Natural vs. Synthetic Vitamins

http://www.liquid-vitamins.info/natural-vitamins-vs-synthetic.htm
"Kathryn Friesen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What's the 'diff" between the two? I have this mental image of little
bits of apple & broccoli & whatever pressed into this tiny little
"natural" pill. I don't take vitamin pills so excuse my ignorance.

Also what's the true story on "absorption" of liquid v. pill. I see
most online (& probably elsewhere) liquid vitamin vendors claim only 10%
of that in pill form is ever absorbed. Is this an Urban Legend?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kathryn Friesen said:

What's the 'diff" between the two? I have this mental image of little
bits of apple & broccoli & whatever pressed into this tiny little
"natural" pill. I don't take vitamin pills so excuse my ignorance.

In today's advertising climate, it's not surprising that confusion
reigns. You have so many scammers trying to convince you of so many
different things.

In general, the difference is that "natural" costs more. There are a
few other differences -- for example, in vitamin E, there can be
differences in which forms of the molecule are present (d- vs l-) and
which molecules are present (alpha tocopherol vs gamma, for example).

But, for the most part, it doesn't make any difference. Ascorbic acid
is vitamin C no matter where you get it from. (You will find some
nuts who assure us that ascorbic acid isn't really vitamin C. They
have no good answer about why it cures scurvy and they may safely be
ignored.)

Quoted message said:

Also what's the true story on "absorption" of liquid v. pill. I see
most online (& probably elsewhere) liquid vitamin vendors claim only 10%
of that in pill form is ever absorbed. Is this an Urban Legend?

Probably. And even if it's not, it really doesn't matter. If the
pills are less-absorbed (on a percentage basis), you can get around
that by taking more of them! Since the liquid vitamins seem to be
pretty expensive, you can still afford this.

Not that I believe liquid vitamins are anything special. Your body is
very good at obtaining and holding onto the vitamins it needs. The
stories about sewer workers finding "thousand" or "tons' of undigested
vitamin pills are, as best I can tell, nonsense.

If this worries you, however, you can probably set your mind at ease
by simply taking your preferred vitamin pills and just dropping them
in a glass of water and letting them sit for a few hours. I think
you'll find they dissolve just fine -- and your digestive tract is a
far more active place than is a still glass of water.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Kathryn,

One bit of logic no one else has mentioned so far:
Vitamins in natural food do not exist alone, but in
combination with other substances, some of which may be
necessary to make the vitamin effective or to prevent
undesirable effects. With natural vitamins, sometimes
you can find combinations (such as bioflavonoids with
Vitamin C), that you are unlikely to find with
synthetic ones. There may also be substances joined
with the natural vitamins that science has not yet
discovered and therefore are not included in the
synthesis.

Marvin

Marvin L. Zinn
Reply to: [email hidden]
Using Virtual Access
Windows 2000 build 2600

hi Kathryn,
It's true, the fact is:

Pills 5% absorption rate
Capsules 10% absorption rate
Liquid/Powder 15-25% absorption rate

So, as you can see, we should consume natural health suplements in
liquid or powder form, as it has a better absorption rate.

On the other hand, sorry to say that our human body cant absorb 100%
of what we take, the max is only up to 25%.

So, since we realize that human body can only take up 25% max, why
dont we take in powder or liquid form of natural health supplements?
To guarantee and maximize the absorption rate, as well as saving our
money, instead of 'donating' to the toilet bowl.

Best regards,
Eddie Lee

[email hidden] (Kathryn Friesen) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

What's the 'diff" between the two? I have this mental image of little
bits of apple & broccoli & whatever pressed into this tiny little
"natural" pill. I don't take vitamin pills so excuse my ignorance.

Also what's the true story on "absorption" of liquid v. pill. I see
most online (& probably elsewhere) liquid vitamin vendors claim only 10%
of that in pill form is ever absorbed. Is this an Urban Legend?

"Kathryn Friesen" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What's the 'diff" between the two? I have this mental image of little
bits of apple & broccoli & whatever pressed into this tiny little
"natural" pill. I don't take vitamin pills so excuse my ignorance.

The big difference between 'natural' vitamins and synthetics are the way
they're made. They're the same product, but manufactured differently. That's
it.

Quoted message said:

Also what's the true story on "absorption" of liquid v. pill. I see
most online (& probably elsewhere) liquid vitamin vendors claim only 10%
of that in pill form is ever absorbed. Is this an Urban Legend?

Urban legend. All you can say is that liquid formulations may be absorpted
faster than a pill, because the pill must be dissolved before it can be
effectively absorpted. However, it probably doesn't make much difference
anyway. Just make sure you eat your fruits, veggies and a little meat or a
good meatreplacement and you'll get all the vitamins you really need. If you
feel like complementing, make sure you don't take the extra high dose
versions, since you may overdose on the vitamins. The effect of overdosage
is either probably minnor, in the case of watersoluble vitamins like C and
B, or it may be a ral problem as in the case of vitamins K,A,D and E. The
problem with the latter vitamins is that they are fat-soluble so you can't
get rid of them as easily as the water soluble ones.

HTH

--

Robert Bronsing

But that's okay, see the children bleed
It'll look great on the TV

In article <[email hidden]>,

Eddie said:

hi Kathryn,
It's true, the fact is:

Pills 5% absorption rate
Capsules 10% absorption rate
Liquid/Powder 15-25% absorption rate

So, as you can see, we should consume natural health suplements in
liquid or powder form, as it has a better absorption rate.

We do if we believe your numbers. Where did you get them? I just
went through Medline looking for numbers like this and found almost
nothing. And what I did find was not consistent.

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, sorry to say that our human body cant absorb 100%
of what we take, the max is only up to 25%.

So, since we realize that human body can only take up 25% max, why
dont we take in powder or liquid form of natural health supplements?
To guarantee and maximize the absorption rate, as well as saving our
money, instead of 'donating' to the toilet bowl.

That's only true if the liquids or powders are no more expensive than
the tablets or capsules. I suspect the liquids are more expensive.
Powders might not be, but would presumably be less convenient, since
you would have to mix them with something.

Anyway, if the tablets or capsules cost a fraction as much as the
liquids, then you just take somewhat more of them, thus overcoming the
absorption differences (if any).

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Doesn't seem to be much consensus on vitamin absorption rates, does
there?

The reason I particularly asked this question was in reading through at
least a dozen LIQUID vitamin vendor's websites a few months ago, they
also claimed 90% (ninety) of their liquid vitamins was absorbed vs. 10%
of "the others". (I thought it neat how this added up to exactly 100%
absorption, but perhaps this was a psychological ploy?)

At any rate, the sites kept referring to the 1996 or 97 (I forget)
Physicians Desk Reference, even the page (or article number). Since its
unlikely "normal" people can check this out, I thought the claim "safe".
Isn't the PDR "unedited" anyway??

I'd take the natural form where possible - the way nature intended.
With supplements you tend to get one purified type of vitamin, with nature
you get many forms of the same vitamin as different salts.
If you cannot supplement yourself with natural vitamins, then the next best
thing is natural and supplements.
IMO vitamin sites are scamming [censored] at best.
Anth

"Kathryn Friesen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Doesn't seem to be much consensus on vitamin absorption rates, does
there?

The reason I particularly asked this question was in reading through at
least a dozen LIQUID vitamin vendor's websites a few months ago, they
also claimed 90% (ninety) of their liquid vitamins was absorbed vs. 10%
of "the others". (I thought it neat how this added up to exactly 100%
absorption, but perhaps this was a psychological ploy?)

At any rate, the sites kept referring to the 1996 or 97 (I forget)
Physicians Desk Reference, even the page (or article number). Since its
unlikely "normal" people can check this out, I thought the claim "safe".
Isn't the PDR "unedited" anyway??

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

I'd take the natural form where possible - the way nature intended.

"Nature" is not some sort of conscious being. "What nature intended"
is nearly meaningless. Or are you going to argue that you're sitting
there, typing on a computer "as nature intended?"

Quoted message said:

With supplements you tend to get one purified type of vitamin, with nature
you get many forms of the same vitamin as different salts.

There's no way to know that. I agree that it's probably better to get
one's nutrients from food rather than from supplements, because the
food contains such a myriad of other substances, some of which may be
important and we just don't know it yet. But in some cases, to get a
particular dosage of vitamins from food may be impractical.

Quoted message said:

If you cannot supplement yourself with natural vitamins, then the next best
thing is natural and supplements.
IMO vitamin sites are scamming [censored] at best.

Well, at least we agree on something.

Quoted message said:

"Kathryn Friesen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Doesn't seem to be much consensus on vitamin absorption rates, does
there?

Nope. And if you go to PubMed to try to find out what absorption
rates really are, good luck to you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason I particularly asked this question was in reading through at
least a dozen LIQUID vitamin vendor's websites a few months ago, they
also claimed 90% (ninety) of their liquid vitamins was absorbed vs. 10%
of "the others". (I thought it neat how this added up to exactly 100%
absorption, but perhaps this was a psychological ploy?)

Most likely. You'll have to admit that a site trying to sell you
liquid vitamins is not likely to be objective about them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At any rate, the sites kept referring to the 1996 or 97 (I forget)
Physicians Desk Reference, even the page (or article number). Since its
unlikely "normal" people can check this out, I thought the claim "safe".
Isn't the PDR "unedited" anyway??

It's mostly a collection of the kinds of information you find on the
package inserts of prescription drugs. Basically, a "cover your ass"
sort of document, listing anything that might have gone wrong during
testing of the product, whether related or not.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Natural vs. Synthetic Vitamins
From: [email hidden] (David Wright)
Date: 11/23/2003 3:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

I'd take the natural form where possible - the way nature intended.

"Nature" is not some sort of conscious being.

1 a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing :
ESSENCE b : DISPOSITION, TEMPERAMENT
2 a : a creative and controlling force in the universe b : an inner force or
the sum of such forces in an individual
3 : a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential
characteristics <documents of a confidential nature> <acts of a ceremonial
nature>
4 : the physical constitution or drives of an organism; especially : an
excretory organ or function; used in phrases like the call of nature
5 : a spontaneous attitude (as of generosity)
6 : the external world in its entirety
7 a : humankind's original or natural condition b : a simplified mode of life
resembling this condition
8 : the genetically controlled qualities of an organism
9 : natural scenery

Quoted message said:

"What nature intended"
is nearly meaningless.

Which proves David just wants to argue.

What a waste of time.

Jan

"Kathryn Friesen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What's the 'diff" between the two? I have this mental image of little
bits of apple & broccoli & whatever pressed into this tiny little
"natural" pill. I don't take vitamin pills so excuse my ignorance.

Also what's the true story on "absorption" of liquid v. pill. I see
most online (& probably elsewhere) liquid vitamin vendors claim only 10%
of that in pill form is ever absorbed. Is this an Urban Legend?

Hello, I am new to this news group. I saw this posting and thought I would
put in my two cents worth.
Many people go into a store to buy vitamins and are confused about which to
buy. One bottle may be half the price of the other with supposedly the same
amount of vitamins or minerals. So, how do you make a choice? Supplements
are similar to food---the simple, organic and unrefined have many more
nutrients per gram than processed ones have and a lot less of what you don't
want (those words that are multi-syllable and non-pronounceable). You most
often get what you pay for.

"Natural" food supplement manufacturers do not have to disclose all the
ingredients on the label, but, should be able to supply you with a
disclosure of ingredients. Unfortunately these days it's cost that counts,
so, many manufacturers pack their supplements with binders, fillers,
lubricants, disintegrators, colourings and flavouring agents--a tablet.
Typically, the cheaper the supplement, the more "stuffing" of things you
don't want---the larger the tablet and the poorer the absorption (about
20%). Smaller tablets may use cellulose as a binder. "Time release" means
adding hydrogenated oils(plastic oil) to lengthen release. So, look at your
supplement--is it solid--binders, fillers, lubricants, is it a colour--dyes,
is it time-release-- hydrogenated oils, does it dissolve
quickly--disintegrators, and does it taste like cherry for
instance--flavouring. Other fillers in supplements can be sodium benzoate,
lactose, peanut, coconut and cottonseed oil and cornstarch. Other
ingredients may include propylene glycol (anti-freeze), SLS (sodium lauryl
sulfate - which reacts with the supplement to form toxins) and BHT, BHA,
tartrazine (colourings).

So, what should I buy then?? Pure substances such as vitamins, minerals,
herbs, enzymes or amino acids should be purchased as capsules or liquids.
They generally do not contain any of the above problems, dissolve easily,
absorb about 80% and are usually more concentrated. The gelatin in capsules
are generally animal derived, so, you can buy vegetable derived capsules if
desired. Liquids are better absorbed, but generally designed for children,
so less concentrated.

Therefore, even though capsules are usually twice the price of tablets, they
end up being less than half the price if you consider a 400 mg. Vitamin C
gives only about 100 mg. and figuring in the cost on your health with all
the fillers, binders, etc. So, the bottom line is ...buy a capsule.

Jenny - not an expert

Jenny,

Quoted message said:

Jenny - not an expert

But you make more sense than many people who claim
that they are!

marvin

Marvin L. Zinn
Reply to: [email hidden]
Using Virtual Access
Windows 2000 build 2600

What nature intended is 'meaningless' come on - go eat your donuts then,
take all vitamin c out of your diet.
Don't eat foliates. Now that is meaningless.
Anth

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

I'd take the natural form where possible - the way nature intended.

"Nature" is not some sort of conscious being. "What nature intended"
is nearly meaningless. Or are you going to argue that you're sitting
there, typing on a computer "as nature intended?"

Quoted message said:

With supplements you tend to get one purified type of vitamin, with

nature

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you get many forms of the same vitamin as different salts.

There's no way to know that. I agree that it's probably better to get
one's nutrients from food rather than from supplements, because the
food contains such a myriad of other substances, some of which may be
important and we just don't know it yet. But in some cases, to get a
particular dosage of vitamins from food may be impractical.

Quoted message said:

If you cannot supplement yourself with natural vitamins, then the next

best

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thing is natural and supplements.
IMO vitamin sites are scamming [censored] at best.

Well, at least we agree on something.

Quoted message said:

"Kathryn Friesen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Doesn't seem to be much consensus on vitamin absorption rates, does
there?

Nope. And if you go to PubMed to try to find out what absorption
rates really are, good luck to you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason I particularly asked this question was in reading through at
least a dozen LIQUID vitamin vendor's websites a few months ago, they
also claimed 90% (ninety) of their liquid vitamins was absorbed vs. 10%
of "the others". (I thought it neat how this added up to exactly 100%
absorption, but perhaps this was a psychological ploy?)

Most likely. You'll have to admit that a site trying to sell you
liquid vitamins is not likely to be objective about them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At any rate, the sites kept referring to the 1996 or 97 (I forget)
Physicians Desk Reference, even the page (or article number). Since

its

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

unlikely "normal" people can check this out, I thought the claim

"safe".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Isn't the PDR "unedited" anyway??

It's mostly a collection of the kinds of information you find on the
package inserts of prescription drugs. Basically, a "cover your ass"
sort of document, listing anything that might have gone wrong during
testing of the product, whether related or not.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

I'd take the natural form where possible - the way nature intended.

"Nature" is not some sort of conscious being. "What nature intended"
is nearly meaningless. Or are you going to argue that you're sitting
there, typing on a computer "as nature intended?"

I can argue and I am 100% correct on this if I don't adhere to natures laws
that I will get very sick.
They are still laws, but hey that is meaningless by your definition also, so
you don't need to adhere to them?
Your argument is 'meaningless.' 'dangerous.' by your own defintion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

With supplements you tend to get one purified type of vitamin, with

nature

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you get many forms of the same vitamin as different salts.

There's no way to know that. I agree that it's probably better to get
one's nutrients from food rather than from supplements, because the
food contains such a myriad of other substances, some of which may be
important and we just don't know it yet. But in some cases, to get a
particular dosage of vitamins from food may be impractical.

Let me see :-
(On my Vitamin bottle)
Each tablet contains 1000mg vitamin c (as ascorbic acid)
Vitamin C molecules are chiral in nature, the body favours one specific
type, getting the wrong molecule (isomer) tends to be useless.
I can only assume what is in the bottle is L-ascorbic acid, D-ascorbic acid
(unlikely) or a mixture of both D and L, In which cas you aint getting
1000mg of vitamin C. Off the top of my head there's sodium ascorbate
magnesium ascorbate each with different solubilities and absorption.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you cannot supplement yourself with natural vitamins, then the next

best

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thing is natural and supplements.
IMO vitamin sites are scamming [censored] at best.

Well, at least we agree on something.

Quoted message said:

Nope. And if you go to PubMed to try to find out what absorption
rates really are, good luck to you.

See above - depends on what you are getting, which ratios.
I understand vitamin c degrades over time and what you end up with is a
mixture of L and D facing molecules.
For instance orange juice in storage 'degrades' and you have less of the L
molecule in it.

Here's an interesting post
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=isomer+vitamin+c&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=a2kpu3%248q62%40news.cis.okstate.edu&rnum=1

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason I particularly asked this question was in reading through at
least a dozen LIQUID vitamin vendor's websites a few months ago, they
also claimed 90% (ninety) of their liquid vitamins was absorbed vs. 10%
of "the others". (I thought it neat how this added up to exactly 100%
absorption, but perhaps this was a psychological ploy?)

Most likely. You'll have to admit that a site trying to sell you
liquid vitamins is not likely to be objective about them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At any rate, the sites kept referring to the 1996 or 97 (I forget)
Physicians Desk Reference, even the page (or article number). Since

its

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

unlikely "normal" people can check this out, I thought the claim

"safe".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Isn't the PDR "unedited" anyway??

It's mostly a collection of the kinds of information you find on the
package inserts of prescription drugs. Basically, a "cover your ass"
sort of document, listing anything that might have gone wrong during
testing of the product, whether related or not.

It is unlikely you will suffer any bad effects from taking vitamins.

Quoted message said:

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

What nature intended is 'meaningless' come on - go eat your donuts then,
take all vitamin c out of your diet.

Hey, up yours, Anth. It *is* pretty much meaningless. Nature didn't
*intend* anything, because it's not a conscious entity. There are
some things we need, and some things that are nice to have, and some
that are neutral, and some that are harmful.

Quoted message said:

Don't eat foliates. Now that is meaningless.

"Foliates?" You mean folate? Or are you munching leaves?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Quoted message said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

I'd take the natural form where possible - the way nature intended.

"Nature" is not some sort of conscious being. "What nature intended"
is nearly meaningless. Or are you going to argue that you're sitting
there, typing on a computer "as nature intended?"

Quoted message said:

With supplements you tend to get one purified type of vitamin, with

nature

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you get many forms of the same vitamin as different salts.

There's no way to know that. I agree that it's probably better to get
one's nutrients from food rather than from supplements, because the
food contains such a myriad of other substances, some of which may be
important and we just don't know it yet. But in some cases, to get a
particular dosage of vitamins from food may be impractical.

Quoted message said:

If you cannot supplement yourself with natural vitamins, then the next

best

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thing is natural and supplements.
IMO vitamin sites are scamming [censored] at best.

Well, at least we agree on something.

Quoted message said:

"Kathryn Friesen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Doesn't seem to be much consensus on vitamin absorption rates, does
> there?

Nope. And if you go to PubMed to try to find out what absorption
rates really are, good luck to you.

Quoted message said:

> The reason I particularly asked this question was in reading through at
> least a dozen LIQUID vitamin vendor's websites a few months ago, they
> also claimed 90% (ninety) of their liquid vitamins was absorbed vs. 10%
> of "the others". (I thought it neat how this added up to exactly 100%
> absorption, but perhaps this was a psychological ploy?)

Most likely. You'll have to admit that a site trying to sell you
liquid vitamins is not likely to be objective about them.

Quoted message said:

> At any rate, the sites kept referring to the 1996 or 97 (I forget)
> Physicians Desk Reference, even the page (or article number). Since

its

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> unlikely "normal" people can check this out, I thought the claim

"safe".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Isn't the PDR "unedited" anyway??

It's mostly a collection of the kinds of information you find on the
package inserts of prescription drugs. Basically, a "cover your ass"
sort of document, listing anything that might have gone wrong during
testing of the product, whether related or not.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

I'd take the natural form where possible - the way nature intended.

"Nature" is not some sort of conscious being. "What nature intended"
is nearly meaningless. Or are you going to argue that you're sitting
there, typing on a computer "as nature intended?"

I can argue and I am 100% correct on this if I don't adhere to natures laws
that I will get very sick.

I can argue, and I am 100% correct on this, that it's impossible to
violate natural laws, so your statement is meaningless.

If you'd like to show a little precision in your language, which would
be a welcome change, you might say that the body has various
requirements for health, and if those requirements are not met, you
will get sick.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

With supplements you tend to get one purified type of vitamin, with
nature you get many forms of the same vitamin as different salts.

There's no way to know that. I agree that it's probably better to get
one's nutrients from food rather than from supplements, because the
food contains such a myriad of other substances, some of which may be
important and we just don't know it yet. But in some cases, to get a
particular dosage of vitamins from food may be impractical.

Let me see :-
(On my Vitamin bottle)
Each tablet contains 1000mg vitamin c (as ascorbic acid)
Vitamin C molecules are chiral in nature, the body favours one specific
type, getting the wrong molecule (isomer) tends to be useless.

Note: useless, not harmful.

Quoted message said:

I can only assume what is in the bottle is L-ascorbic acid, D-ascorbic acid
(unlikely) or a mixture of both D and L, In which cas you aint getting
1000mg of vitamin C. Off the top of my head there's sodium ascorbate
magnesium ascorbate each with different solubilities and absorption.

Yep, they do exist. But do they all exist concurrently in the same
item of food?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nope. And if you go to PubMed to try to find out what absorption
rates really are, good luck to you.

See above - depends on what you are getting, which ratios.

And more. Just try to find out *anything* about absorption rates of
any particular nutrient and you'll find it's not a simple answer.
It's affected by the medium in which the nutrient is contained, the
form (liquid, gel, tablet, capsule, syrup, etc), and even whether you
take it before or after meals.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Quoted message said:

I understand vitamin c degrades over time and what you end up with is a
mixture of L and D facing molecules.
For instance orange juice in storage 'degrades' and you have less of the L
molecule in it.

Here's an interesting post
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=isomer+vitamin+c&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=a2kpu3%248q62%40news.cis.okstate.edu&rnum=1

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The reason I particularly asked this question was in reading through at
> least a dozen LIQUID vitamin vendor's websites a few months ago, they
> also claimed 90% (ninety) of their liquid vitamins was absorbed vs. 10%
> of "the others". (I thought it neat how this added up to exactly 100%
> absorption, but perhaps this was a psychological ploy?)

Most likely. You'll have to admit that a site trying to sell you
liquid vitamins is not likely to be objective about them.

Quoted message said:

> At any rate, the sites kept referring to the 1996 or 97 (I forget)
> Physicians Desk Reference, even the page (or article number). Since

its

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> unlikely "normal" people can check this out, I thought the claim

"safe".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Isn't the PDR "unedited" anyway??

It's mostly a collection of the kinds of information you find on the
package inserts of prescription drugs. Basically, a "cover your ass"
sort of document, listing anything that might have gone wrong during
testing of the product, whether related or not.

It is unlikely you will suffer any bad effects from taking vitamins.

Quoted message said:

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/ss01/bioavailability.html
That has some information on the bioavailability of vitamin c.
Anth

"Kathryn Friesen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What's the 'diff" between the two? I have this mental image of little
bits of apple & broccoli & whatever pressed into this tiny little
"natural" pill. I don't take vitamin pills so excuse my ignorance.

Also what's the true story on "absorption" of liquid v. pill. I see
most online (& probably elsewhere) liquid vitamin vendors claim only 10%
of that in pill form is ever absorbed. Is this an Urban Legend?

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/11/17/ascorbic_acid_is_not_vitamin_c.htm
Anth

Natural supplements are undoubtedly better than synthetic becuase of
all the other known and unknown natural ingredients.

Many come in pill form that can be chewn and taken with a glass of
water thus getting the best possible absorption rate. If the coating
of a supplement does not break down within 30-35 minutes it passes the
point in the digestive system for good absorption, and yes, some do
pass through the entire system and appear in sewers.

As for being able to get sufficient vitamins and minerals from good
intakes of fruit and vegetables, this is regrettably no longer true.
The soils are so depleted that fruit and vegetables tested recently
showed they lacked from 16% - 96% of their minerals and without the
right amount of minerals in our bodies we are unable to absorb
vitamins.

The answer? Take a very good quality unpolluted natural product.

Penny
[email hidden]

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

I'd take the natural form where possible - the way nature intended.

"Nature" is not some sort of conscious being. "What nature intended"
is nearly meaningless. Or are you going to argue that you're sitting
there, typing on a computer "as nature intended?"

Quoted message said:

With supplements you tend to get one purified type of vitamin, with nature
you get many forms of the same vitamin as different salts.

There's no way to know that. I agree that it's probably better to get
one's nutrients from food rather than from supplements, because the
food contains such a myriad of other substances, some of which may be
important and we just don't know it yet. But in some cases, to get a
particular dosage of vitamins from food may be impractical.

Quoted message said:

If you cannot supplement yourself with natural vitamins, then the next best
thing is natural and supplements.
IMO vitamin sites are scamming [censored] at best.

Well, at least we agree on something.

Quoted message said:

"Kathryn Friesen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Doesn't seem to be much consensus on vitamin absorption rates, does
there?

Nope. And if you go to PubMed to try to find out what absorption
rates really are, good luck to you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason I particularly asked this question was in reading through at
least a dozen LIQUID vitamin vendor's websites a few months ago, they
also claimed 90% (ninety) of their liquid vitamins was absorbed vs. 10%
of "the others". (I thought it neat how this added up to exactly 100%
absorption, but perhaps this was a psychological ploy?)

Most likely. You'll have to admit that a site trying to sell you
liquid vitamins is not likely to be objective about them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At any rate, the sites kept referring to the 1996 or 97 (I forget)
Physicians Desk Reference, even the page (or article number). Since its
unlikely "normal" people can check this out, I thought the claim "safe".
Isn't the PDR "unedited" anyway??

It's mostly a collection of the kinds of information you find on the
package inserts of prescription drugs. Basically, a "cover your ass"
sort of document, listing anything that might have gone wrong during
testing of the product, whether related or not.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)