Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.


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.