In one recent interview on One Radio Network during 2019, of which I don't recall the date, Ray Peat seemed to be saying that, when asked about the need for ascorbic acid supplementation, that meat already has DHAA, dehydroascorbic acid. I get the impression by his answer that ascorbic acid supplementation is not needed if we eat meat in normal quantity already.
Am I wrong in this interpretation? I hope so.
I thought about the sailors in the past who had contracted scurvy and wonder if they brought and ate meat in their voyages. Most likely the meat would be preserved meat like ham or jerky. Did the sailors develop scurvy because they were not eating freshly cooked meat; and preserved meat didn't provide DHAA to them? Or was the meat consumed, in whatever form, too little to provide enough DHAA?
If Ray Peat says so, it most likely should be believed. If he were right, would it be reasonable to think that in a long voyage, DHAA-rich food is not eaten in enough quantities that scurvy would develop? And if enough DHAA-rich food were available, scurvy would not develop?
That scurvy affected only sailors on long journeys then would make me think that people living in land don't develop scurvy, because the normal fare eaten by people not facing limited access to food already provides enough DHAA and/or ascorbic acid. Is it correct to make the conclusion then that as long as we eat enough meat, we would have enough vitamin C in our diet at least not to incur the condition of scurvy?
Note that I'm not talking about optimal vitamin C intake. I'm only talking the minimum amount needed to prevent scurvy. I suppose eating a lot of meat to get optimal vitamin C intake is not a good idea, but I could be wrong.
Am I wrong in this interpretation? I hope so.
I thought about the sailors in the past who had contracted scurvy and wonder if they brought and ate meat in their voyages. Most likely the meat would be preserved meat like ham or jerky. Did the sailors develop scurvy because they were not eating freshly cooked meat; and preserved meat didn't provide DHAA to them? Or was the meat consumed, in whatever form, too little to provide enough DHAA?
If Ray Peat says so, it most likely should be believed. If he were right, would it be reasonable to think that in a long voyage, DHAA-rich food is not eaten in enough quantities that scurvy would develop? And if enough DHAA-rich food were available, scurvy would not develop?
That scurvy affected only sailors on long journeys then would make me think that people living in land don't develop scurvy, because the normal fare eaten by people not facing limited access to food already provides enough DHAA and/or ascorbic acid. Is it correct to make the conclusion then that as long as we eat enough meat, we would have enough vitamin C in our diet at least not to incur the condition of scurvy?
Note that I'm not talking about optimal vitamin C intake. I'm only talking the minimum amount needed to prevent scurvy. I suppose eating a lot of meat to get optimal vitamin C intake is not a good idea, but I could be wrong.