Ascorbate And The Copper Hand-Off

[Kray]

In your case, hope it would be the reason and not that they are avoiding giving honest and clear information. Too bad in my case they aren't more specific. Can you suggest how I might elicit a more specific answer?

Are there many companies using "Quali-C"? Wonder if it would be worth sending a form letter out to all until you are satisfied with an answer?

 

[yerrag]

Hope it would be the reason and not that they are avoiding giving honest and clear information. Too bad in my case they aren't more specific. Can you suggest how I might elicit a more specific answer?

Are there many companies using "Quali-C"? Wonder if it would be worth sending a form letter out to all until you are satisfied with an answer?

I think that they can understand a plain question well enough. I don't expect they have a good handle on their process as far as lead contamination is concerned. Otherwise, they would bandy it about just as they bandy about their being GMO-free. Their best recourse is to not answer, and leave it at that.

Being lead-free isn't critical to them. It's only us in the Ray Peat Forum that finds that quality important. No one else in the world cares about that. Making "lead free" or "low lead" would likely increase their cost and price them out of the market. At this point, they have a price premium due to their being GMO-free. The only reason they are addressing the GMO aspect in their product is because many people in the health community are aware of the dangers of GMO products, and are aware also that vitamin C can be GMO-sourced. While people are also aware of the toxicity of lead, they are unaware that vitamin C could contain high levels of lead.

 

[Kray]

I think that they can understand a plain question well enough. I don't expect they have a good handle on their process as far as lead contamination is concerned. Otherwise, they would bandy it about just as they bandy about their being GMO-free. Their best recourse is to not answer, and leave it at that.

Being lead-free isn't critical to them. It's only us in the Ray Peat Forum that finds that quality important. No one else in the world cares about that. Making "lead free" or "low lead" would likely increase their cost and price them out of the market. At this point, they have a price premium due to their being GMO-free. The only reason they are addressing the GMO aspect in their product is because many people in the health community are aware of the dangers of GMO products, and are aware also that vitamin C can be GMO-sourced. While people are also aware of the toxicity of lead, they are unaware that vitamin C could contain high levels of lead.

Hmmmm.... not sure where to go from here. I like taking vitamin C, have considered going with a food-based again, just not sure. Really appreciate your points-- how true. If GMO can be easily addressed, who cares about anything else (or anything worse?).

Are you going to stay off of vitamin C for now? btw- read your post on Mg for chelation. Where does Mg Chloride fit in? Just curious because I use that interchangeably with Mg Citrate (not good?) and Mg Glycinate.

Please keep me posted on any response you get.

 

[Mito]

Hmmmm.... not sure where to go from here. I like taking vitamin C, have considered going with a food-based again, just not sure. Really appreciate your points-- how true. If GMO can be easily addressed, who cares about anything else (or worse?). Are you taking any vitamin C presently, and can you share what brand?

Please keep me posted on any response you get.

C-Salts has provided a COA that shows very low lead. C-Salts COA

 

[Kray]

C-Salts has provided a COA that shows very low lead. C-Salts COA

Thanks for pointing that out. Never tried buffered. Is there a case for buffered over non?

 

[Kray]

C-Salts has provided a COA that shows very low lead. C-Salts COA

Are you using this product? How did you find out about it? Should it be taken with or without food? Doesn't look like the bottle indicates which.

 

[yerrag]

Hmmmm.... not sure where to go from here. I like taking vitamin C, have considered going with a food-based again, just not sure. Really appreciate your points-- how true. If GMO can be easily addressed, who cares about anything else (or anything worse?).

Are you going to stay off of vitamin C for now? btw- read your post on Mg for chelation. Where does Mg Chloride fit in? Just curious because I use that interchangeably with Mg Citrate (not good?) and Mg Glycinate.

Please keep me posted on any response you get.

Given the limited choice we have, I just choose to swim with the sharks, in order to get to land, rather than starve in my leaking dinghy. I'm still taking a megadoses of ascorbic acid for chelation, along with the risk of taking in lead. I'm crossing my fingers here, hoping that both the magnesium and ascorbic acid I take will continue to rid my kidneys of lead while they both will at the same time keep the lead that comes with vitamin C from being accumulated in my tissues by being excreted out. It's not an ideal situation, but much of life doesn't come as a sure thing either. So we just roll with the punches as they come along.

I personally think mg chloride can be useful, just as long as it's not in the quantity and duration that causes its acidic load to accumulate, as when in using a large dose over a long period of time. But I prefer to use other forms of magnesium that don't create an acidic load on the body. I have used magnesium ascorbate, magnesium acetate,and magnesium bicarbonate. It's very affordable. With magnesium ascorbate and acetate, you just need magnesium carbonate and mix with ascorbic acid or 20% acetic acid (diluted from glacial acetic acid), respectively. With magnesium bicarbonate, it's a little more work and equipment. Magnesium hydroxide in water, and carbonate it and shake. To carbonate, you need a setup that works like Sodastream. Or you can use carbonated or seltzer water.

 

[Kray]

Given the limited choice we have, I just choose to swim with the sharks, in order to get to land, rather than starve in my leaking dinghy. I'm still taking a megadoses of ascorbic acid for chelation, along with the risk of taking in lead. I'm crossing my fingers here, hoping that both the magnesium and ascorbic acid I take will continue to rid my kidneys of lead while they both will at the same time keep the lead that comes with vitamin C from being accumulated in my tissues by being excreted out. It's not an ideal situation, but much of life doesn't come as a sure thing either. So we just roll with the punches as they come along.

I personally think mg chloride can be useful, just as long as it's not in the quantity and duration that causes its acidic load to accumulate, as when in using a large dose over a long period of time. But I prefer to use other forms of magnesium that don't create an acidic load on the body. I have used magnesium ascorbate, magnesium acetate,and magnesium bicarbonate. It's very affordable. With magnesium ascorbate and acetate, you just need magnesium carbonate and mix with ascorbic acid or 20% acetic acid (diluted from glacial acetic acid), respectively. With magnesium bicarbonate, it's a little more work and equipment. Magnesium hydroxide in water, and carbonate it and shake. To carbonate, you need a setup that works like Sodastream. Or you can use carbonated or seltzer water.

I didn't realize the potential concern with mg chloride. I just dilute mine according to instructions and usually only have 1-2 Tb/day. Which mg forms would create an acidic load, as you say? Would mg citrate or mg glycinate be in this category to avoid?

I have used mg bicarb and liked it but it was a little more labor-intensive (I have 5 in my family). I usually resort to mg citrate on a regular basis with the other ones thrown in, because the citrate form keeps me regular whereas the others don't seem to do much.

Did you take a look at @Mito C-Salt link?

 

[yerrag]

Did you take a look at @Mito C-Salt link?

You are quite up on Mg. I have done the Mg bicarb and liked it although it got a bit much with the bottling and mixing (I have 5 in my family!). Would you caution against using the Mg glycinate or Mg citrate, if so, why?

The C-salt looks okay to me. I just wasn't keen on it being associated with Andrew Weil, and the way they label it. They could just call l-ascorbic acid l-ascorbic acid, but euphemistically calls it by l-ascorbate. I consider that dishonest. So I don't really trust their COA for that reason. Besides, I can make that formula easily. Just mix magnesium carbonate, potassium bicarbonate, and calcium carbonate with l-ascorbic acid (there's zinc too, but I can just get that separately). And then they call it sodium-free because they don't include sodium bicarbonate.

I just have to buy l-ascorbic acid with a COA from a supplier I trust. With C-salt, it's a wash. You can trust C-Salt as much as any other supplier.

Like mito has cautioned, I avoid citrates because it's said to cause excretion of calcium in urine. As for glycinate, it's good. I think though that there are many suppliers selling mag glycinate that includes oxides. There was a recent thread about it that I think Wilfrid was in. Anyway, it's still more expensive and if I wanted glycine, I can just buy glycine as a supplement.

 

[Kray]

The C-salt looks okay to me. I just wasn't keen on it being associated with Andrew Weil, and the way they label it. They could just call l-ascorbic acid l-ascorbic acid, but euphemistically calls it by l-ascorbate. I consider that dishonest. So I don't really trust their COA for that reason. Besides, I can make that formula easily. Just mix magnesium carbonate, potassium bicarbonate, and calcium carbonate with l-ascorbic acid (there's zinc too, but I can just get that separately). And then they call it sodium-free because they don't include sodium bicarbonate.

I just have to buy l-ascorbic acid with a COA from a supplier I trust. With C-salt, it's a wash. You can trust C-Salt as much as any other supplier.

Like mito has cautioned, I avoid citrates because it's said to cause excretion of calcium in urine. As for glycinate, it's good. I think though that there are many suppliers selling mag glycinate that includes oxides. There was a recent thread about it that I think Wilfrid was in. Anyway, it's still more expensive and if I wanted glycine, I can just buy glycine as a supplement.

Point well taken on labels/celebrities.

Meanwhile, would keeping with Quali-C be the best bet, barring any further data you get from mfg on heavy metals? I wasn't sure what it was about citrates not being ideal, but maybe I need to reconsider that, too. How much Mg do you supplement per 1 g vitamin c per day? Maybe I'll go back to Mg bicarb and combine with glycinate since I already have that on hand. Thanks for all your help.

 

[yerrag]

Point well taken on labels/celebrities.

Meanwhile, would keeping with Quali-C be the best bet, barring any further data you get from mfg on heavy metals? I wasn't sure what it was about citrates not being ideal, but maybe I need to reconsider that, too. How much Mg do you supplement per 1 g vitamin c per day? Maybe I'll go back to Mg bicarb and combine with glycinate since I already have that on hand. Thanks for all your help.

You can try sourcing by looking at the Vitamin C Foundation's website. In all likelihood, they may also be selling Quali-C. I'm still not willing to concede though that Quali-C is a safe choice. What's happening is that we're being shaped by our psychological perceptions. I really feel non-GMO or GMO has little bearing, simply because when l-ascorbic acid is extracted, there really are no harmful residues of what could be harmful coming from GMO's. But that is a selling point, and Quali-C uses that to tower above the mostly China-made l-ascorbic acid. But other than that, they offer no advantage over the good l-ascorbic acid products that are made in China. You can certainly get low-lead ascorbic acid from China just as you could from Quali-C. But Quali-C offers a brand, and a premium, so we think then that they can be better in aspects other than being GMO-Free. We will never know the consequences of what choice we make, will we?

We will never be able to verify the COA of the ascorbic acid. If it's truthful, it would likely cost more. And the distributor must be honest, otherwise he can buy a high-lead AA at a low price, slap it with a COA, sell it at a premium, and make more money. And then we buy based on trust. But who do you trust? We trust brands. We don't trust "made in China." Quali-C has the edge.

I am on a rant here. Sorry. But I know how hard it must be to make a decision on these. But like I said, this uncertainty isn't going to keep me away from Vitamin C. But that's me. I face the consequence of a worsening condition with my kidneys from lead toxicity, which I already have. There's irony in all these.

I'll keep looking though, and I'll share with you what I got. Maybe @Janelle525 has new sources?

 

[Ella]

We also receive Certificates of Analysis from all our ingredient suppliers.

The company that formulates should be doing their own due diligence and auditing their ingredient suppliers not just trusting their COAs. It is no bloody wonder we are buying honey that is not honey but syrup. If companies like Capilano are not checking, what does it say about other products, especially supplements which are easier to adulterate. Obviously, many do not have HACCP in place and if they do, their auditing process is dodgy. Everyone is trusting COAs

Fake honey scandal widens to Australian-sourced brands

 

[Ella]

We will never be able to verify the COA of the ascorbic acid. If it's truthful, it would likely cost more. And the distributor must be honest, otherwise he can buy a high-lead AA at a low price, slap it with a COA, sell it at a premium, and make more money. And then we buy based on trust. But who do you trust? We trust brands. We don't trust "made in China." Quali-C has the edge.

No, it should not cost more, it's standard practice to audit your suppliers and if your suppliers do not have HACCP in place, then you don't deal with them. It simple as that. Their facilities needs to be audited and their processes need to be audited regularly to ensure that the product you are purchasing meets the standards that your clients demand. If they are not verifying COAs, then the product and process can not be trusted.

Remember, the incident of melamine in baby formula? The product tested right for the amount of protein in the milk formula but the protein which was added was toxic to babies. Milk and powders were priced according to protein content. More protein more dollars. There are too many scounderlous operators out there taking advantage of unsuspecting public.

China stuff is not always dodgy. I remember comparing DCA from China source with the Canadian source that everyone was using. Chinese was clean of nasty solvents while Canadian was really high.

Dichloroacetate sodium (DCA) is an inexpensive and simple chemical compound similar to combining vinegar and salt. So everyone was making it in their backyard and selling it as a cancer treatment. After seeing the solvents used, I thought perhaps old Rockfeller , JD's pappy, was right when sold his "Rock Oil" as a cure for cancer.

 

[yerrag]

No, it should not cost more, it's standard practice to audit your suppliers and if your suppliers do not have HACCP in place, then you don't deal with them

I'm not referring to the process of certifying costing more or not. That to me is a separate issue and a longer discussion. I'm referring to the quality of a product. In this case, the quality of ascorbic acid as far as meeting low levels of lead. If the production process and the raw materials used fail to ensure low lead levels, the product is off specs. That could happen if you use an inferior and less expensive production process and inferior raw materials. And it costs less to buy substandard equipment and substandard materials. That is what I meant by it costing less to produce. With low specification targets, there will be higher lead content in the AA. But this AA could be sold for a lot less. Slap a COA and sell for a premium, and the importer/distributor gets to make a killing in profits.

 

[yerrag]

Skip. Seems like the site server is acting up. It's rendering the page in centered mode, and keeps flashing error messages, and doesn't save what I write. Will just take a breather

 

[Ella]

Slap a COA and sell for a premium, and the importer/distributor gets to make a killing in profits.

If you are an importer or distributor then you are responsible for ensuring the product you are purchasing meets your specs. If your clients demand low lead levels, then you find sources that can provide you with AA with low lead levels. You don't buy any product without carrying out due diligence. You have an independent lab test the product. You audit the manufacturer and the lab to ensure their processes meet the standards. The standards of the consumer may be higher than the legal standards. I prefer to see zero lead in anything I consume.

You're right, a manufacturer could produce AA with high lead levels and produce a COA with low levels, who is going to know unless there are critical control points in place and you can trace each and every step of the process.

No-one would have known that organic garbanzo beans had higher levels of glyphosate than conventionally grown, unless an independent person checked the residues. Being organic everyone assumed they would test low.

Lead or any other heavy metal is very cheap to test by an independent lab, even for the consumer, so there is no excuse in keeping them honest.

It all adds price to the product that is sold to the public and if it is cheap, then you need to wonder why. However, price does not guarantee quality, which is why the onus is always with the consumer.

 

[yerrag]

Lead or any other heavy metal is very cheap to test by an independent lab, even for the consumer, so there is no excuse in keeping them honest.

To this I confess ignorance. It would be nice to test Quali-C's ascorbic acid for its lead content. Considering it's more expensive, I would expect it to have low levels of lead. Where can it be tested and for how much would it cost?

 

[yerrag]

How much Mg do you supplement per 1 g vitamin c per day?

That really depends on what condition I'm in.

Maintenance mode of magnesium would just be around 400mg (but this depends on the weight of person) while at therapeutic mode it could be twice to three times as much. And the ascorbic acid requirements depend on the state of the individual's health. The less healthy, the more ascorbic acid is needed. There is a c-flush test developed by Cathcart to determine your daily vitamin C requirements.

If you were to use ascorbates instead of ascorbic acid, you also need to double the amount of ascorbate used as compared to when you just use ascorbic acid. Say if you needed 5g of ascorbic acid daily, but opt to take it in the form of magnesium ascorbate (where you mix magnesium carbonate with ascorbic acid in water), you'd need 10g of ascorbic acid instead of 5. That's because ascorbic acid twice the number of free hydrogen atom than the ascorbate.

 

[Ella]

To this I confess ignorance. It would be nice to test Quali-C's ascorbic acid for its lead content. Considering it's more expensive, I would expect it to have low levels of lead. Where can it be tested and for how much would it cost?

Which country are you in? As you are testing one element, it will be expensive for one off. I think around $90 aus, is reasonable. An importer or distributor being a regular testor for a suite of elements, prices are less and many have their own in-house lab.

I paid $87 early this year to test lead in organic meat. If I find cheaper for AA, I will let you know.

 

[yerrag]

Everyone is trusting COAs

The system is gamed. No one really checks if the COA's are true. If only Ralph Nader has a section devoted to this.