HDL, LDL & Cholesterol etc

I'm replying to Brian's post, but SFN doesn't give me a Reply option, so It's here...

No, I'm not convinced by everything Pauling says, but there's a lot in it. The mechanisms by which Vitamin C help the body to fight infection are indirect, so it's not that viruses change and evolve while vitamin C doesn't. Vit C assists the body's own processes.

Regarding the molecule itself, you find people who say that ascorbic acid isn't the same as natural vit C, and others who say there's no difference. That seems to come down to the presence of bioflavinoids. However, while naturally sourced vit C is almost certainly better, it's not available in large enough amounts. That's the thing, if you come to the conclusion that several grammes a day is appropriate then you're obliged to supplement. But that's not expensive in this case.

Cancer, I don't know. From what I've read it can sometimes make the end less bad, but I don't think it's something that prevents cancer. Like you say I think vitamin D has more effect there.

The thing with vit C is that there's no money in it, not really. People like Thomas Levy and Suzanne Humphries use it because it works, and they make far less money than if they used conventional drugs. However, it enables them to follow their calling to cure people.

We'll see. I seem to be doing OK on my régime. :-)

You appear to have fallen in love with Linus Pauling's claim that large doses of vitamin C prevent colds and reduce the risk of cancer. The former is total nonsense since an ever mutating set of many varied viruses would mutate resistance to it within a short time. Mind you, it has made the supplements industry untold billions in profits, so nobody bothers about that. Cancer, nothing ever proven either way although tested and retested since the 1930s. Nutritionists will tell you artificially introduced vitamins are literally only supplements, but do not replace naturally absorbed ones. The supplement regimes are a fallacy. Bear in mind, much of the research to prove humans do not get enough vitamin C from fresh food are funded by pharmaceutical concerns. To find otherwise would undermine their vast income. In my discipline there are people who study diet and there are a few people such as Inupiats who get almost no Cs, they also do not get colds and cancer is almost unknown. They get mainly Ds, omegas in other words. Likewise most desert and mountain region living people.

Most GPs do not know. My one's wife is the local nutritionist who advised me. My overall vitamin intake was above needs on fresh food alone. Science is made only partially accessible to confuse, every researcher knows that, which is how we keep working. We are always trying to prove something else or new.

Yes, supplements, either ascorbic acid or sodium ascorbate. I also eat plenty of fruit and veg, but getting the C you need from that is next to impossible.

The experiments that have been done on animals show a certain amount per kilo, more or less depending on the animal. Scale that up to me weighing about 80kg, and I get my figure.

There's effectively no maximum dose for vitamin C. The LD 50 is so high as to be impractical, for reasons of bowel tolerance.

But yes, sure, talk to your GP.

So you are taking supplements rather than natural vitamin C, therefore in a calcium based medium. The actual volume of fresh food is vast to accomplish that. Other primates can make their own and even the silverback gorilla who cannot only absorbs about 2g a day by eating around 12k of fruit and vegetable when available. What, by the way, is an average animal? At about 80k using your calculation there are not actually that many.

Time for a health warning, I think.
****** TALK TO YOUR GP BEFORE TRYING THIS. ******

Brian, yes, grammes. I try to take about 8g daily, and apparently it's important to ramp up and down reasonably gently. I need to make sure I take it every day, otherwise the body can use up too much in certain areas and others become temporarily starved. The consequences aren't serious, it's just that an adjustment needs to be made. I don't believe either that it's possible to meet the daily needs for vit C without taking it diectly. There's just not enough in the food we eat.

The "problem" with the perception of certain vitamins has been the deficiency diseases. These were often the way the vitamins were discovered - vit C, for example, because citrus fruits helped avoid scurvy. The thing is that the RDAs for many of these are set at the level that avoids the deficiency disease, not the level we actually need.

Vit C is produced naturally by nearly every animal except guinea pigs, humans, certain monkeys etc. And we actually have all the genes to do it, but the last one in the process no longer works and we don't know why. So it's something that would be made in varying amounts automatically according to need. And need for vit C, apparently, is everywhere.

It can cause the runs, yes, but you find that if you build slowly that you get accustomed to higher doses. And what's fascinating is that you have a "bowel tolerance" level beyond which lies frequent toilet visits, but that this tolerance changes according to the needs of your body. It's amazing. How much is enough? Well, if a typical animal produced 70mg per kilo bodyweight when healthy, then in normal circumstances I might be looking at a normal production of 5.6g. When you are ill, however, it changes dramatically. Your bowel tolerance might rise to 40, 50, even 100g daily. It depends entirely on what the body will take. I'm not sure such a mechanism exists for the other vitamins.

The scurvy avoidance level is policed by the kidneys. If the level in the blood is higher than this level, the kidneys won't eject vit C. If it's higher, they will. But this isn't necessarily a disadvantage for two reasons. One, vit C is cheap at €25 per kilo. Second, it acts as an anti-viral and anti-bacterial agent, so having it in your urinary tract keeps that disinfected.

I've read a lot on this by such people as Fred Klenner, Irwin Stone and Steve Hickey. I've also watched YouTube videos by Tery Levy (this,for example), and also material by Linus Pauling. Fascinating, and at the same time very frustrating that - of course - there's no money for clinical trials. However, the observations of these doctors who have treated thousands of patients is enough for me.

"To"...

be or not to be ?

Strange. A large part of what I wrote 'disappeared'. OK, quickly.

Four large oranges will give about 90mg of vitamin C. To get one single gramme would require something upward of 40 oranges a day or equivalent in other fruit and vegetables. To say several grammes is mind boggling. Is Ian sure about 'several grammes'?

Tell me, I can't wait!

A final passing thought before I get down to work. To

Yes, I have read about vitamins in general over the last couple of years. Because I was against more drugs than I already had to take, for instance things to prevent infections that could come with colds and the like, I looked into both prevention and cure. I looked at scientific evidence from both conventional medicine and homoeopathy and found very much the same. First thing is that too many people either concentrate on supplementing, boosting or concentrating a single vitamin. It appears that is of little use. If anything vitamin D is far more important than C for many people.Vitamin C has low toxicity and does not normally cause serious adverse effects with high intake. The most common complaints if that is the case include diarrhoea, nausea, abdominal cramps and other gastrointestinal caused by unabsorbed vitamin C in the gastrointestinal tract.

Gastrointestinal activity limits the intake of most vitamins, however humans, unlike most other animals, are unable to synthesise vitamin C so it is an essential dietary component. Citrus fruits, tomatoes and tomato juice, red and green peppers, kiwis, broccoli, strawberries, brussels sprouts and potatoes are major contributors of vitamin C, other vegetables and fruit have a certain amount. It is not present in any meat, despite what some people may claim. About 90 to 100mg a day is all we need, beyond that it is no longer absorbed or, if it is then we are likely to have gastrointestinal problems. In both fields the whole question of vitamin absorption has been very carefully examined.

Homoeopathy has, if anything, proven fairly conclusively that the obsession with multivitamin supplements is a lazy and inefficient way of dealing with our need anyway. Eating more food that contains vitamins is the real answer. There are two reasons. First it is broken down and digested, thus the excess usually carried away naturally. Secondly, having neither been extracted and processed or synthesised into pills, powders and so on, it is far easier for our bodies to absorb since it is simply part of the digestive process. Vitamin C deficiency and the list of ailments collectively known formerly as scurvy are now rare with deficiency symptoms occurring only if vitamin C intake falls below approximately 10 mg per day over several weeks.

Vitamin C alone is not very helpful, D and E are important. If taking multivitamins the check to see what type of vitamin E they contain. Make sure you get D alpha tocophero, but not DL alpha tocopherol which is the synthetic version of vitamin E which does not absorb as efficiently as natural vitamin E. That is good for your skin which is a very good monitor of your general health, so that if a vitamin C deficiency causes any kind of pellagra it will show better and faster. Research has shown that those with the lowest vitamin D levels are over half as likely to be at risk of dying from heart disease. Vitamin D (mainly D3) is produced by our bodies by receiving UVB radiation from the sun. It is the same radiation that can cause skin cancers, so needs to be done cautiously - for instance by not burning ourselves lobster red and hoping to be chestnut brown after a week on the beach. That all depends on our natural melamine hormone and those who have been wrapped up against sun for the first 10 or so years of life are unlikely to produce it sufficiently. However, if you are fair skinned going outside for about 10 minutes in the midday sun in shorts and tee shirt but with no sunscreen be enough radiation exposure to produce about 10,000 units of the vitamin. Darker skinned people and the elderly also produce less vitamin D therefore should get this nutrient from dietary sources like fatty fish such as sardines, herring, mackerel and salmon. People who eat fish at least once a week have a significantly lower risk of suffering dementia and between 200-400g of oily fish twice per week appears to help prevent sudden death due to myocardial infarction by preventing cardiac arrhythmia. Oily fish liver and liver products, for instance cod liver oil, contain vitamin D is the form of omega-3, but also an active form of vitamin A which at high levels can be dangerous. So, a spoonful a day if you must. After years of debate it appears that full fat milk, butter and cheese are good for Ds too.

Taking large amounts of a single vitamin appears to have a knock on effect on other ones. The ascorbic acids in vitamin C can apparently reduce the usefulness of Es. So there needs to be a balance. I have great respect for what Suzanne Humphries says about synthetic against natural vitamins and use of homoeopathy and naturopathy against drug use. She is heavily opposed by pharmaceutical giants quite clearly. However, she is in a minority of one on both sides with very good longitudinal research on vitamins not agreeing. Indeed, since ascorbic acid may cause indigestion and other digestion problems, especially when taken on an empty stomach, also nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, flushing of the face, headaches, tiredness and disturbed sleep, in children skin rashes, there is also evidence of over production and absorption of iron, research has shown that large amounts and even overdosing vitamin C is possible and to be avoided.

So, the solution is to find out and then eat and behave in a manner that provides us with needs. I basically began doing that as a vegetarian many years ago with omegas lacking, so used lots of soya and cooked using rapeseed oil (canola) and linseed oil, sesame oil is reasonably good too. Beans have some, seaweed products enough, leafy greens like spinach, cabbages and berries some too, wild rice rather than white, melons or mangos are the ones I remember for omegas. The rest is quite easy. Just use a balance but remember that most of the things you eat and drink also give you other nutrients such as proteins, sugars, trace elements and fibres that we cannot do without. None of the vitamins is much use if we neglect the rest. That, certainly from serious homoeopathy rather than conventional medicine which is under the thumb of pharmaceutical giants, is the better choice than multivitamin supplements.

If you have two hours spare this video lecture might interest you. It is by Dr Suzanne Humphries, someone for whom I have huge admiration because she gave up a lucrative career in medicine to go and do research that she felt was important. She explains in the video, I think. I believe she's right, too.

Anyway, it's a talk that she gave in Sweden at the end of 2014 on the subject of Vitamin C.

Has anyone who is either on statins, or been advised to take them, done any reading on the effects of high dose vitamin C? By "high" I mean of the order of several grammes per day, not a few hundred miligrammes. If not I believe it would be well worthwhile to do so, and thereby avoid the statins.

With you entirely. I take what is necessary, no more and then try to replace them with something natural. I refer to the as drugs when talking to medics, it raised eyebrows once but now they are used to it. Plus between neurologists and the cardio they all distrust each others' medication but actually end up prescribing more that counteract the bad effects of X, Y and Z from the others' pills. All boosts pharma profits and makes us dependent. Not playing, so hard cheese Bayer, etc.

I think I did the same one, it made me 24! I was certainly not 100% but not far off, but then it was probably designed for French 14 year olds rather than upward of 30.

I fear you are right - Big Pharma is primarily interested in making money. I avoid all medicines unless I am convinced that my life would be at risk without them. Just reading the list of possible undesirable side effects is enough to make me think twice. And I have seen the damage that can be done by those headache remedies that give relief today and another headache tomorrow. And anti-depressants and sleeping tablets. It seems to be more profitable to make something that treats the symptoms, rather than doing research into discovering the root cause of the problems. I have to admit to having been persuaded to take statins some years back, but I didn't like the side effects and soon stopped taking them, preferring to reduce my sugar and animal fat consumption and avoiding any further cholesterol tests. 20 years later I am still alive!
I just read that taking regular exercise can extend your life to the same extent as giving up smoking. i.e. an extra ten years. They used to say the same about regular church attendance!

Was just browsing round the discussion Peter when I saw an ad for doing a brain test, - What age is your brain? something like 50 questions on it and all were in French covering a variety of subjects inc mental arithmetic - Never my good point - art, politics, geography, you name they were all there! I came up with an age of 35, which all things considered I thought wasn’t too bad. Ok the quiz was chargeable and I prob took longer than normal, given I didn’t understand all the questions.
Sorry nothing to do with Hdl or Ldl! But perhaps SFN will gain a bit out of it as it was an ad on their site and I wondered if anyone else may have seen and done the Quiz. Given nature of questions I thought of a few people on here who would probably get 100% right.

Peter and Sheila, I have been to my GP this evening and told him that I wasn’t going to have scans any more, as I didn’t believe I had a problem in my lungs. He agreed with me as he knows how upset it makes me.

He told me that the reason that they want to check each year is so that you do not sue them if you should develop any secondaries.

My GP and myself have come to the conclusion that if there were a problem in the lungs it would have shown by now. The latest scan shows no difference from last year.

I will continue with the surveillance for my breast cancer, I had lobular cancer which does not show up on mammograms, so it will be the general call up one year and the ultrasound the other.

I feel so much better already.

I just wonder how many of us are undergoing these tests just for the benefit of the doctors and the State is paying for all of this.

No, lovely.

Jane, I will think of you Friday, send good thoughts your way. Take care and courage.