Vitamin C

[Amazoniac]

Thanks for sharing this Amazoniac. I should change my practice of dissolving my daily dose of vitamin in a water bottle and drinking the solution throughout the day. And if I should do so, I have to figure a way of acidifying it without having to add citric acid to it. Perhaps some ACV would do the job?

Would the ascorbate ion stay stable in solution when I make ascorbates of calcium, potassium, and magnesium? I suppose it wouldn't either, if I were to follow the logic as described, where ascorbate ions would easily turn into an ascorbate radical and continue on to become dehydroascorbate.

This leaves me no choice but to have to drink from a freshly made solution of ascorbic acid each time I would take ascorbic acid powder Or from a freshly made batch of ascorbate of calcium/potassium/magnesium each time I take them. This is rather inconvenient though, and not practical when I have to be on the go.

Since I'm rather sensitive to the acidic effect of ascorbic acid, I would choose the latter route of taking ascorbates as they are less acidic. I may just prepare a heterogenous mixture of calcium carbonate and water, and each time I want to take calcium ascorbate, I'd mix a preset amount of well-shaken calcium carbonate-water mixture with ascorbic acid powder, allow it to react fully, and then drink the resulting calcium ascorbate mixture. And if it's potassium ascorbate I need, I'd use potassium carbonate instead. Ditto with magnesium ascorbate and magnesium carbonate.

But that is too fussy. It makes sense then to just take capsules of ascorbates. This would be much more convenient, and I'd have to pay a little extra for the convenience.

In summary:

1. NO to drinking ascorbic acid or ascorbate solutions other than those that are freshly made
2. YES to taking capsules of ascorbic acid or ascorbate powders

From my own experience, the choice of ascorbic acid or ascorbate really depends on the person's condition. Those who get upset stomach from taking ascorbic acid should opt for the ascorbate form. But even if one could take ascorbic acid with no upset stomach, one should also consider whether ascorbic acid intake would cause his blood acidity to become relatively acidic. The way to tell is to test urine at different times during the day using urine pH test strips. If the test shows that the body has sufficient alkaline reserves such that blood/ecf pH is not adversely affected by ascorbic acid intake, then ascorbic acid can be taken. Otherwise, it would be best to take the ascorbate form.

Incidentally, I recently did 2 sets of C-Flush tests to determine my daily vitamin C requirement. One was with ascorbic acid. And the other with calcium ascorbate. I was expecting that I would be using twice the amount of ascorbic acid in calcium ascorbate (ascorbic acid + calcium carbonate = calcium ascorbate, in water solution) to achieve the same effect as straight ascorbic acid. This was because I had understood the ascorbate form to be half as effective as the pure ascorbic acid form. But I was surprised to see that the ascorbic acid used in both instances were the same. This makes me question the thinking I held all along that ascorbates are half as effective as the ascorbic acid form. Does anyone have similar experience or have references to this subject?

There can be contaminants in water or adhered to the walls of the bottle that can speed up its degradation. You might be able to holy those, but impurities in the acid itself or the salt used might be enough to degrade part of it in less than one day. Adding bicarbonates to the solution will make it alkaline and decrease stability. I think your best bet is carrying the powder with you in a vial or something.

Water is terrible for stability, especially for a reactive molecule that now has the chance of interacting with everything around it. You can't carry the powders mixed for too long either because they'll react and form wasser, and you'll have the same problem that you're trying to avoid.

- Stability and Stabilization of Ascorbic Acid
- Stability of Ascorbic Acid in Solutions Stored in Autosampler Vials
- Degradation of Ascorbic Acid in Aqueous Solution

You'll find publications on topical use and related products that have to be concerned about stability, so they can be useful.

- Topical L‐Ascorbic Acid: Percutaneous Absorption Studies
- Ferulic Acid Stabilizes a Solution of Vitamins C and E and Doubles its Photoprotection of Skin

--
@Blossom - could you please move posts #45-186 here if there are no objections from gurus?

 

[Amazoniac]

Dynamic Flow: A New Model for Ascorbate (Esteban, Ilaria, and Roberto)

"The ascorbate plasma levels corresponding to varying intakes of ascorbate exhibit dual-phase pharmacokinetics. The first phase occurs when blood levels are low: below 70 μM/L. In this phase, the kidney's sodium dependent vitamin C transporters (SVCT) reabsorb ascorbate, but not its oxidized form, dehydroascorbate.[16,17] When levels are relatively low, the transporters prevent ascorbate being lost in the urine. The second phase occurs when blood levels are high; during this phase, the body excretes ascorbate rapidly, as it does other small, water-soluble, organic molecules.[18] [?]

The plasma half-life of ascorbate is widely reported to be between 8-40 days.[11,19] However! This applies only to periods of deficient intake, when the kidney transporters are actively reabsorbing the vitamin to prevent acute scurvy. When intake levels are higher, rapid excretion occurs: during this phase, ascorbate has a half-life of about half an hour."​

Ascorbate: the science of vitamin C (1-4116-0724-4) - Steve Hickey and Hilary Roberts

In the following scheme, both lines represent the response to 2 grams of vit C; the difference with the continuous one is that on every next hour 1 gram was given, and instead of decreasing like the dotted, it reached the steady state. And they criticized Mark Levine for measuring hours later.

"What Levine and others have shown is that vitamin C has a short half-life in the blood. Taking an oral dose will raise blood levels for only a few hours. Since the pharmacological properties of vitamin C are dose related, the benefit of a single dose is short lived."

The half-life of injected vitamin C is 30 min and it takes some time to detect a peak from an oral dose, its appearance is slow. And when it's metabolized, it doesn't return to 0 μM/L, but to the baseline of lower intakes, which is around 70 μM/L; it started there and it tended to settle there as well over the times:

2 hours for both peaks, but absorption starts right after dosing.​

The information from the first link and the above in other words:

Misleading Information on the Properties of Vitamin C

"The dual-phase pharmacokinetics of vitamin C are described by the dynamic flow model [3,4↑]. Low gram-level intakes of ascorbate, leading to blood plasma levels below 70 μM/l, have a half-life of 8–40 days. Higher gram-level intakes have a plasma half-life of 30 minutes [3]. A large oral dose raises blood plasma levels briefly: they reach a peak after two to three hours, before decaying back to baseline. Frequent repeated doses allow sustained high plasma levels of about 250 μM/l [4,5]."

"Linus Pauling, typically, described nutritional gram-level doses able to provide a degree of disease prevention [8]. By contrast, pharmacological doses used for treatment are, at minimum, an order of magnitude larger and involve frequent doses. The doses should be at intervals of three hours or less [3]."​

More on steady state and half-life..

"To obtain steady blood levels, the dose interval has to be similar to the length of time it takes to excrete the drug. Consider a drug dose of 100 mg, with a half-life of one day. This means that half the drug (50 mg) will be excreted in the course of one day. If a further 100 mg dose is taken on the second day, the effective dose is 100 mg plus the 50 mg that is still in the body from day one: a total of 150 mg. If a third dose is given on day three, the effective dose is 100 mg plus 50 mg (from the previous day) + 25 mg (from the day before): a total of 175 mg. Over time, the blood levels reach a steady state. However! If the drug has a short half-life, say just one hour, then essentially all of the previous day's drug is removed before the next dose is given, and there is little build-up in the blood stream."

This is useful:

Source: the internet.​

Check out how it wears off based on half-life..

In order to sustain high levels for this therapeutic approach you'll need to renew the dose constantly. Since the half-life of higher doses of vit C is only 30 min, this is why Steve comments that you need them every 3 hours or so.

Back to the book..

On this graph you'll notice that they were spaced in 6 hours and there are marked dips, and by using it every 3 hours this is eased.

The amount that it takes to peak in detection makes no difference because on consecutive doses this is irrelevant, what's important is the time that it takes to be metabolized and cleared.

This also happens to a lesser extent with a natural diet that usually includes foods like fruits that are higher in vitamin C and meals with greens for example, providing a steady supply of vit C throughout the day.

For the same reason that it's better to eat more meals throughout the day instead of concentrating all food in just one, it also applies to vitamin C. And the advantage of this is that way less will suffice to provide you similar or better effects compared to a massive shot. Even Steve acknowledges this in his book:

"[..]five 100 mg doses taken at intervals through the day would raise average blood levels more than a single one-gram dose."​

Another advantage in maximizing absorption is not leaving excedent to interact with other stuff in the lumen of the intestines. When you take a colossal shot, not all is absorbed, a lot will remain unabsorbed and it might interact with previous (could include fecal matter as well) or perhaps even next meals.

In terms of advantages of concentrating:

- Sometimes the intestines are not acidified enough and maybe a bolus dose can have a positive effect this way.
- You're potentializing the laxative effect as the efficiency is reduced, and easing constipation is beneficial.
- Maybe there's something special to the transient stress of dealing with a massive dose that can be therapeutic.
- It can be a way of minimizing detrimental interactions or exposure to too much antioxidants.

Not all is blood. By the time it acted, it affected tissues and the effects will linger for some time after excretion. But it's better to do it in physiological ways. You'll read that the absolute absorbed dose keeps increasing along with amount ingested, and this is true. But when you can use a fraction of this multiple times a day with incomparable efficiency, it makes no sense to do otherwise unless for those reasons that I can think of for now.

Perhaps another advantage from an early hefty dose is in replenishing tissues after owanight fast to allow you to follow the day normally, but given its fast action and that it's the blood that nourishes the tissues, I have some doubts about it and it's nothing that multiple doses can't perform better.

Alberto used to take 1 g most of the time, but when using 2 g it was one gram in the morning and the other later in the day.​

It's worth noting that the idea of vitamin C saturation is also questionable, you can push this higher and higher the more you take. An interesting point:

Vitamin C pharmacokinetics: it’s déjà vu all over again

"No one would argue that saturation of body stores of vitamin A is desirable. Saturation of vitamin B-6 stores, at least in blood cells, would require ridiculously high intakes; additionally, to achieve circulating folate concentrations above the Kd for the reduced folate carrier would require folate intakes about 100-fold higher than the current RDA."​

Pharmacokinetics of oral vitamin C

--
Fresh guavas are available in different ways, but this is a standard 800 g tray:

When people eat them, it's usually eat the entire fruit, they don't eliminate the seeds, they're inert and unbreakable, almost just roughage, but they could scoop them if they wanted to; they can be pressed against a sieve to extract the pulp from the seeds for juices.

If one of these trays is eaten throughout the day, considering the 230 mg/100g, they can provide you [. . . Brewing calc . . .] 1840 mg of vit C. And then you consider other foods like bell peppers (which raypeatclips is the fond), kiwis, oranges, tangerines, strawberries, leafy greens, and so on, you are be able to get close to 2500 mg. This is a brutal dietary amount. I don't think only acerolas count.

Regarding the effect, this applies to all nutrients:

And Yanelle and others essentially believed in something like this..

The reason for not having negatives in the second is that you can't get anything adverse in the body if it regulates how much it needs and the excess is rejected. But this was already shown not to be the case. The experiment posted before confirmed an effect of vitamin C on copper and ceruloplasmin: the interaction occurred with lower doses when it shouldn't have at all. Nutrients are interdependent, how likely it is that just one is affected alone? What else gets?

You might assume that for some reason a great deal of people don't have cravings in tune that will guide them to what they need when they're grabbing something similar next to it. A better argument would be that we have not evolved a taste for vit C, or something like that. But then again, when you do something that makes you feel good, you seek more of it. It's learned behavior that should be operating in people who have tried it.

I believe that if the model or somebody else made an intuitive decision to take more at time for deriving more benefit this, I think it can be just as meaningful.

Animals that are capable will only synthesize as much vit C as they need. And to lose the ability to produce our own and still thrive had to be followed by compensation elsewhere. This was also posted throughout this thread.

What you can argue is that in stressful conditions the requirements can't be met by diet or it's desirable to have more, which can be true. However this contrasts with the idea of single concentrated dose for being less effective for the purpose of using it for its value as nutrient. The more recent publications by Steve and Roberto Cathcart posted above seem to agree with this.

 

[Amazoniac]

Dr. Wm. Kaufman on Our Body's Need for Nutritional Supplements

"I'll list the vitamins that were first available commercially from 1934 through 1940 from Merck & Co.. More than a half century ago I started to use these vitamins in the successful treatment of my patients who had a variety of health problems.

1934 Ascorbic Acid (vitamin C)
1937 Thiamine Hydrochloride (vitamin B 1)
1938 Nicotinic acid (niacin)
1938 Nicotinic acid amide (niacinamide)
1938 Riboflavin (vitamin B 2)
1940 Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (vitamin B 6)
1940 Alpha-tocopherol (Vitamin E)
1940 Vitamin K I
1940 Menadione (Has strong vitamin K activity)
1940 Calcium pantothenate (vitamin B 5)

Vitamin A and D were available before 1934, Biotin in 1943, and Beta carotene, vitamin B 12, and folic acid soon thereafter."​

--
Unrelated:
Acerolas start to turn red when clorophyll content starts to decrease while carotene and anthocyanin content increase, they're sought-after characteristics; for example, the higher the anthocyanin content in them, the greater the consumer approval. It's possible to detect common tastes in it to those of acai, maybe it's because of this.

 

[InChristAlone]

Dynamic Flow: A New Model for Ascorbate (Esteban, Ilaria, and Roberto)

"The ascorbate plasma levels corresponding to varying intakes of ascorbate exhibit dual-phase pharmacokinetics. The first phase occurs when blood levels are low: below 70 μM/L. In this phase, the kidney's sodium dependent vitamin C transporters (SVCT) reabsorb ascorbate, but not its oxidized form, dehydroascorbate.[16,17] When levels are relatively low, the transporters prevent ascorbate being lost in the urine. The second phase occurs when blood levels are high; during this phase, the body excretes ascorbate rapidly, as it does other small, water-soluble, organic molecules.[18] [?]

The plasma half-life of ascorbate is widely reported to be between 8-40 days.[11,19] However! This applies only to periods of deficient intake, when the kidney transporters are actively reabsorbing the vitamin to prevent acute scurvy. When intake levels are higher, rapid excretion occurs: during this phase, ascorbate has a half-life of about half an hour."​

Ascorbate: the science of vitamin C (1-4116-0724-4) - Steve Hickey and Hilary Roberts

In the following scheme, both lines represent the response to 2 grams of vit C; the difference with the continuous one is that on every next hour 1 gram was given, and instead of decreasing like the dotted, it reached the steady state. And they criticized Mark Levine for measuring hours later.

View attachment 11467​

"What Levine and others have shown is that vitamin C has a short half-life in the blood. Taking an oral dose will raise blood levels for only a few hours. Since the pharmacological properties of vitamin C are dose related, the benefit of a single dose is short lived."

The half-life of injected vitamin C is 30 min and it takes some time to detect a peak from an oral dose, its appearance is slow. And when it's metabolized, it doesn't return to 0 μM/L, but to the baseline of lower intakes, which is around 70 μM/L; it started there and it tended to settle there as well over the times:

2 hours for both peaks, but absorption starts right after dosing.​

The information from the first link and the above in other words:

Misleading Information on the Properties of Vitamin C

"The dual-phase pharmacokinetics of vitamin C are described by the dynamic flow model [3,4↑]. Low gram-level intakes of ascorbate, leading to blood plasma levels below 70 μM/l, have a half-life of 8–40 days. Higher gram-level intakes have a plasma half-life of 30 minutes [3]. A large oral dose raises blood plasma levels briefly: they reach a peak after two to three hours, before decaying back to baseline. Frequent repeated doses allow sustained high plasma levels of about 250 μM/l [4,5]."

"Linus Pauling, typically, described nutritional gram-level doses able to provide a degree of disease prevention [8]. By contrast, pharmacological doses used for treatment are, at minimum, an order of magnitude larger and involve frequent doses. The doses should be at intervals of three hours or less [3]."​

More on steady state and half-life..

"To obtain steady blood levels, the dose interval has to be similar to the length of time it takes to excrete the drug. Consider a drug dose of 100 mg, with a half-life of one day. This means that half the drug (50 mg) will be excreted in the course of one day. If a further 100 mg dose is taken on the second day, the effective dose is 100 mg plus the 50 mg that is still in the body from day one: a total of 150 mg. If a third dose is given on day three, the effective dose is 100 mg plus 50 mg (from the previous day) + 25 mg (from the day before): a total of 175 mg. Over time, the blood levels reach a steady state. However! If the drug has a short half-life, say just one hour, then essentially all of the previous day's drug is removed before the next dose is given, and there is little build-up in the blood stream."

This is useful:

View attachment 11465
Source: the internet.​

Check out how it wears off based on half-life..

View attachment 11460​

In order to sustain high levels for this therapeutic approach you'll need to renew the dose constantly. Since the half-life of higher doses of vit C is only 30 min, this is why Steve comments that you need them every 3 hours or so.

Back to the book..

On this graph you'll notice that they were spaced in 6 hours and there are marked dips, and by using it every 3 hours this is eased.

The amount that it takes to peak in detection makes no difference because on consecutive doses this is irrelevant, what's important is the time that it takes to be metabolized and cleared.

This also happens to a lesser extent with a natural diet that usually includes foods like fruits that are higher in vitamin C and meals with greens for example, providing a steady supply of vit C throughout the day.

For the same reason that it's better to eat more meals throughout the day instead of concentrating all food in just one, it also applies to vitamin C. And the advantage of this is that way less will suffice to provide you similar or better effects compared to a massive shot. Even Steve acknowledges this in his book:

"[..]five 100 mg doses taken at intervals through the day would raise average blood levels more than a single one-gram dose."​

Another advantage in maximizing absorption is not leaving excedent to interact with other stuff in the lumen of the intestines. When you take a colossal shot, not all is absorbed, a lot will remain unabsorbed and it might interact with previous (could include fecal matter as well) or perhaps even next meals.

In terms of advantages of concentrating:

- Sometimes the intestines are not acidified enough and maybe a bolus dose can have a positive effect this way.
- You're potentializing the laxative effect as the efficiency is reduced, and easing constipation is beneficial.
- Maybe there's something special to the transient stress of dealing with a massive dose that can be therapeutic.
- It can be a way of minimizing detrimental interactions or exposure to too much antioxidants.

Not all is blood. By the time it acted, it affected tissues and the effects will linger for some time after excretion. But it's better to do it in physiological ways. You'll read that the absolute absorbed dose keeps increasing along with amount ingested, and this is true. But when you can use a fraction of this multiple times a day with incomparable efficiency, it makes no sense to do otherwise unless for those reasons that I can think of for now.

Perhaps another advantage from an early hefty dose is in replenishing tissues after owanight fast to allow you to follow the day normally, but given its fast action and that it's the blood that nourishes the tissues, I have some doubts about it and it's nothing that multiple doses can't perform better.

Alberto used to take 1 g most of the time, but when using 2 g it was one gram in the morning and the other later in the day.​

It's worth noting that the idea of vitamin C saturation is also questionable, you can push this higher and higher the more you take. An interesting point:

Vitamin C pharmacokinetics: it’s déjà vu all over again

"No one would argue that saturation of body stores of vitamin A is desirable. Saturation of vitamin B-6 stores, at least in blood cells, would require ridiculously high intakes; additionally, to achieve circulating folate concentrations above the Kd for the reduced folate carrier would require folate intakes about 100-fold higher than the current RDA."​

Pharmacokinetics of oral vitamin C

--
Fresh guavas are available in different ways, but this is a standard 800 g tray:

View attachment 11461​

When people eat them, it's usually eat the entire fruit, they don't eliminate the seeds, they're inert and unbreakable, almost just roughage, but they could scoop them if they wanted to; they can be pressed against a sieve to extract the pulp from the seeds for juices.

If one of these trays is eaten throughout the day, considering the 230 mg/100g, they can provide you [. . . Brewing calc . . .] 1840 mg of vit C. And then you consider other foods like bell peppers (which raypeatclips is the fond), kiwis, oranges, tangerines, strawberries, leafy greens, and so on, you are be able to get close to 2500 mg. This is a brutal dietary amount. I don't think only acerolas count.

Regarding the effect, this applies to all nutrients:

View attachment 11468​

And Yanelle and others essentially believed in something like this..

View attachment 11469​

The reason for not having negatives in the second is that you can't get anything adverse in the body if it regulates how much it needs and the excess is rejected. But this was already shown not to be the case. The experiment posted before confirmed an effect of vitamin C on copper and ceruloplasmin: the interaction occurred with lower doses when it shouldn't have at all. Nutrients are interdependent, how likely it is that just one is affected alone? What else gets?

You might assume that for some reason a great deal of people don't have cravings in tune that will guide them to what they need when they're grabbing something similar next to it. A better argument would be that we have not evolved a taste for vit C, or something like that. But then again, when you do something that makes you feel good, you seek more of it. It's learned behavior that should be operating in people who have tried it.

I believe that if the model or somebody else made an intuitive decision to take more at time for deriving more benefit this, I think it can be just as meaningful.

Animals that are capable will only synthesize as much vit C as they need. And to lose the ability to produce our own and still thrive had to be followed by compensation elsewhere. This was also posted throughout this thread.

What you can argue is that in stressful conditions the requirements can't be met by diet or it's desirable to have more, which can be true. However this contrasts with the idea of single concentrated dose for being less effective for the purpose of using it for its value as nutrient. The more recent publications by Steve and Roberto Cathcart posted above seem to agree with this.

I never said there are no negatives. Just that it is the safest supplement we could take. Even safer than coffee in my opinion. Some people down coffee by the bucket it seems but I would never recommend that to a less than healthy person. But I would recommend large doses of vitamin C to an unhealthy person. And I wish instead of focusing on metabolism boosters because of the advice of this forum I should have used vitamin C.

You have convinced me to take lower more frequent doses. I will report back what difference this makes.

 

[Amazoniac]

I never said there are no negatives. Just that it is the safest supplement we could take. Even safer than coffee in my opinion. Some people down coffee by the bucket it seems but I would never recommend that to a less than healthy person. But I would recommend large doses of vitamin C to an unhealthy person. And I wish instead of focusing on metabolism boosters because of the advice of this forum I should have used vitamin C.

You have convinced me to take lower more frequent doses. I will report back what difference this makes.

Has you ever trieded Chris' glutathione? What's your experience with NAC? Maybe it's worth considering even if it's just for the sake of testing, especially if you struggle to get as much protein as you desires.

 

[InChristAlone]

Has you ever trieded Chris' glutathione? What's your experience with NAC? Maybe it's worth considering even if it's just for the sake of testing, especially if you struggle to get as much protein as you desires.

No I have a very large supplement grave and I don't want to add to it! Chris struggles with lung stuff and that's why he needs to use those things. I have never struggled with my lungs. Never had asthma, never had wheezing and have only had a cough during colds. I may look into it when I live near red tide toxins. And need a boost for my lungs.

 

[InChristAlone]

I don't know why I didn't say this before... Acerola is loaded with carotenes. There you go. A very good reason why just because it is also high in vitamin C doesn't mean someone will favor it or crave it.

 

[Amazoniac]

I don't know why I didn't say this before... Acerola is loaded with carotenes. There you go. A very good reason why just because it is also high in vitamin C doesn't mean someone will favor it or crave it.

Solved.

Except that it takes 130 g of acerolas (more than 2 g of vit C) to give you the same amount that you'll obtain from as little as 50 g of carrots, and people don't hesitate to eat them cooked (greater alaivatibily) and with fats in the meal; same for spinach, kale, and so on. One medium orange sweet potato would require you to get about 5 grams of vit C from acerolas to match in carotene content.

Also, the pulp isn't as orange as the skin (I suspect it's where carotenoids concentrate), which in turn is collected in a sieve after the juice is blended, so a good part doesn't go into the juice. The orange tone inside is nowhere near as close to those of mentioned foods.

Increased pigmentation leads to better consumer acceptance as commented before (a statement made in various publications by people who work in the field), otherwise they're rejected.

I read an experiment comparing conventional versus organic acerolas, and the organic ones had almost twice as much vit C, 4000 mg/100 g (they weren't unripe, were ready for commercialization); and less than half of carotenes (probably due to a less artificial look).


But then we have one more contradiction. You've criticized this before..

..for being useless because it was based on healthy unstressed people. You claim that your requirements are uniquely elevated for needing 4-8 g to reach bowel intolerance. However! Normal requirement to reach that is 4-15 g a day according to your own mentor:

Doctoryourself.com - Titration

Not as surprise Roberto gave no less than 4 doses a day. But you already told us that for you it's indifferent, you concentrate out of convenience; so even at your 16 grams a day, you were close to the norm. In other words, you're not out of range as you suppose and the values above are applicable.


The absorption is not high until intolerance and drops all of the sudden, it's a gradual decrease in absorption and by the time it reaches that point, it's less than 30% of the dose. This diminishment probably applies to everyone else, what varies is the amount the body admits depending on the state.

Because of this, to get an estimation for people who have greater needs, it's possible to stretch the graph above using the intolerance point. If we define it as 4 grams for normal people (to be conservative), and let's say that you need 6 grams for flushing, it means that you can tolerate 50% more, so all values of the horizontal axis above are increased: 150%.

This is for 4 g without modification:

And now stretching it to 6 g as example (the final and intermediate values coincide in absorption, which is a good sign):

The line is more important than the actual values. And with this you can estimate in a rough way how much you're getting from your dose if your needs differ from normal.

The only reason why it doesn't look stretched is because I have compacted the two to the same size, but if both lines were in the same graph, the second one would be wider.

Using this idea, for someone requiring 60 g (!) to reach intolerance:

1x 2 g (100% absorption) = 2 g
1x 6 g (60% absorption) = 3.6 g
2x 2 g (100% absorption) = 4 g​

Just to exemplify that it can still make a difference in extreme cases.

Spoiler: Values to use in spreading the sh1t

Grams of vitamin C:

0,09
0,18
0,2
0,4
0,5
1
1,25
1,5
2
2,5
3
4
5
6
10
12​

Respective (average) absorption:

90%
90%
96%
45%
73%
49%
49%
50%
31%
13%
38%
28%
21%
26%
8%
16%​

To get an idea for your individual needs:
- define what the normal bowel tolerance limit is (above we used 4 g)
- find out yours
- there will be a number that you can multiply the normal value and it will arrive on yours (above it was 1.5: 4*1.5 = 6)
- multiply all values from the first column (Grams of vitamin C)
- plot them against % absorbed

 

[Ella]

she would never sell a contaminated product that makes people sick.

I have not read all the posts but the COA @noordinary posted is high in methanol which caught my immediate attention and I had to comment and express my concerns. I am not sure whether peps pick up on the <3000 ppm methanol. Less than could mean 2999 ppm which is an extremely insensitive analytical technique. In Australia, the legal limit of blood alcohol is 0.05 gram/100 millilitres or 50 milligrams/100 millilitres of blood. This would be 500 ppm and the forensic labs can accurately determine this. This means the chemical company that issued this COA is using bucket chemistry and if so why would you risk ingesting such potentially high levels of methanol??? 3000 ppm is 0.3 gram per every 100 grams of sample, thus 300 milligram/100 grams of sample.

Please, I would not be giving this product to any human let alone a child unless you had the product tested by a lab that can provide a more accurate detection level of methanol. MOST LABS CAN DO THIS.

1.2.2 exposure monitoring
Portable Gas Monitor Gas Detection Tubes
(Courtesy of Drägerwerk AG with permission)
Methanol has a faintly sweet alcohol odor but does not make its presence known until a concentration of 2000 ppm or above is reached, which is ten times higher than the safe limit for human exposure of 200 ppm. Because the odor of methanol is a poor indicator of concentration, it is essential that some quantitative measure of exposure be determined. This is necessary to ensure that the health of workers is not impaired and to determine compliance with any applicable regulations.

The enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase which metabolises methanol and other alcohols is the same enzyme in vitamin A metabolism. Just saying.

Methanol Toxicity: Background, Etiology and Pathophysiology

Pharmacology and Toxicology: Treatment of Poisons - Methanol Intoxication

 

[InChristAlone]

I have not read all the posts but the COA @noordinary posted is high in methanol which caught my immediate attention and I had to comment and express my concerns. I am not sure whether peps pick up on the <3000 ppm methanol. Less than could mean 2999 ppm which is an extremely insensitive analytical technique. In Australia, the legal limit of blood alcohol is 0.05 gram/100 millilitres or 50 milligrams/100 millilitres of blood. This would be 500 ppm and the forensic labs can accurately determine this. This means the chemical company that issued this COA is using bucket chemistry and if so why would you risk ingesting such potentially high levels of methanol??? 3000 ppm is 0.3 gram per every 100 grams of sample, thus 300 milligram/100 grams of sample.

Please, I would not be giving this product to any human let alone a child unless you had the product tested by a lab that can provide a more accurate detection level of methanol. MOST LABS CAN DO THIS.

1.2.2 exposure monitoring
Portable Gas Monitor Gas Detection Tubes
(Courtesy of Drägerwerk AG with permission)
Methanol has a faintly sweet alcohol odor but does not make its presence known until a concentration of 2000 ppm or above is reached, which is ten times higher than the safe limit for human exposure of 200 ppm. Because the odor of methanol is a poor indicator of concentration, it is essential that some quantitative measure of exposure be determined. This is necessary to ensure that the health of workers is not impaired and to determine compliance with any applicable regulations.

The enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase which metabolises methanol and other alcohols is the same enzyme in vitamin A metabolism. Just saying.

Methanol Toxicity: Background, Etiology and Pathophysiology

Pharmacology and Toxicology: Treatment of Poisons - Methanol Intoxication

I think you have blown this out of porportion. Yes if the number is actually closer to 3000 ppm that is a lot if you need to take 100 grams per day, but most people will not be sick enough to take that amount ever. And the number is probably much lower than this. So for 1 gram it would be at most 3 mg. That means I am I getting less than 24 mg a day. Here is a paper about the methanol content of fruit and juice:

"Methanol contents of different juices, nectars and
smoothies were determined. The highest amounts of free
methanol were found in blackcurrant nectars and elder-
berry juices (160.5 mg/L and 149.5 mg/L on average res-
pectively). On the other hand smoothies contain large
amounts of bonded methanol ranging from 100 to
360 mg/L. To evaluate the hazards of fruit juices and rela-
ted products for human health accurately it is necessary to
compare the methanol contents of fruit juice and fruit. For
apples it was demonstrated that most of the methanol re-
mains in the pomace. Only 2.5 % is transferred into the
juice during processing. A medium methanol content of
~ 890 mg/kg was found for apple mashes. Thus an apple
(~ 200 g) contains by inference 180 mg bonded methanol.
Assuming that ~ 40 % is liberated [10], a portion of
~ 70 mg MeOH will be absorbed after eating one apple.
The amount of methanol ingested after consumption of
one apple is higher than that ingested after consumption of
one liter of apple juice or one portion of smoothie
(250 mL). The results show that, as far as the ingestion of
methanol is concerned, the consumption of fruit juice does
not pose any significant danger to human health."

Which means even at the highest range of methanol for Ascorbic Acid I am getting less methanol than one apple. Not a worry in my opinion.

 

[InChristAlone]

Solved.

Except that it takes 130 g of acerolas (more than 2 g of vit C) to give you the same amount that you'll obtain from as little as 50 g of carrots, and people don't hesitate to eat them cooked (greater alaivatibily) and with fats in the meal; same for spinach, kale, and so on. One medium orange sweet potato would require you to get about 5 grams of vit C from acerolas to match in carotene content.

Also, the pulp isn't as orange as the skin (I suspect it's where carotenoids concentrate), which in turn is collected in a sieve after the juice is blended, so a good part doesn't go into the juice. The orange tone inside is nowhere near as close to those of mentioned foods.

View attachment 11491 View attachment 11492​

Increased pigmentation leads to better consumer acceptance as commented before (a statement made in various publications by people who work in the field), otherwise they're rejected.

I read an experiment comparing conventional versus organic acerolas, and the organic ones had almost twice as much vit C, 4000 mg/100 g (they weren't unripe, were ready for commercialization); and less than half of carotenes (probably due to a less artificial look).


But then we have one more contradiction. You've criticized this before..

..for being useless because it was based on healthy unstressed people. You claim that your requirements are uniquely elevated for needing 4-8 g to reach bowel intolerance. However! Normal requirement to reach that is 4-15 g a day according to your own mentor:

Doctoryourself.com - Titration

View attachment 11487​

Not as surprise Roberto gave no less than 4 doses a day. But you already told us that for you it's indifferent, you concentrate out of convenience; so even at your 16 grams a day, you were close to the norm. In other words, you're not out of range as you suppose and the values above are applicable.


The absorption is not high until intolerance and drops all of the sudden, it's a gradual decrease in absorption and by the time it reaches that point, it's less than 30% of the dose. This diminishment probably applies to everyone else, what varies is the amount the body admits depending on the state.

Because of this, to get an estimation for people who have greater needs, it's possible to stretch the graph above using the intolerance point. If we define it as 4 grams for normal people (to be conservative), and let's say that you need 6 grams for flushing, it means that you can tolerate 50% more, so all values of the horizontal axis above are increased: 150%.

This is for 4 g without modification:

View attachment 11488​

And now stretching it to 6 g as example (the final and intermediate values coincide in absorption, which is a good sign):

View attachment 11489​

The line is more important than the actual values. And with this you can estimate in a rough way how much you're getting from your dose if your needs differ from normal.

The only reason why it doesn't look stretched is because I have compacted the two to the same size, but if both lines were in the same graph, the second one would be wider.

Using this idea, for someone requiring 60 g (!) to reach intolerance:

1x 2 g (100% absorption) = 2 g
1x 6 g (60% absorption) = 3.6 g
2x 2 g (100% absorption) = 4 g​

Just to exemplify that it can still make a difference in extreme cases.

Spoiler: Values to use in spreading the sh1t

Grams of vitamin C:

0,09
0,18
0,2
0,4
0,5
1
1,25
1,5
2
2,5
3
4
5
6
10
12​

Respective (average) absorption:

90%
90%
96%
45%
73%
49%
49%
50%
31%
13%
38%
28%
21%
26%
8%
16%​

To get an idea for your individual needs:
- define what the normal bowel tolerance limit is (above we used 4 g)
- find out yours
- there will be a number that you can multiply the normal value and it will arrive on yours (above it was 1.5: 4*1.5 = 6)
- multiply all values from the first column (Grams of vitamin C)
- plot them against % absorbed

It's because we have been drilled to "eat the rainbow everyday". Ever since we were little we were brainwashed to believe that colorful fruits and vegetables were the most healthy foodstuffs you could possibly eat. You think that has no bearing on what people think?

Then Peat comes along and he tells us carotenes are anti-thyroid. And I believe him because if mainstream is telling us they are so great then there must be a counter argument. Then Travis posted a paper showing how carotenemia cannot be distinguished from hypothyroidism! Bingo Peat right again!

So I will be avoiding acerola, carrots, bell peppers, sweet potatoes.

My bowel tolerance is actually closer to 8-10 grams. When I first started it was 29 grams. I have gotten healthier.

 

[Amazoniac]

It's because we have been drilled to "eat the rainbow everyday". Ever since we were little we were brainwashed to believe that colorful fruits and vegetables were the most healthy foodstuffs you could possibly eat. You think that has no bearing on what people think?

Then Peat comes along and he tells us carotenes are anti-thyroid. And I believe him because if mainstream is telling us they are so great then there must be a counter argument. Then Travis posted a paper showing how carotenemia cannot be distinguished from hypothyroidism! Bingo Peat right again!

So I will be avoiding acerola, carrots, bell peppers, sweet potatoes.

My bowel tolerance is actually closer to 8-10 grams. When I first started it was 29 grams. I have gotten healthier.

Fruits increase their pigments as they ripen, one of the reasons they do this is to become attractive to animals that can spread their seeds and to signal that they're no longer toxic. Does it make sense to poison them as they eat? How to expect animals to return to them for more? There are orange ancient/wild fruits before you speculate about that.

Speaking of expectation, Travisord has always believed that carotenes cannot be a problem. Where did he write otherwise? I might have missed.

No reason to treat these as if they were operating under mystical dynamics, for doses lower than 10 grams it's almost unchanged; and up to 15 grams is within the normal tolerances according to your Roberto. It seems that you have stopped reading these messages and just want to express yourself.

--
I had some doubts if Charlotte left vit C supplementation in Gerson's approach untouched out of neglect, but this is not the case. It was upgraded since the original 400 mg. Now they use 1-1.5 grams a day, and this falls right in the range that we have been discussing the entire thread, which is another reinforcement that 1 gram a day is a good starting place.

It also reinforces that they're aware of the value of intravenous vit C, with B12 and liver extract already being injected but they seem not to use vit C this route or in colossal amounts unless as a last resort. Why?

The Gerson Therapy: The Proven Nutritional Program for Cancer and Other Illnesses (1-57566-628-6) - Charlotte Gerson and Morton Walker

"Inasmuch as the Gerson diet contains large amounts of natural vitamin C, a routine daily supplementation with this vitamin should not be necessary; however, vitamin C is the prime nutrient when it comes to overall support of the immune system. Vitamin C is used supplementally as a tool for fighting infection, and as part of a pain-relieving triad of natural and nontoxic medications. It also offsets free radical pathology created by the administration of chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

The Gerson Therapy's dose of vitamin C comes in orally administered crystalline (powdered) form such as Bronson's Vitamin C in an amount of 1 to 1.5 grams per day. Never use calcium or sodium ascorbate, since these two particular products will bring about serious detrimental effects. High doses of intravenous vitamin C are associated with long-term survival in patients with a variety of cancers, even after the tumors have metastasized.25"​

There were 5 IMN victims. But is this information reliable? What if there were more?

 

[InChristAlone]

Fruits increase their pigments as they ripen, one of the reasons they do this is to become attractive to animals that can spread their seeds and to signal that they're no longer toxic. Does it make sense to poison them as they eat? How to expect animals to return to them for more? There are orange ancient/wild fruits before you speculate about that.

Speaking of expectation, Travisord has always believed that carotenes cannot be a problem. Where did he write otherwise? I might have missed.

No reason to treat these as if they were operating under mystical dynamics, for doses lower than 10 grams it's almost unchanged; and up to 15 grams is within the normal tolerances according to your Roberto. It seems that you have stopped reading these messages and just want to express yourself.

--
I had some doubts if Charlotte left vit C supplementation in Gerson's approach untouched out of neglect, but this is not the case. It was upgraded since the original 400 mg. Now they use 1-1.5 grams a day, and this falls right in the range that we have been discussing the entire thread, which is another reinforcement that 1 gram a day is a good starting place.

It also reinforces that they're aware of the value of intravenous vit C, with B12 and liver extract already being injected but they seem not to use vit C this route or in colossal amounts unless as a last resort. Why?

The Gerson Therapy: The Proven Nutritional Program for Cancer and Other Illnesses (1-57566-628-6) - Charlotte Gerson and Morton Walker

"Inasmuch as the Gerson diet contains large amounts of natural vitamin C, a routine daily supplementation with this vitamin should not be necessary; however, vitamin C is the prime nutrient when it comes to overall support of the immune system. Vitamin C is used supplementally as a tool for fighting infection, and as part of a pain-relieving triad of natural and nontoxic medications. It also offsets free radical pathology created by the administration of chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

The Gerson Therapy's dose of vitamin C comes in orally administered crystalline (powdered) form such as Bronson's Vitamin C in an amount of 1 to 1.5 grams per day. Never use calcium or sodium ascorbate, since these two particular products will bring about serious detrimental effects. High doses of intravenous vitamin C are associated with long-term survival in patients with a variety of cancers, even after the tumors have metastasized.25"​

There were 5 IMN victims. But is this information reliable? What if there were more?

You must have forgotten the list of poisonous or too unapalatable fruit:

• Abacá, Musa textilis (Musaceae)
• Ackee fruit, Blighia Sapida (Sapindaceae) Only the white flesh is edible, the reddish-orange skin and the hard, large, black seeds are toxic.
• Alemow, Citrus macrophylla (Rutaceae}
• Alpine honeysuckle, Lonicera alpigena(Caprifoliaceae)
• Apples containing seeds Malus spp. (Rosaceae) The apple itself is completely devoid of toxins, but the seeds contain cyanide.
• Asparagus berries, Asparagus officinalis(Asparagaceae) The toxic red berry of the vegetable plant, asparagus.
• Baneberry, Actaea pachypoda(Ranunculaceae)
• Bittersweet, Celastrus scandens(Celastraceae)
• Black bryony, Dioscorea communis(Dioscoreaceae)
• Buckthorn, Rhamnus cathartica(Rhamnaceae)
• Canadian moonseed, Menispermum canadense' (Menispermaceae)
• Castor Bean, Ricinus communis(Euphorbiaceae)
• Chinaberry, Actaea rubra (Ranunculaceae)
• Clusias, Clusia spp (Clusiaceae)
• Coyote melon, Cucurbita palmata(Cucurbitaceae)
• Cretan date palm, Phoenix theophrasti(Arecaceae)
• Crown flower, Calotropis gigantea(Apocynaceae)
• Deadly nightshade, Atropa belladonna(Solanaceae)
• Ensete, Ensete ventricosum (Musaceae)l
• European spindle, Euonymus europaeus(Celastraceae)
• Firethorn, Pyracantha angustifolia(Rosaceae)
• Florida thatch palm, Thrinax radiata(Arecaceae)
• Fox head, Solanum mammosum(Solanaceae)
• Glossy nightshade, Solanum americanum(Solanaceae)
• Golden dewdrop, Duranta erecta(Verbenaceae)
• Harlequin glorybower, Clerodendrum trichotomum (Lamiaceae)
• Herb-paris, Paris quadrifolia(Melanthiaceae)
• Holly, Ilex spp. (Aquifoliaceae)
• Honeybush, Melianthus major(Francoaceae)
• Honeyvine, Cynanchum laeve(Apocynaceae)
  • European holly, Ilex aquifolium(Aquifoliaceae)
• Inca-peanut, Plukenetia volubilis(Euphorbiaceae)
• Ink berry, Dianella nigra (Asphodelaceae)
• Ivy, Hedera spp. (Araliaceae)
• Japanese star anise, Illicium anisatum(Schisandraceae)
• Jatropha fruit, Jatropha curcas(Euphorbiaceae)
• Laurel, Prunus laurocerasus (Rosaceae)
• Lily of the valley, Convallaria majalis(Asparagaceae)
• Linden (also known as Lime or Basswood), Tilia spp. (Malvaceae)
• Manchineel, Hippomane mancinella(Euphorbiaceae)
• Mape tree, Inocarpus fagifer (Fabaceae)
• Masuri berry, Coriaria nepalensis(Coriariaceae)
• Mezereum, Daphne mezereum(Thymelaeaceae)
• Mistletoe, (3 genera in the order Santalales)
• Osage-orange, Maclura pomifera(Moraceae)
• Natal plum, Carissa Macrocarpa(Apocynaceae) Only the unripe "plums" are poisonous.
• Opium poppy, Papaver somniferum(Papaveraceae)
• Paddy melon, Cucumis myriocarpus(Curcurbitaceae)
• Pangium edule, Pangium edule(Achariaceae), only edible when fermented
• Poisonberry, Solanum dulcamara spp. (Solanaceae)
• Pokeweed, Phytolacca americana(Phytolaccaceae)
• Privet, Ligustrum spp. (Oleaceae)
• Rattlebox (Fabaceae)
• Redoul, Coriaria myrtifolia (Coriariaceae)
• Rosary pea, Abrus precatorius (Fabaceae)
• Sandbog death camas, Zigadenus glaberrimus (Melanthiaceae)
• Sea mango, Cerbera manghas(Apocynaceae}
• Silverbell, Halesia spp. (Styracaceae)
• Snowberry, Symphoricarpos spp. (Caprifoliaceae)
• Soapberry, Sapindus spp. (Sapindaceae)
• Sponge gourd, Luffa aegyptiaca(Cucurbitaceae)
• Strychnine tree, Strychnos nux-vomica(Loganiaceae)
• Suicide tree fruit, Cerbera odollam(Apocynaceae)
• Syringa berrytree, Melia azedarach(Meliaceae)
• Thorn apple, Datura stramonium(Solanaceae)
• Tibetan dewberry, Rubus thibetanus(Rosaceae)
• Tickberry, Lantana camara (Verbenaceae)
• Tormentil, Potentilla erecta (Rosaceae)
• Trifoliate orange, Citrus trifoliata (Rutaceae)
• Tropical soda apple, Solanum viarum(Solanaceae)
• Tung tree, Vernicia fordii (Euphorbiaceae)
• Virginia creeper, Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Vitaceae)
• Wahoo, Euonymus atropurpureus(Celastraceae)
• Weeping pear, Pyrus salicifolia (Rosaceae)
• Wild arum, Arum maculatum (Araceae)
• Wild cucumber, Marah macrocarpus(Cucurbitaceae) Fruit is a thorny, green, bur-like "cucumber".
• Wild olive, Olea oleaster (Oleaceae)
• Winter cherry, Solanum pseudocapsicum(Solanaceae)
• Yellow buckeye, Aesculus flava(Sapindaceae)
• Yellow oleander, Cascabela thevetia(Apocynaceae)
• Yew cones with seeds unremoved, Taxusspp. (Taxaceae) Deseeded they are not harmful, as only the seeds contain poison.

Why would these plants make fruit that are inedible if they are meant to be eaten?? So very strange.

Travis didn't mean to post a study showing the toxic effects of carotenes I went through and found the quotes myself. We talked about it in the Genereux thread.

I am not just trying to express myself. I don't always have the patience to debate over small things. I mean Ella made a long alarming post about methanol and yet in doses of 8 grams you are getting less than an apple for the highest range. I just feel like some of you are grasping at straws just to argue that high doses aren't safe. When your time could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Amazoniac]

You must have forgotten the list of poisonous or too unapalatable fruit:

• Abacá, Musa textilis (Musaceae)
• Ackee fruit, Blighia Sapida (Sapindaceae) Only the white flesh is edible, the reddish-orange skin and the hard, large, black seeds are toxic.
• Alemow, Citrus macrophylla (Rutaceae}
• Alpine honeysuckle, Lonicera alpigena(Caprifoliaceae)
• Apples containing seeds Malus spp. (Rosaceae) The apple itself is completely devoid of toxins, but the seeds contain cyanide.
• Asparagus berries, Asparagus officinalis(Asparagaceae) The toxic red berry of the vegetable plant, asparagus.
• Baneberry, Actaea pachypoda(Ranunculaceae)
• Bittersweet, Celastrus scandens(Celastraceae)
• Black bryony, Dioscorea communis(Dioscoreaceae)
• Buckthorn, Rhamnus cathartica(Rhamnaceae)
• Canadian moonseed, Menispermum canadense' (Menispermaceae)
• Castor Bean, Ricinus communis(Euphorbiaceae)
• Chinaberry, Actaea rubra (Ranunculaceae)
• Clusias, Clusia spp (Clusiaceae)
• Coyote melon, Cucurbita palmata(Cucurbitaceae)
• Cretan date palm, Phoenix theophrasti(Arecaceae)
• Crown flower, Calotropis gigantea(Apocynaceae)
• Deadly nightshade, Atropa belladonna(Solanaceae)
• Ensete, Ensete ventricosum (Musaceae)l
• European spindle, Euonymus europaeus(Celastraceae)
• Firethorn, Pyracantha angustifolia(Rosaceae)
• Florida thatch palm, Thrinax radiata(Arecaceae)
• Fox head, Solanum mammosum(Solanaceae)
• Glossy nightshade, Solanum americanum(Solanaceae)
• Golden dewdrop, Duranta erecta(Verbenaceae)
• Harlequin glorybower, Clerodendrum trichotomum (Lamiaceae)
• Herb-paris, Paris quadrifolia(Melanthiaceae)
• Holly, Ilex spp. (Aquifoliaceae)
• Honeybush, Melianthus major(Francoaceae)
• Honeyvine, Cynanchum laeve(Apocynaceae)
  • European holly, Ilex aquifolium(Aquifoliaceae)
• Inca-peanut, Plukenetia volubilis(Euphorbiaceae)
• Ink berry, Dianella nigra (Asphodelaceae)
• Ivy, Hedera spp. (Araliaceae)
• Japanese star anise, Illicium anisatum(Schisandraceae)
• Jatropha fruit, Jatropha curcas(Euphorbiaceae)
• Laurel, Prunus laurocerasus (Rosaceae)
• Lily of the valley, Convallaria majalis(Asparagaceae)
• Linden (also known as Lime or Basswood), Tilia spp. (Malvaceae)
• Manchineel, Hippomane mancinella(Euphorbiaceae)
• Mape tree, Inocarpus fagifer (Fabaceae)
• Masuri berry, Coriaria nepalensis(Coriariaceae)
• Mezereum, Daphne mezereum(Thymelaeaceae)
• Mistletoe, (3 genera in the order Santalales)
• Osage-orange, Maclura pomifera(Moraceae)
• Natal plum, Carissa Macrocarpa(Apocynaceae) Only the unripe "plums" are poisonous.
• Opium poppy, Papaver somniferum(Papaveraceae)
• Paddy melon, Cucumis myriocarpus(Curcurbitaceae)
• Pangium edule, Pangium edule(Achariaceae), only edible when fermented
• Poisonberry, Solanum dulcamara spp. (Solanaceae)
• Pokeweed, Phytolacca americana(Phytolaccaceae)
• Privet, Ligustrum spp. (Oleaceae)
• Rattlebox (Fabaceae)
• Redoul, Coriaria myrtifolia (Coriariaceae)
• Rosary pea, Abrus precatorius (Fabaceae)
• Sandbog death camas, Zigadenus glaberrimus (Melanthiaceae)
• Sea mango, Cerbera manghas(Apocynaceae}
• Silverbell, Halesia spp. (Styracaceae)
• Snowberry, Symphoricarpos spp. (Caprifoliaceae)
• Soapberry, Sapindus spp. (Sapindaceae)
• Sponge gourd, Luffa aegyptiaca(Cucurbitaceae)
• Strychnine tree, Strychnos nux-vomica(Loganiaceae)
• Suicide tree fruit, Cerbera odollam(Apocynaceae)
• Syringa berrytree, Melia azedarach(Meliaceae)
• Thorn apple, Datura stramonium(Solanaceae)
• Tibetan dewberry, Rubus thibetanus(Rosaceae)
• Tickberry, Lantana camara (Verbenaceae)
• Tormentil, Potentilla erecta (Rosaceae)
• Trifoliate orange, Citrus trifoliata (Rutaceae)
• Tropical soda apple, Solanum viarum(Solanaceae)
• Tung tree, Vernicia fordii (Euphorbiaceae)
• Virginia creeper, Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Vitaceae)
• Wahoo, Euonymus atropurpureus(Celastraceae)
• Weeping pear, Pyrus salicifolia (Rosaceae)
• Wild arum, Arum maculatum (Araceae)
• Wild cucumber, Marah macrocarpus(Cucurbitaceae) Fruit is a thorny, green, bur-like "cucumber".
• Wild olive, Olea oleaster (Oleaceae)
• Winter cherry, Solanum pseudocapsicum(Solanaceae)
• Yellow buckeye, Aesculus flava(Sapindaceae)
• Yellow oleander, Cascabela thevetia(Apocynaceae)
• Yew cones with seeds unremoved, Taxusspp. (Taxaceae) Deseeded they are not harmful, as only the seeds contain poison.

Why would these plants make fruit that are inedible if they are meant to be eaten?? So very strange.

Travis didn't mean to post a study showing the toxic effects of carotenes I went through and found the quotes myself. We talked about it in the Genereux thread.

I am not just trying to express myself. I don't always have the patience to debate over small things. I mean Ella made a long alarming post about methanol and yet in doses of 8 grams you are getting less than an apple for the highest range. I just feel like some of you are grasping at straws just to argue that high doses aren't safe. When your time could be better spent elsewhere.

Fruits are not interested in playing tricks, it's advantageous for them to have clear messages for animals that are not supposed to be eating them. Therefore, if they're not appetizing, they're probably toxic. Acerola juices tastes great, remember Frankdee's taste buddies? People use its powder everywhere in the world sometimes in exorbitant amounts.

Why they haven't added more vitamin C to the program above?

 

[InChristAlone]

Fruits are not interested in playing tricks, it's advantageous for them to have clear messages for animals that are not supposed to be eating them. Therefore, if they're not appetizing, they're probably toxic. Acerola juices tastes great, remember Frankdee's taste buddies? People use its powder everywhere in the world sometimes in exorbitant amounts.

Why they haven't added more vitamin C to the program above?

The tastiness of fruit have changed though. The wild counterparts are sometimes too bitter. Have you heard of aposematism? What if it is the same for plants?? Brightly colored could mean higher in toxic substances. If you peel something and it is mostly white or lightly yellow then you got rid of a lot of the toxins. I prefer bananas or lightly yellow fruits. Some fruit are colored by anthocyanins instead of carotenoids and these are more favorable. Grapes for instance. So not wanting to turn it on me all the time, but when I crashed a couple yrs ago I eliminated most caretenoids without even knowing! I started eating bananas, and drank grape juice instead of orange. Stopped drinking milk. Favored bland colored food like pasta.

Anyway, I have no idea why Gerson therapy doesn't want to go higher. But they are probably bent on doing things ''natural". So even though they use some supplements they try to keep the nutrition from food. But they would be doing a disservice. Sometimes lifesaving protocols are anything but natural. And I am very glad that I have gotten over wanting to be "natural" because someday my life may depend on a drug or medical procedure. As much as I put down the medical institution I would gladly use it if I need to.

 

[Amazoniac]

The tastiness of fruit have changed though. The wild counterparts are sometimes too bitter. Have you heard of aposematism? What if it is the same for plants?? Brightly colored could mean higher in toxic substances. If you peel something and it is mostly white or lightly yellow then you got rid of a lot of the toxins. I prefer bananas or lightly yellow fruits. Some fruit are colored by anthocyanins instead of carotenoids and these are more favorable. Grapes for instance. So not wanting to turn it on me all the time, but when I crashed a couple yrs ago I eliminated most caretenoids without even knowing! I started eating bananas, and drank grape juice instead of orange. Stopped drinking milk. Favored bland colored food like pasta.

Anyway, I have no idea why Gerson therapy doesn't want to go higher. But they are probably bent on doing things ''natural". So even though they use some supplements they try to keep the nutrition from food. But they would be doing a disservice. Sometimes lifesaving protocols are anything but natural. And I am very glad that I have gotten over wanting to be "natural" because someday my life may depend on a drug or medical procedure. As much as I put down the medical institution I would gladly use it if I need to.

Like it was commented above, when they're juiced, the skin is remowed in the process, you're are left with a liquid that's mostly made of the clearer pulp.

What about the copious amounts of potassium a day? It would be easy for them to triple the cheap and accessible vit C dose for the benefit of everyone.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Fruits are not interested in playing tricks, it's advantageous for them to have clear messages for animals that are not supposed to be eating them.

Well, advantageous to the fruits that want to be eaten, sure. Other plants may want to poison animals that eat them, and develop a similar looking "fruit" that is indeed highly toxic. This happens in the animal kingdom all the time (like venomous and harmless snakes that have a similar color on their skin), no reason it wouldn't be same for plants.

 

[Amazoniac]

Well, advantageous to the fruits that want to be eaten, sure. Other plants may want to poison animals that eat them, and develop a similar looking "fruit" that is indeed highly toxic. This happens in the animal kingdom all the time (like venomous and harmless snakes that have a similar color on their skin), no reason it wouldn't be same for plants.

You don't want to waste your pulp with an animal that can't spread your seeds. Leave it a bad taste or a bad effect and those that can't help you won't touch it again.

 

[tankasnowgod]

You don't want to waste your pulp with an animal that can't spread your seeds. Leave it a bad taste or a bad effect and those that can't help you won't touch it again.

...unless your ideal ground to take root is a dead animal carcass.

 

[Amazoniac]

...unless your ideal ground to take root is a dead animal carcass.

I remember sharing a link with Travisord about that.

But all fruits have antimicrobial properties. When they are harsher on microbes than on us, that can be beneficial. Strawberries and blueberries are examples of fruits that are more accessible (reach) than acerolas and are just as exposed to the environment, so they should contain more potent toxins and yet people eat them regularly without issues. Acerolas have larger seeds that are supposed to be spreaded by bigger animals, it is a sign that they depend on them for spreading unless there's an altruistic beetle passing by.