] t1_j96m7rl wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j96rfwt wrote
It's because it's IV vitamin C
Kailaylia t1_j96rxtv wrote
>They are both ascorbic acid.
Most likely, in this case.
However, there are many forms of "pharmacological vitamin C". For example, calcium ascorbate, ascorbates of various other minerals, liposomal vitamin C and ascorbyl palmitate.
basmwklz OP t1_j95qa3x wrote
Abstract: >Pharmacological vitamin C (VC) is a potential natural compound for cancer treatment. However, the mechanism underlying its antitumor effects remains unclear. In this study, we found that pharmacological VC significantly inhibits the mTOR (including mTORC1 and mTORC2) pathway activation and promotes GSK3-FBXW7-mediated Rictor ubiquitination and degradation by increasing the cellular ROS. Moreover, we identified that HMOX1 is a checkpoint for pharmacological-VC-mediated mTOR inactivation, and the deletion of FBXW7 or HMOX1 suppresses the regulation of pharmacological VC on mTOR activation, cell size, cell viability, and autophagy. More importantly, it was observed that the inhibition of mTOR by pharmacological VC supplementation in vivo produces positive therapeutic responses in tumor growth, while HMOX1 deficiency rescues the inhibitory effect of pharmacological VC on tumor growth. These results demonstrate that VC influences cellular activities and tumor growth by inhibiting the mTOR pathway through Rictor and HMOX1, which may have therapeutic potential for cancer treatment.
crazyhadron t1_j95r2zu wrote
So vitamin C might be a viable and safe alternative to rampamycin for cleaning out your cells, nice.
KetosisMD t1_j95rx8w wrote
Probably not as thorough as rapamycin.
Sculptasquad t1_j95v8i1 wrote
"Thorough" always comes at a price.
KetosisMD t1_j95w9me wrote
Agreed. I’m not saying rapamycin is safe. I’m tempering the comparison of C and rapamycin
fanghornegghorn t1_j97ij4i wrote
What's wrong with rapamycin?
[deleted] t1_j994lt8 wrote
[removed]
erebos290696 t1_j9a0txa wrote
It has several functions which include immunosuppression and fungicide.
The immunosuppressive effects allowed it to be used in organ transplants I believe. And the low rate of cancer in patients using it, lead to the discovery of the mTOR pathway. And it's use in cancer treatment.
I think. Verify everything I've said as it's been a minute since I learned this.
CrateDane t1_j96s3pv wrote
Well, Rapamycin mainly inhibits mTORC1, while this seems to target RICTOR for degradation and thus preventing assembly of mTORC2. So they would have complementary roles if you wanted inhibition of both complexes.
[deleted] t1_j971mey wrote
[removed]
Mordewolt t1_j96vuk8 wrote
Blowtorch is also "thorough"
[deleted] t1_j971f52 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j96rbdr wrote
What exactly is rampamycin and how does it "clean out you cells" and why do you want that?
basementreality t1_j97vgw8 wrote
IRC Rapamycin is a drug given to organ transplant recipients that is also used by people trying to extend lifespan. It has been shown in studies to extend the lifespan of pretty much every organism it has been tested on.
It's mechanism of action is too complicated for me to recal but there are lots of explanations online.
It's a super interesting molecule that has a very interesting history as it was discovered next to a statue on Easter Island.
[deleted] t1_j96unq1 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j96y1az wrote
[deleted]
someone_actually_ t1_j97bjv0 wrote
Linus Pauling must be feeling vindicated
Xw5838 t1_j981yy0 wrote
Just like William Colby with bacterial immunotherapy before it even had a name. Ignored then vindicated.
And back in the 70's Pauling found that intravenous Vitamin C significantly extended the lifespans of cancer patients in studies.
The Mayo Clinic in a fake attempt to "replicate" the findings only used the pill version of Vitamin C in their own study to the tune of around 10 grams. The results were negative and they crowed that Vitamin C doesn't work. And that was that.
Other researchers though who properly replicated the findings got positive results.
Now the science behind it is that Vitamin C produces Hydrogen Peroxide in cancer cells which basically shreds them via oxidation because they don't have as much catalase in them like normal cells which neutralizes the H202.
As for why doctors don't prescribe it to all cancer patients. It's obvious. Vitamin C can't be patented. So there's no money in it.
discretion t1_j98x25t wrote
This can't be true, can it? Oncologists everywhere are so beholden to pharmaceutical companies that they won't prescribe vitamin C intravenously? This sounds like a thing I would've heard of by now, a vast global conspiracy to deny cancer patients across the globe a simple and cheap cure.
SaltZookeepergame691 t1_j9a94us wrote
No, it is not true. There are some elements of truth (eg, the patentability of vitamin C [and any unpatentable agent] does hinder research, but that ignores that a lot of research is done/funded by not-for-profit/governmental agencies around the world), but it is not a 'global conspiracy' to suppress a miracle cure.
I think it's also worth pointing out that enthusiasm in medicine in general is pretty tempered because with vitamin C we've been here quite a lot before. Eg, IV doses were heavily promoted by some fringe medics as being a revolutionary cure (ie, reducing death by nearly 90%) in sepsis ICU patients, but we now know that risk of death is at the very least not decreased and in is often increased by high doses. I think IV vitamin C is a difficult sell to funders, when there are many such potential avenues to investigate. There is some promising preclinical evidence, eg in this study, and it may be that there will be a new wave of trials as that evidence accumulates to convince people.
Daaru_ t1_j99rwsw wrote
It's like the plot of Dallas Buyers' Club, if any research suggests that something expensive is better then it will be used regardless of how efficacious it is. It's not black and white like a conspiracy and instead varying shades of grey. Vitamin C gave mixed results without toxicity instead of chemotherapy drugs giving mostly positive results with toxicity being a common side effect, so the latter is more medically sound for treating the issue for doctors. You learn pretty quickly that many doctors accept harmful side effects if the issue is treated at the expense of the patients.
rdizzy1223 t1_j9amn5n wrote
If I have cancer I will also gladly accept harmful side effects if the issue is treated, at the expense of myself. You'd have to be a dolt not to.
vipw t1_j9ecjbh wrote
In a palliative setting, it makes a lot of sense to use treatments with fewer side effects even if the effectiveness is worse.
The cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs have truly horrible side effects.
[deleted] t1_j98cnev wrote
[removed]
Appropriate_Banana t1_j96atzt wrote
I'm kinda confused. How antioxidant elevates ROS level intracellularly?
guystarthreepwood t1_j96tye4 wrote
Preface: it has been a minute since I studied these systems in detail, this is the jist of it.
Vitamine c is a redox active molecule existing in an equilibrium between reduced and oxidized forms tending to favor the reduced form. Ascorbic acid (reduced vitamin c) gets oxidized by taking on a single electron from a radical (molecule with an unpaired electron) to form oxidized vitamin c. If it is exposed to oxygen or other oxidants for long periods of time it will exist largely in the oxidized form and end up being a prooxidant rather than antioxidant in order to re-establish the equilibrium. Your body is able to reduce oxidized vitamin c via various intracellular antioxidants (glutathione etc) but that initial exposure will produce some ROS.
Also in cell culture, there's often a high concentration of free iron floating around (5mM) which is totally unnatural. The free iron/vitamin c combo is able to create a Fenton reaction and produce huge amounts of ROS.
[deleted] t1_j96h4lf wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j95yvku wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j96ftzo wrote
[removed]
asapfroggx t1_j96dz6u wrote
so Linus Pauling was at least partially correct…
DharmaBird t1_j99sywv wrote
Came here to write the same thing. No everlasting truths in science.
rdizzy1223 t1_j9ampki wrote
Partially correct doesn't mean much, and this is only one limited study. Whackadoos can be right once a day, and all that.
Knute5 t1_j95sf8g wrote
Norman Cousins was saying as much decades ago.
[deleted] t1_j95wnhu wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j96eekx wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j96bajo wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j967t4o wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j968fl5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j96n42c wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9a9wds wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j96a2hg wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j96y6yg wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j96m8da wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j96mgt3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j97411y wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j963juh wrote
[removed]
warfarin11 t1_j96ms8h wrote
So, Pauling was right?
pdxmhrn t1_j96k67v wrote
I know some of these words
xlews_ther1nx t1_j96gj9h wrote
I'm pretty sure I saw a doc on this like 15 years ago on Netflix.
ManWithTheAd t1_j99ymy2 wrote
Meachanistic studies aren‘t worth much. Better to have studies in living humans and measure hard endpoints like cancer incidence and mortality.
AutoModerator t1_j95q8ax wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_j95slix wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j95yrgl wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j974m0g wrote
[removed]
Jaredlong t1_j9765gr wrote
Let's revise the adage to "An orange a day, keeps the doctor away."
[deleted] t1_j97813r wrote
[removed]
Still_Maverick_Titan t1_j97sxdj wrote
I have no idea what any of this means but it sounds awesome and gives me hope for the future.
[deleted] t1_j98iehs wrote
[removed]
Darkhorseman81 t1_j98ihjn wrote
Vitamin C regulates TET2, a gene that regulates epigenetic quality control in the blood.
It is so efficient, if you get a loss of function mutation of TET2, Vitamin C can replace its function, weirdly enough.
I'm on my phone so it's a hassle to link studies, but type Leukemia tet Vitamin C into a search engine. Some pop up pretty easily.
Vitamin C alone can treat some forms of Leukemia.
Some, not all. Don't expect it to be a miracle cure or anything.
It's weird, but ancient humans had the ability to produce Vitamin C from Glucose. Over time, through mutations and silenced genes, we became Vitamin C auxotrophs, requiring it from the diet.
The way we evolved our bodies do not stock pile it like oil and fat soluble vitamins, because we used to make what we needed on demand; there was no need.
Now, we use what we need in the moment and excrete the rest.
The loss of this Vitamin C producing capability lead to epigenetic instability. Means we can mutate and evolve faster, but also means we are more prone to cancer and dysfunction.
I've added a 24 hour slow release Vitamin C in its native form to a muscle wastage and anti aging protein powder I'm working on.
[deleted] t1_j9ik71z wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j98kuo1 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j998hxo wrote
[removed]
wickzer t1_j98a3k7 wrote
Or is this lack of vitamin c induces mTOR... Etc? Which makes sense, nutrient depletion is bad... But less impressive of a finding.
fullmetalmuumuu t1_j997k68 wrote
More evidence supporting Linus Paulings claims about vitamin C and cancer. I wonder if the medical industry will continue to lie about vitamin C, like they did when Pauling first made claims about it?
facepunchedselfie t1_j99dei8 wrote
Why Liposomal is ideal in Vit C
NutrientBrief t1_j98l9og wrote
Interesting, always glad to see more research on vitamin C in preventing and treating cancer!
erebos290696 t1_j9a0js8 wrote
I swear if Linus Pauling or whichever Nobel prize winner it was turns out to be right on this.
thirdtimenow t1_j96afwf wrote
Interesting this goes some to explaining why people heal from cancer doing IV drips.
AllanfromWales1 t1_j95r1p4 wrote
And non-pharmacological Vitamin C? Should I just stop eating fruit and veg and just take supplements instead?
laserinlove t1_j95u29x wrote
The authors are using the term pharmacological to refer to plasma concentrations that are only achievable by IV administration.
Per the authors, the body regulates Vitamin C to 80-100uM so you can't just consume more of it. IV administration however gets around the natural intestinal absorption limits.
So unless you plan to shoot up your supplements, this doesn't seem applicable to typical person just yet. Though I must say I'm imagining a funny skit where we see what appears to be a drug den of people shooting up and it's a bunch of natural herbalist types cooking up and injecting vitamin c from a pile of oranges.
AllanfromWales1 t1_j95weyh wrote
..to the sound of the bells of St Clement's.
amadeus2490 t1_j96kmso wrote
"I heard Stevie Nicks used to boof the peels."
RepresentativeFox149 t1_j95sgix wrote
Emphasis added.
“The intracellular VC concentration is strictly regulated in order to maintain levels of 80–100 μM in the plasma [2, 3]. However, intravenous injection bypasses this strict regulation, allowing specific VC concentrations to be maintained within a specified period, thereby providing a pharmacological basis for its therapeutic application [4]. Several pioneering studies have demonstrated the efficacy of pharmacological VC in improving the survival of patients with advanced cancers [5, 6]. In contrast, two randomized double-blind controlled trials failed to demonstrate any benefit of VC against advanced malignant disease [7, 8]. Therefore, the route of administration is important for high-dose VC to have a therapeutic effect, and only intravenous administration results in sufficiently high plasma and urine concentrations to allow potential antitumor activity [9].”
AllanfromWales1 t1_j95tq2p wrote
Fair comment.
Solid-Brother-1439 t1_j95rggq wrote
No dude. The study focus on pharmacological vitamin c. That's it.
AllanfromWales1 t1_j95rrvn wrote
Unless the authors believe there's a difference between pharmacological and natural vitamin C they should just say 'vitamin C'. Otherwise it makes it sound like it's work that's been done by or for a supplement company.
shiny_brine t1_j95vmua wrote
The difference is delivery. Pharmacological is delivered in a manner that bypasses natural VC regulation and can achieve much higher concentrations.
AllanfromWales1 t1_j95wnnq wrote
Understood. Fair enough. Genuine follow up question: Why does the body regulate to prevent higher concentrations?
shiny_brine t1_j967hy2 wrote
To simplify a very complex system, there are four main uptake paths for VC (passive diffusion, facilitated diffusion, active transport and recycling through the kidneys). Difference subsystems (brain, lungs, heart, muscles etc.) can each tolerate different levels of vitamin C and regulate levels through the use of different uptake paths. These levels are lower than the levels discussed in the paper obtained through intravenous means. If the body were exposed to long term high levels as discussed in the paper, there would be concerns of damage to many of the systems that need to regulate much lower levels. If one where to ingest large doses it would mostly go through the recycle system and be removed by the kidneys before it would get to the sub-systems.
AllanfromWales1 t1_j968aib wrote
Thanks. Clears it up for me.
Solid-Brother-1439 t1_j95s4hs wrote
It might be a difference. Or not. I believe the term was used because the study was done on supplement vit c.
[deleted] t1_j95r67f wrote
[removed]
Gandblaster t1_j95repo wrote
Whole fruits have synergistic effect with all the nutrients they offer. Is this a sarcastic question?
AllanfromWales1 t1_j95s3b2 wrote
> Is this a sarcastic question?
Indeed. The way it's worded almost sounds like marketing.
crazyhadron t1_j95rozz wrote
>Pharmacological vitamin C (VC) is a potential natural compound for cancer treatment.
Pretty sure they are the same thing (abscorbic acid). Chemistry's chemistry, whether it be from a fruit or from someone's lab
shiny_brine t1_j95vewl wrote
It's the delivery that's different. This is intravenous and bypasses natural regulation, thus providing concentrations not easily obtained otherwise.
Still-WFPB t1_j95rz1j wrote
I havnt reddit. Biochemistry grad. The distinction I think pharmacological is making... is that they isolated variables by simply using ascorbic acid.
TheCrimsonSteel t1_j95utvd wrote
Looks like the other big thing was giving it by IV so they could get to concentrations that would normally capped by the body's regulation mechanisms?
2 or 3 comments up another Redditor breaks down the difference
johanvondoogiedorf t1_j95wucj wrote
What the hell is pharmacological vitamin c and does it know normal vitamin c