High Dose Vitamin C Mystery

bad1080

Senior Member
Messages
395
Last edited:

linusbert

Senior Member
Messages
1,693
The problem of e-cars is even worse.
its not, i do not understand why people push this narrative. i originally thought this was pushed by german carmakers.

"rare earths" arent rare on earth, they are richly distributed around earth crust. they are just harder to mine because they are not in big chunks together but spread everywhere. but then they should come up with new mining methods. its like helium3 on moon, its abundant, but also only spread out as dust.
Then please provide a case study only, where it caused kidney stones.
ai provides these:
https://www.kidney-international.org/article/S0085-2538(15)48976-8/fulltext?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1568519?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(23)29553-2/fulltext?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(17)30785-0/abstract?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Worthwhile complaining with them about your allergies to their products.
i did contact them, but their customer care does not care, at best i can get retour. recently i wanted to send back my acetylcarnitine because it smelled fishy. they lied to me told me its normal, which is not, probably didnt knew it better, after discussion i got the money back.
 

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,713
Location
Austria
but then they should come up with new mining methods.
Then we happily agree to disagree. New mining methods may or may not be found. Just as a uniting cause for ME/CFS. Meanwhile, the monstrous heavy metal poisonings will continue, changing into high gear.

This just repeats why this myth originated in the first place. Oxalate excretion is increased with vitamin C, which might be why it actually could be beneficial at higher doses with oxalate kidney stones. You didn't even check your cheap AI responses for validity.

Here is the problem with prospective studies, which can't really disentangle cause and effects, without even knowing the doses taken, much less anything else. Assumed to be a mere 1000 g/d. Or any randomization, where concomitant factors could be at play just as well.

On the opposite, some Orthomolecular physicians reported, that kidney stones ceased forever, as soon as their kidney stone patients used many grams instead of milligrams a day. Who is right? Only randomization would show. Meanwhile, for my own safety I prefer actual repeated clinical experiences, instead of mere fearmongering theories.

Again the increased risk of increased oxalates excretion, but where is even one resulting in kidney stone from that in my eyes beneficial increased excretion?

Finally, a sole case study behind a pay-wall:

We report a case of acute kidney injury due to oxalate nephropathy in a patient using chelating therapy with oral ethylenediamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA), intravenous supplementation with vitamin C, and chronic diarrhea and discuss the potential kidney damage these factors can cause in particular settings.
Just as predicted:
Then please provide a case study only, where it caused kidney stones. To see if there were not more serious co-morbidities at work.
In particular settings: Chronic diarrhea, IVs, EDTA. What was the chronic diarrhea from to begin with? Against what the EDTA and intravenous acerbate was applied? Indicating, the cause for 'acute kidney Injury' was most likely completely elsewhere. As outcome, presumably a usually very painfully passing kidney stone?

Compare the hypothesized risk to of a kidney stone (in approx. 99.8% not deathly), compared to the thousands already reported deaths from regulated medications, each year in the US alone.

Not one case study with otherwise healthy individual using many gram doses orally for many, many years, like me. Not one reported death from oral ascorbic acid. Or case study of any non-reversible side effects.
 
Last edited:

JES

Senior Member
Messages
1,391
Here is the problem with prospective studies, which can't really disentangle cause and effects, without even knowing the doses taken, much less anything else. Assumed to be a mere 1000 g/d. Or any randomization, where concomitant factors could be at play just as well.

On the opposite, some Orthomolecular physicians reported, that kidney stones ceased forever, as soon as their kidney stone patients used many grams instead of milligrams a day. Who is right? Only randomization would show. Meanwhile, for my own safety I prefer actual repeated clinical experiences, instead of mere fearmongering theories.
Prospective studies are superior to recognize patterns like this compared to actual clinical experiences because what counts as an actual clinical experience? Doctors do not often follow up on patients and let's say something like vitamin C caused a *minor* increase in the risk of kidney stones, how many actual clinical experiences would it require for a) it to even happen and b) it to happen *and* a random doctor actually being able to tie this problem of a random patient to vitamin C? That's why larger studies are superior.
 

Violeta

Senior Member
Messages
3,389
Hi @linusbert -- Yes, you understood it correctly. Some of the misconceptions you've had are very similar to the ones Dr. William Jeffries--who wrote the definitive book on low-dose hydrocortisone therapy--was constantly dealing with while doing his research. To give you a brief review of Jeffries:

He spent I think about 30 years researching low-dose hydrocortisone therapy. I believe he started his research in the 1950's. It was a time shortly after cortisone was discovered, and some amazingly positive things were happening for people who took fairly large doses of it.

But it soon became apparent there were serious "side effects" or ramifications from taking it for extended periods of time, because the doses they were giving were much more than the body normally makes in a single day. This lead to the adrenal glands not producing any cortisol at all, with its dire consequences. Understandably, this therapy soon fell out of favor with mainstream medicine.

Enter William Jeffries, who devoted his entire career to researching low-dose hydrocortisone therapy, which advocates doses that are less than replacement, so the adrenal glands never shut down their own production. No matter how hard he tried, Jeffries could not break through the mindset that had become established that steriods were not good for you. And those misconceptions continue to this day, more than a half century later.

I spent many hours reading and pouring over William Jeffries' book "Safe Doses of Cortisol" before I undertook my own low-dose hydrocortisone experiment. After reading it 2-3 times, I felt comfortable enough to overcome my own misconceptions (and apprehensions) about taking it.

The effects for me were immediate and positive, and have been ever since, more than 25 years later. I haven't read the book in a while, but I just did a query on ChatGP, and came up with the following. I thought I'd remembered he had found success using his therapy for rheumatoid arthritis, and sure enough, there it is listed in the compilation below. I believe he devoted an entire chapter in his book to the various health issues he had great success treating.

Interestingly, after he retired, he started experiencing some of the health issues he'd studied all his life. He was able to readily diagnose himself with adrenal insufficiency, and upon starting to take low doses of hydrocortisone, his health issues improved.

His book and his research changed the course of my life. Below is the ChatGP exchange.

In William Jeffries' book "Safe Doses of Cortisol", what were the primary health issues that were benefitted by low-dose hydrocortisone therapy?


In William McK. Jefferies' book "Safe Uses of Cortisol", the author argues that physiologic doses of cortisol can offer significant improvements for a wide range of health conditions without the dangerous side effects associated with higher doses1. The primary health issues that were reported to benefit from low-dose hydrocortisone therapy include:
  1. Addison's disease
  2. Rheumatoid arthritis
  3. Female fertility problems
  4. Autoimmune disorders
  5. Allergies
  6. Common cold
  7. Influenza
  8. Shingles
  9. Mononucleosis
  10. Hypoglycemia
  11. Chronic fatigue syndrome
Jefferies provides numerous case studies from his own clinical practice to support these claims1. Additionally, a randomized controlled trial mentioned in the search results showed that low-dose hydrocortisone treatment resulted in modest but statistically significant improvements in fatigue and reduced disability in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome24.

It's important to note that while Jefferies had extensive clinical experience using cortisol safely, he also called for more controlled research to be conducted on its less widely accepted uses1.
Shingles! Wow!

Do you get the hydrocortisone from your doctor? Is it Cortef?

Thank you for posting all the information about this, @Wayne !
 
Last edited:

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
4,735
Location
Ashland, Oregon
Do you get the hydrocortisone from your doctor? Is it Cortef?

Hi @Violeta -- Yes, I did eventually get a prescription for Cortef from a doctor. I got an initial trial prescription from a nurse practitioner. But it was only about 10 10 mg. tablets or something like that. When I told her what a huge difference it made, she was impressed. However, the clinic where she worked would not allow her to give me a prescription, as it was "unconventional". I recall crying when I heard the devastating news.

At that time, I had a friend with CFS, who said she had a friend who was an MD, and thought she might consider giving me the prescription. So I took photocopies of some of the important parts of Jeffries' book, highlighted certain sections, and added notes in others. I essentially made a "presentation" to her (while being very challenged at the time), and waited a couple days for her to get back to me.

After reading the material, she said it made sense to her. And since I'd already gotten positive results from a trial run, she gave me a prescription. That was about 25 years ago. Since then, I've had to do this "education" thing 3-4 more times with other practitioners. The last time was a couple years ago, and I was surprised to see less resistance than what I encountered all those years ago.

I sometimes shudder to think of what the last 25 years would have been like for me without the Cortef. Before getting it, I could barely make it out of the house, and felt like my functionality had dropped to about 4%, which was barely keeping me alive. The Cortef almost immediately took me to about 20-25% functionality, which is where I stayed for about 20 years.

It was about five years ago that I incorporated some other things that has now brought my functionality up to around 70%. But I would never have been able to accomplish that had I not first discovered low-dose hydrocortisone therapy. It literally changed the course of my life, and perhaps saved my life.

Shingles! Wow!

I sort of didn't notice the part about shingles when I posted it. I think @lenora would find that interesting!
 
Last edited:

lenora

Senior Member
Messages
5,054
Thanks, Wayne. Indeed I do find it interesting and I can't think of anyone in this world I would wish shingles upon. Having them four times (the first, not as bad, when I was approx. 30+ years old), then three episodes that followed each other....horrible. I thought I would never recover, but I did.

The first vaccine was only about 45% effective. The newer and definitely the better is something like 90% effective, and is given over at least a month apart, two injections. I feel this has given me more security; my husband also obtained it.

This is a stress-induced illness and is always found in the spinal cord. It can appear many times in a lifetime and old age makes us primary targets. It is caused by the chicken pox virus and at my age (78) most of us suffered from the disease itself. It can and does come back to haunt us late in life at a time when our bodies are weak.

It can't be transmitted except to newborns who haven't developed antibodies, thus we can infect these helpless individuals. There is also a certain stage where we can transmit it to those who never had chicken pox nor the vaccine. There is a cream now that will help with the symptoms.

Personally, I never want to deal with shingles again in my life. All we can do is protect ourselves as much as possible. Wayne, I'm glad that you were helped by low dose cortisone and hope your health will stay as intact as possible.

Violeta - thank you for posting the information. It's all helpful. Stay healthy! Yours, Lenora
 

linusbert

Senior Member
Messages
1,693
This just repeats why this myth originated in the first place. Oxalate excretion is increased with vitamin C, which might be why it actually could be beneficial at higher doses with oxalate kidney stones. You didn't even check your cheap AI responses for validity.
ai just gives answers of current mainstream opinions, can be right or wrong. but if you opinions divert on mainstream knowledge and you say you have evidence that is contrary to mainstream believes, which in medical practice, might be indeed correct (as we did see with many topics like vitamin D, saturated fats, eggs etc.), you are to provide some evidence to back it up, not me.
i personally like to believe anecdotal evidence more than big studies , because big studies seam to have a tendency to support the sponsors opinion, and if my brother in disease says this is not the case for him, i trust him more.
i have no beef in this vitamin C oxalate debate, i dont care about it. i do not even take synthetic vitamin C at the moment, and when i took it in like 500mg-2g as sodiumascorbate i had no increase in kidney issue.

what gives me kidney issues in form of worse functioning is vitamin D supplementation though. everytime i take it my eGFR drops significantly and improves if i stop it. i dont know why that is, but there is even a small study about it on pubmed describing that phenomena.
 

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,713
Location
Austria
Meanwhile, for my own safety I prefer actual repeated clinical experiences, instead of mere fearmongering theories.
Prospective studies are superior to recognize patterns like this compared to actual clinical experiences because what counts as an actual clinical experience? Doctors do not often follow up..
With studies, even placebo controlled trials, one always has to read the numbers. Since trials have become too expensive, most often there are conflict of interests, at least on the investor side. Practically, this is often seen in tendentious conclusions, which the actual numbers in the study don't support.

So yes, high-powered prospective studies are much superior to case studies. However, they still can't disentangle causes and effects. But in this case:

ild120089t1.png

The no ascorbic acid arm was well powered with n=22448, but only after excluding - not only patients with former kidney stones - but cancer (might have changed lifestyle due to former medical advice; n=7510), on top of all those using additional supplements (n=12 873). Which left just 907 in the trial arm of ascorbic acid users. This crucial arm clearly underpowered, to compare to about 25 times more non-users.

To me this design clearly shows the tendency, in what it wanted to show: wasn't interested how former kidney stone sufferers would fare with vitamin C, wasn't interested in effects of lifestyle changes. Or how vitamin C is usually correctly applied - especially by Orthomolecular practitioners - in tandem with lifestyle changes and comprehensive individualized supplementation with all needed essential nutrients. It was also not interested in effects of real high dose vitamin C.

So simply not applicable to a well versed supplement user like me, where my personal case study with follow up for 16 years with truly high doses really does apply. Without data-massaging

After excluding so many really counting individuals, as those who rightly also changed lifestyles, and not making the mistake to supplement one nutrient in isolation only, but moreover the group who really could benefit: past kidney stone sufferers, all what can be said with some certainty:

1.8% experienced a first kidney stone without ascorbic acid after 11 years, 3.4% who used ascorbic acid explicitly wrongly. But since the second group was artificially grossly underpowered, if corrected it could be any other number less or more. Meaningless for any patient with past kidney stones, as well as others, using vitamin C correctly.
 

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,713
Location
Austria
ai just gives answers of current mainstream opinions, can be right or wrong. but if you opinions divert on mainstream knowledge and you say you have evidence that is contrary to mainstream believes, which in medical practice, might be indeed correct (as we did see with many topics like vitamin D, saturated fats, eggs etc.), you are to provide some evidence to back it up, not me.

You claim vitamin C kills people, you claim that it is mainstream knowledge. I say there is no evidence for your allegedly mainstream believe.
How do I back it up that your claim isn't true? - By you not providing the case study of 1 death, not even 1 for passing kidney stone without clear comorbidities, for your hypothesized mainstream risk claim.

there is a clear crusade going on against vitamins and natural means to treat conditions. i wouldnt have vouched for 0 deaths, but its definitely less than all this pharmacrap they are shoving onto people.
Now having changed opinion again?
what do you mean, from where to what did i change?

Or did you?

For me, this discussion is about taking over the responsibility for one's health, by evaluating possible benefits or risks of interventions oneself, and decide accordingly (which will be an individual decision, as its consequences have to be endured by oneself only). I know no other approach to steer one's health around.

Therefore, I do avoid full dose permanent prescriptions, but take harmless life-style changes and supplements with all precautions possible, instead.
You may do as you like, and will be the bearer of responsibility for your decisions, too.

i have no beef in this vitamin C oxalate debate, i dont care about it.
You actively contributed to this, in your words:
crusade going on against vitamins and natural means to treat conditions

Last year, and again here this year. Spreading a hypothesized myth about kidney stones without real evidence. Just now calling it 'mainstream knowledge' again, and asking me for evidence? - No beef in it would only be true, by you not prolonging such unsubstantiated fruitless discussions. About something which hasn't been observed in real.
 
Last edited:

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,713
Location
Austria
me kidney issues in form of worse functioning is vitamin D supplementation though. everytime i take it my eGFR drops significantly and improves if i stop it
Here what labtestanalyzer had to add to low eGFR:
Also known as: Estimated glomerular filtration rate

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is a measure of how well your kidneys function.
GFR is the amount of blood that is filtered every minute by tiny filters in the kidneys called glomeruli [R].
When kidney function declines due to damage or disease, GFR decreases and waste products that are normally released in the urine start to appear in the blood.
Your eGFR is calculated based on your blood creatinine levels, sex, age, and race. Creatinine is a waste product that is normally filtered by the kidneys and released into the urine at a relatively steady rate. When kidney function decreases, less creatinine is removed and levels in the blood increase.
Early detection of kidney dysfunction is important to prevent further kidney damage. Conditions such as wasting disease and obesity require alternative ways to obtain eGFR. For body builders, high muscle mass may lead to underestimation of eGFR when using creatinine [R].

Range
mL/min/1.73 m2

Critical < 29.99
Low 30 - 59.99
Sub-Optimal 60 -
89.99 Optimal 90 - 120
Supra-optimal > 120.01

Optimal
Your eGFR is within the normal range! Your kidneys are likely functioning optimally, and are able to efficiently filter toxins out of your body.

Low
Your eGFR is below the normal range! Levels in this range mean you have moderately decreased kidney function. The lower your value, the less efficiently your kidneys are working. It is important to monitor your values. Levels that stay below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 for 3 or more months are a sign of chronic kidney disease. Alternatively, low GFR may be caused by: Eating cooked meat before the test [R]. This increases creatinine levels in the blood. Starvation and long fasting periods [R] Bodybuilding and creatine supplementation [R] Other factors that can increase creatinine in the blood, such as dehydration [R] Drugs such as NSAIDs and ACE inhibitors (or angiotensin receptor blockers) [R] These increase your risk of chronic kidney disease: High blood pressure [R, R] Diabetes [R, R] Heart disease [R] Obesity [R] Smoking [R, R] A family history of kidney disease [R] Age (being 60 years old and above) [R] Previous kidney injury [R] Low birth weight [R, R]

Aim for a healthy weight [R, R]. Lose weight if overweight. Consume a diet rich in fruits and vegetables [R]. Quit or reduce smoking [R, R, R]. Exercise for at least 30 minutes several times per week [R, R, R, R]. Make sure your blood pressure is in the healthy range (around 120/80) [R, R]. Control your blood sugar levels if you have diabetes [R, R]. Avoid lemongrass tea as it can decrease eGFR [R]. Check your creatinine marker for more lifestyle and supplement suggestions.

High
A high eGFR is usually not of concern, at least when it comes to your kidney function. High eGFR is normal in pregnancy. Check your creatinine marker for more information. Check your creatinine marker for more lifestyle and supplement suggestions."


Creatinine​


Also known as:
Creatinine, Serum

This test measures the levels of creatinine in the blood.

Creatinine is a waste product created from the normal wear and tear of muscles [R]. It is produced from creatine, a protein needed to generate the energy for muscle contractions [R]. Its production essentially reflects lean body mass, and because this mass changes little from day to day,the production rate is also fairly constant. Women, children, and older people tend to have lower levels of creatinine compared to adult men because they have less muscle mass [R].

Creatinine is removed from the body by the kidneys, which filter almost all of it from the blood into the urine. That is why blood levels are usually a good indicator of how well your kidneysare working [R,R]. The creatinine level can be tested as a part of your basic metabolic panel (BMP) or your comprehensive metabolicpanel (CMP).

Range​

mg/dL

Low < 0.59
Sub-Optimal 0.6 - 0.69
Optimal 0.7 - 0.9
Supra-optimal 0.91 - 1.2
High > 1.21

Optimal​


Your creatinine is within the optimal range! Your kidneys function well, and are able to remove toxins efficiently!

Low​

Your creatinine is low.
Low creatinine levels are not always a concern. They often just indicate a diet low in protein [R].
However, low creatinine can also be caused by:

 Malnutrition [R]

 Muscle wasting (in illness or aging) [R, R, R]

 Extreme weight loss [R, R]

 Liver disorders [R]

 Limb amputation (lower is normal) [R]

 Pregnancy (lower is normal) [R]

Low creatinine increase your all-cause mortality risk and the risk of diabetes [R, R].
If low creatinine is caused by an underlying disease, seek medical treatment.
Adjust your diet! Make sure you are well nourished and your diet contains enough protein.
Increase physical activity - exercise increases creatinine levels + it helps build muscle [R, R].
Avoid alcohol. It may decrease blood creatinine [R, R]


Supplements that can help:

 Protein supplements

 Creatine

High​

Your creatinine levels are high!
As the kidneys become impaired for any reason, they can’t efficiently filter out waste products and toxins anymore. As a result, creatinine levels in the blood will rise.

A high creatinine increases your all-cause mortality risk [R].

High creatinine can be caused by:

 Dehydration [R]

 A diet high in protein [R, R]

 Cooked meat. This happens because cooking converts the creatine present in meat (which is muscle) into creatinine [R, R]

 Vigorous exercise [R, R]

 Creatine supplements [R]

 Kidney disorders/diseases [R, R]

 Hypothyroidism [R]

Some drugs also cause high creatinine levels:

 Antibiotics such as trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim, Cotrim, Septra) and cefoxitin (Mefoxin) [R]

 Histamine H2 receptor blockers that inhibit stomach acid production: cimetidine (Tagamet), famotidine (Pepcid), and ranitidine(Zantac) [R]

 NSAIDs such as indomethacin (Indocid, Indocin) and ibuprofen [R, R, R]

 Anticonvulsants such as phenacemide (Phenurone) [R]

 Acetaminophen (Tylenol, Panadol, paracetamol) [R]

A high level of creatinine will not cause symptoms on its own. Even if you have above-normal levels you may notice no change. However, high creatinine is often caused by an underlyingdisease that affects kidney function, such as kidney disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, or hypothyroidism. In these cases, you will experience the symptoms of the underlying disease/disorder.

Seek treatment for any underlying disease!

Avoid creatine and creatine-based supplements.

Increase fluid intake, try to drink at least two liters of water a day! High blood creatinine may be a result of dehydration [R].

Increase dietary fiber! It improves kidney health and can lower blood creatinine levels [R]. Fruits, veggies, whole grains and legumes are good sources of fiber.

Lower your protein intake - kidneys must work harder when there’s more protein in the diet. A high-protein diet can further aggravate kidney function [R].

Limit potassium - if creatinine is high, that means that potassium is not filtered well either, and you may be at risk of having elevated potassium levels [R]. Decrease potassium-rich foods such as avocados, bananas, prunes, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, beans, and brown rice.

Decrease phosphorus containing foods such as soft drinks, artificial sweeteners, snack foods, and processed foods. If creatinine is not filtered efficiently, neither is phosphorus,and the levels may increase above optimum [R].

Avoid strenuous exercise [R, R].

Lose some weight if overweight. Weight loss can increase your kidney health and decrease creatinine levels [R].


Supplements that can help and are beneficial for kidney function:

 Alpha lipoic acid [R, R]

Salvia miltiorrhiza (red sage) [R]

 Nettle (Urtica dioica) [R]

 Astragalus [R, R]

 Ginseng [R, R, R, R, R]

 Chamomile [R]

 Spirulina - protects the kidneys [R, R, R]

 Chitosan [R]

i dont know why that is, but there is even a small study about it on pubmed describing that phenomena.
Remember a link? Are you able to tolerate Co-factor nutrients of vitamin D: Magnesium, Vitamin Ks, and Vitamin A?
 
Last edited:

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
4,735
Location
Ashland, Oregon
Enemas are the one thing I've been shying away from even though I do want to try it and add sodium ascorbate to the infusion. I just fear of something going horribly wrong and stirring up something bad in there without actually killing it and getting a huge regression.
Hi @Dysfunkion -- I would highly recommend watching THIS VIDEO on coffee enemas which is the best I've ever run across. It's very informative, educational, and entertaining all at the same time. In fact, before embarking on a coffee enema regimen, I would actually recommend watching this video 2-3 times.

Also, I would start out slowly so you can manage any "stirring up" issues that could arise. The author of the video explains at length about the stirring up issue and how to resolve it if it occurs.
 
Last edited:

linusbert

Senior Member
Messages
1,693
Here what labtestanalyzer had to add to low eGFR:
Also known as: Estimated glomerular filtration rate

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is a measure of how well your kidneys function.
GFR is the amount of blood that is filtered every minute by tiny filters in the kidneys called glomeruli [R].
When kidney function declines due to damage or disease, GFR decreases and waste products that are normally released in the urine start to appear in the blood.
Your eGFR is calculated based on your blood creatinine levels, sex, age, and race. Creatinine is a waste product that is normally filtered by the kidneys and released into the urine at a relatively steady rate. When kidney function decreases, less creatinine is removed and levels in the blood increase.
Early detection of kidney dysfunction is important to prevent further kidney damage. Conditions such as wasting disease and obesity require alternative ways to obtain eGFR. For body builders, high muscle mass may lead to underestimation of eGFR when using creatinine [R].

Range
mL/min/1.73 m2

Critical < 29.99
Low 30 - 59.99
Sub-Optimal 60 -
89.99 Optimal 90 - 120
Supra-optimal > 120.01

Optimal
Your eGFR is within the normal range! Your kidneys are likely functioning optimally, and are able to efficiently filter toxins out of your body.

Low
Your eGFR is below the normal range! Levels in this range mean you have moderately decreased kidney function. The lower your value, the less efficiently your kidneys are working. It is important to monitor your values. Levels that stay below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 for 3 or more months are a sign of chronic kidney disease. Alternatively, low GFR may be caused by: Eating cooked meat before the test [R]. This increases creatinine levels in the blood. Starvation and long fasting periods [R] Bodybuilding and creatine supplementation [R] Other factors that can increase creatinine in the blood, such as dehydration [R] Drugs such as NSAIDs and ACE inhibitors (or angiotensin receptor blockers) [R] These increase your risk of chronic kidney disease: High blood pressure [R, R] Diabetes [R, R] Heart disease [R] Obesity [R] Smoking [R, R] A family history of kidney disease [R] Age (being 60 years old and above) [R] Previous kidney injury [R] Low birth weight [R, R]

Aim for a healthy weight [R, R]. Lose weight if overweight. Consume a diet rich in fruits and vegetables [R]. Quit or reduce smoking [R, R, R]. Exercise for at least 30 minutes several times per week [R, R, R, R]. Make sure your blood pressure is in the healthy range (around 120/80) [R, R]. Control your blood sugar levels if you have diabetes [R, R]. Avoid lemongrass tea as it can decrease eGFR [R]. Check your creatinine marker for more lifestyle and supplement suggestions.

High
A high eGFR is usually not of concern, at least when it comes to your kidney function. High eGFR is normal in pregnancy. Check your creatinine marker for more information. Check your creatinine marker for more lifestyle and supplement suggestions."


Creatinine​


Also known as:
Creatinine, Serum

This test measures the levels of creatinine in the blood.

Creatinine is a waste product created from the normal wear and tear of muscles [R]. It is produced from creatine, a protein needed to generate the energy for muscle contractions [R]. Its production essentially reflects lean body mass, and because this mass changes little from day to day,the production rate is also fairly constant. Women, children, and older people tend to have lower levels of creatinine compared to adult men because they have less muscle mass [R].

Creatinine is removed from the body by the kidneys, which filter almost all of it from the blood into the urine. That is why blood levels are usually a good indicator of how well your kidneysare working [R,R]. The creatinine level can be tested as a part of your basic metabolic panel (BMP) or your comprehensive metabolicpanel (CMP).

Range​

mg/dL

Low < 0.59
Sub-Optimal 0.6 - 0.69
Optimal 0.7 - 0.9
Supra-optimal 0.91 - 1.2
High > 1.21

Optimal​


Your creatinine is within the optimal range! Your kidneys function well, and are able to remove toxins efficiently!

Low​

Your creatinine is low.
Low creatinine levels are not always a concern. They often just indicate a diet low in protein [R].
However, low creatinine can also be caused by:

 Malnutrition [R]

 Muscle wasting (in illness or aging) [R, R, R]

 Extreme weight loss [R, R]

 Liver disorders [R]

 Limb amputation (lower is normal) [R]

 Pregnancy (lower is normal) [R]

Low creatinine increase your all-cause mortality risk and the risk of diabetes [R, R].
If low creatinine is caused by an underlying disease, seek medical treatment.
Adjust your diet! Make sure you are well nourished and your diet contains enough protein.
Increase physical activity - exercise increases creatinine levels + it helps build muscle [R, R].
Avoid alcohol. It may decrease blood creatinine [R, R]


Supplements that can help:

 Protein supplements

 Creatine

High​

Your creatinine levels are high!
As the kidneys become impaired for any reason, they can’t efficiently filter out waste products and toxins anymore. As a result, creatinine levels in the blood will rise.

A high creatinine increases your all-cause mortality risk [R].

High creatinine can be caused by:

 Dehydration [R]

 A diet high in protein [R, R]

 Cooked meat. This happens because cooking converts the creatine present in meat (which is muscle) into creatinine [R, R]

 Vigorous exercise [R, R]

 Creatine supplements [R]

 Kidney disorders/diseases [R, R]

 Hypothyroidism [R]

Some drugs also cause high creatinine levels:

 Antibiotics such as trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim, Cotrim, Septra) and cefoxitin (Mefoxin) [R]

 Histamine H2 receptor blockers that inhibit stomach acid production: cimetidine (Tagamet), famotidine (Pepcid), and ranitidine(Zantac) [R]

 NSAIDs such as indomethacin (Indocid, Indocin) and ibuprofen [R, R, R]

 Anticonvulsants such as phenacemide (Phenurone) [R]

 Acetaminophen (Tylenol, Panadol, paracetamol) [R]

A high level of creatinine will not cause symptoms on its own. Even if you have above-normal levels you may notice no change. However, high creatinine is often caused by an underlyingdisease that affects kidney function, such as kidney disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, or hypothyroidism. In these cases, you will experience the symptoms of the underlying disease/disorder.

Seek treatment for any underlying disease!

Avoid creatine and creatine-based supplements.

Increase fluid intake, try to drink at least two liters of water a day! High blood creatinine may be a result of dehydration [R].

Increase dietary fiber! It improves kidney health and can lower blood creatinine levels [R]. Fruits, veggies, whole grains and legumes are good sources of fiber.

Lower your protein intake - kidneys must work harder when there’s more protein in the diet. A high-protein diet can further aggravate kidney function [R].

Limit potassium - if creatinine is high, that means that potassium is not filtered well either, and you may be at risk of having elevated potassium levels [R]. Decrease potassium-rich foods such as avocados, bananas, prunes, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, beans, and brown rice.

Decrease phosphorus containing foods such as soft drinks, artificial sweeteners, snack foods, and processed foods. If creatinine is not filtered efficiently, neither is phosphorus,and the levels may increase above optimum [R].

Avoid strenuous exercise [R, R].

Lose some weight if overweight. Weight loss can increase your kidney health and decrease creatinine levels [R].


Supplements that can help and are beneficial for kidney function:

 Alpha lipoic acid [R, R]

Salvia miltiorrhiza (red sage) [R]

 Nettle (Urtica dioica) [R]

 Astragalus [R, R]

 Ginseng [R, R, R, R, R]

 Chamomile [R]

 Spirulina - protects the kidneys [R, R, R]

 Chitosan [R]


Remember a link? Are you able to tolerate Co-factor nutrients of vitamin D: Magnesium, Vitamin Ks, and Vitamin A?
there are multiple (vitamin D + egfr) , https://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(14)00823-3/fulltext
You claim vitamin C kills people, you claim that it is mainstream knowledge. I say there is no evidence for your allegedly mainstream believe.
How do I back it up that your claim isn't true? - By you not providing the case study of 1 death, not even 1 for passing kidney stone without clear comorbidities, for your hypothesized mainstream risk claim.
i did not claim it did kill people! i said it would not appear as reason for death if a person died due to it and made the oxalate and kidney as one potential example for how it could show. the argument wasnt even about kidneys and oxalate, it was that if someone died due to it, how would you know?

everything AI says is mainstream believe. its the training data, pretty much everything it can find easily on the internet and what people talk about. that mustnt be the correct information though. but its usually mainstream believe.

Or did you?
i dont know, but i know what you rephrase of my posts, like with the "you claim vitamin C kills people" is not what i said.
anyways, lets give it a break.

funny, i just got this video suggested for a case which ate too much zink-vitamin C gummis.
 
Last edited:

Dysfunkion

Senior Member
Messages
575
Well if you have too much of anything it can kill you but unless you do something absolutely absurd like the video above you're at least not going to die. BUT for example with how sensitive my system is I feel even tiny amounts of anything supplemented and things can go horribly wrong without just dropping dead.
---

Anyhow on the vitamin C weirdness. So I decided to see what happened if I reduced the dose after the high dose and the results were interesting. My anxiety and worse problems with my speech along with the brain fog and running way too hot at times especially under stress came roaring back in just a day at the 2 gram 3 PM dose without the 2 gram 9 PM dose. I got extremely sensitive and my libido suddenly shot up uncomfortably high too but I wasn't actually aroused. It was like the thing just had a mind of its own. Honestly my gender dysphoria absolutely wrecked me on the rebound too. I also almost from this rebound initiated what I knew had I not decided to shoot back up to 6 grams in total at 9 PM again was going to be catastrophic migraine.

So last night that's what I did, I added the 9 PM 2 gram dose back. In minutes it started to ease up and I started feeling better. Today I'm still feeling the aftermath of that migraine-y rebound but im much more calm, myself, and feeling in general more normally feminine again in at least my way I am able to present myself despite the physical brain/body part mismatch.

Not sure what this implies is switching around but from the effects studying the rebound and regressions which I may have to try again and see if it is repeatable under my current conditions it feels as if not only some neurotransmitter balance is more restored under the high dose but possibly second hand some hormonal system too because I dont know how that would explain the libido surge and sudden much worse gender dysphoria that I also possibly because I didn't have the contrast before didn't realize how bad it was. Under the highest dose socializing is also noticeably easier and naturally enjoyable. I am not currently on HRT though and in fact possible defects that lead to strange unexpected/traditionally unrelated things that can effect related systems in the body is actually why I haven't tried yet. My dysphoria is largely physical (as in my brain being distresed at my masculine physical features and being aware of them. No trigger besides the awareness as its automatic) but this gave me more perspective on how much of it is neurological functioning related too.

Sorry if this update took a weird swing in the topic but it was significant enough to bring up. If any other transgender people are here feel free to chime in because I'm perplexed here on that front of the fluctuations in my general state of being.

update 4/02 later in the day - I took my 3 PM 2 gram dose and what I just went through was definitely a brutal migraine, still feeling blah but I got through the work day. I'm going to keep it high dose for a few more days and then bring it down to see if this repeats. I feel like based on this it may be causing a beneficial neurotransmitter fluctuation in some ways but in others due to my body not handling anything like it should this also backfires and causes things like migraines. If it does repeat I'll probably go down to my base 2 grams and see how it fluctuates back down. If I hit the same base I was at before at just a couple grams in the morning and then I climb back up and it's the same pattern I feel like I found something to target but I don't specifically know what it means. Interesting that only vitamin C does this, I also need to get sodium ascorbate to give that a go and see what is different in my reaction to that.

Edit later morning 4/03 - I took the 9 pm dose and as expected I didn't sleep as well. Today my stress response though present and high due to current life circumstances was high but I was less tense up front and lacked a lot of shock like features to the stress presentation despite the high dose vitamin C acting in a excitory manner in other ways.

What might be happening is that the cortisol is being cut down yet other excitory neurotransmitters or certain hormones due to some complex array of factors are raising causing a strange insomnia where I'm able to lay down and sleep but its very light and my dreams are vivid. This on the rebound can probably be pretty brutal because if some conversion factor of some of these neurotransmitters and hormones is being cut down too it suddenly resuming at a previous dose range threshold could cause a much higher surge than my body is used to. There may be a way to test this by immediately cutting back to the 2 gram dose but judging by how cutting it back by 2 grams is intense enough something tells me trying that wouldnt be a good idea and could cause a crash.

Update morning 4/04 - My anxiety up front today is less than yesterday though its severity in the background can still be extremely intense and easily shoots through the roof. In general I feel very over stimulated only without what I imagine is a cortisol load. The fact that in the morning I am wide awake with extremely light sleep without any actual gradual wake up process also points towards this being what is happening there. Like last time up at this dose I am also more prone to wild mood swings. I decided that tonight will be my last high dose night before reducing again and seeing what the backlash is like. This up and down dose shifting is one of the most mentally brutal experiments I have done in quite a while. Thankfully tonight I have some good entirely unhealthy comfort food to look forward to and a longer weekend for when I shift down. I may need it if this induces a skull crushing, reality bending migraine which if it goes the way the last dose cut did will likely happen.
 
Last edited:

Dysfunkion

Senior Member
Messages
575
Ok so a couple days ago I cut the dose and got the same general trend on the rebound with a migraine that threatened to become a full one but this didn't happen. I also on the dose cut down rebound didn't experience as much stimulation but a general increase in bodily functioning and 2 days off here my sleep has returned to normal under the 4 gram a day (2 gram in the morning, 2 gram 3 PM). What I eat seems to also modulate this rebound as with the over stimulation I did feel on the dose cut down, it was resolved when I ate a lot of food (bunch of seafood and some other junk, went out with a family member on Sunday evening). I stayed lower energy despite feeling better and experienced the usual increase in clarity after my second 3 pm dose

Now here is the interesting part, I noticed this after my last 3 pm dose too but didn't know if it was just chance but I take it in between my cistus tea and my green tea every day. The green tea I drink a bit later. After I drink the green tea again I get that boost in my energy yesterday too, this doesn't happen without that 3 pm vitamin C dose. I got oolong tea today to see if it does the same with that.

So strange, I wonder what exactly I'm modulating here. Maybe some sort of immune factor influencing the functioning of my nervous system? Diet influences it but vitamin C and apparently the tea i am drinking appears to also be a driving factor in how the benefits present themselves.
 

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,713
Location
Austria
My big question though is why does my body need such a ridiculous amount of vitamin C to function at this level of normalcy?
Bio-chemical individuality. About which Linus Paul had a whale chapter in his old book 'How to live healthier and feel better'.

Found it in an old thread:

103 HOW TO LIVE LONGER AND FEEL BETTER

Chapter 10

Biochemical Individuality

The genetic mutation that deleted the capacity to manufacture vitamin C in the primate line presents one vivid example of the countless genetic variations from which natural selection produced the diversity of biological organisms we know in the world today. Such biochemical insight permits us to see evolution, as it were, from the inside. It gives a quantitative measure of the wealth of differences among individuals within a single species upon which natural selection acts in choosing the "fittest." It shows each of us human beings to possess a biochemical individuality that is scarcely expressed in (but only partly accounts for) the differences we observe in one another.

Let us consider some genetic characteristic, such as the weight of the liver relative to the total weight of the human being or the concentration of a certain enzyme in the red cells of the blood. It is found that, when a sample of a hundred human beings is studied, this characteristic varies over a wide range. The variation often is approximately that given by the standard, bell-shaped probability function. It is customary to say that the "normal" range of values of the characteristic is that range within which 95 percent of the values lie and that the remaining 5 percent of the values, representing the extremes, are abnormal. If we assume that five hundred characteristics are independently inherited, then we can calculate that there is only a small chance, 3 percent, that one person in the whole population of the world would be normal with respect to each of these five hundred characteristics.

It is estimated, however, that a human being has a complement of one hundred thousand genes, each of which serves some function, such as controlling the synthesis of an enzyme. The number of characteristics that can be variable, because of a difference in the nature of a particular gene, is presumably somewhere near one hundred thousand rather than only five hundred: and accordingly we reach the conclusion that no single human being on earth is normal (within the range that includes 95 percent of all human beings) with respect to all characteristics. This calculation is, of course, oversimplified. It helps emphasize, however, that human beings differ from one another and that each human being must be treated as an individual, biologically as well as morally.

The species Homo sapiens is more heterogeneous, with respect to genetic character, than most other animal species. Nevertheless, heterogeneity has been found also for laboratory animals such as guinea pigs. It was recognized long ago that guinea pigs fed the same scurvy-producing diet, containing less than 5 milligrams (mg) of ascorbic acid per day per kilogram of body weight, differed in the severity of the scurvy that they developed and in the rapidity with which they developed it. A striking experiment was carried out in 1967 by Williams and Deason. These investigators obtained some male weanling guinea pigs from an animal dealer. After a week of observation during which the guinea pigs were on a good diet, including fresh vegetables, they were placed on a diet free of ascorbic acid or with known amounts added. They were divided into eight groups, each of ten to fifteen guinea pies, with one of the groups receiving no ascorbic acid and the other groups receiving varying amounts through a pipette into the mouth. About 8O percent of the animals receiving no ascorbic acid or only 0.5 mg per kilogram per day developed signs of scurvy, whereas only about 25 percent of those receiving between 1 mg and 4 mg per kilogram per day, and none of those receiving 8 mg per day or more, developed these signs. These results agree with the customary statement that about 5 mg per kilogram per day of ascorbic acid is required to prevent scurvy in guinea pigs.

It was observed, however, on the one hand, that two animals receiving only 1 mg per kilogram per day remained healthy and gained weight over the entire period of the experiment (eight weeks). One of them showed a total gain in weight larger than that for any animal receiving two, four, eight, or sixteen times as much ascorbic acid.

On the other hand, seven of the guinea pigs receiving 8, 16, or 32 mg per kilogram per day were unhealthy and showed very small growth during the first ten days on the diet. They were then provided with a larger amount of the vitamin, five of them with 64 mg per kilogram per day and two of them with 128 mg per kilogram per day. These animals showed a remarkable response: whereas they had grown only 12 grams (g), on the average, in a period of ten days on the smaller amounts of ascorbic acid, their growth during the ten-day period after beginning to receive the larger amounts was, on the average, 72 g. The indicated conclusion is that these animals, seven of the thirty that were given between 8 mg and 32 mg per kilogram per day, required more vitamin C for good health than the others. Williams and Deason (1967) reached the conclusion that there is at least a twentyfold range in the vitamin-C needs of individual guinea pigs in a population of a hundred. They pointed out that the population of human beings is presumably not more uniform than that of the guinea pigs used in their experiments and that accordingly the individual variation in the vitamin-C needs of humans is probably just as great.

I have accepted their conclusion, and similar conclusions reached by other investigators, in suggesting that the optimum rate of intake of ascorbic acid by human beings may extend over a wide range, perhaps the eightyfold range from 250 mg per day to 20 g per day or an even wider range.

Vitamin C has been under investigation, reported in thousands of scientific papers, ever since it was discovered fifty years ago. The reader of this book might well be justified in asking first, why the range of values of the optimum intake of this important substance was not reliably determined long ago and, second, why no one can tell him or her what amount to take to be in the best of health. Part of the answer to the first question is that only a very small amount of the vitamin, perhaps 10 mg per day, is enough to keep most people from developing scurvy, and physicians and nutritionists accepted the idea that no larger amount is needed. Even though some physicians had observed forty or fifty years ago that amounts a hundred or a thousand times larger have value in controlling various diseases, as described elsewhere in this book, the medical profession and most scientists ignored the evidence.

Another part of the answer to this first question is that studies that would yield the answer can be carried out only with great effort and at great expense. It is much easier to investigate some powerful drug that has an immediate beneficial effect on the patient (although it is harder to check the possible long-term damage that the powerful drug may do to some fraction of the people for whom it is prescribed). Several excellently planned and executed epidemiological studies involving nutritional and other factors in relation to the incidence of disease and the chance of death at various ages has been carried out. In sonic of these studies the nature of the ingested food has been tabulated, and the amounts of vitamin C and other vitamins in the diet have been calculated using tables giving the vitamin contents of various foods. Some of these studies show that the incidence of disease and the chance of death at each age are less for people with a larger intake of vitamin C (and also for some other vitamins) than for those with a smaller intake. In these studies, however, the intakes of vitamin C are small; usually, for example, mg to 50 mg per day for the low-intake group and between 50 mg and 100 mg for the high-intake group.

In their San Mateo County, California, study, Lester Breslow and his colleagues in 1948 interviewed 577 randomly selected residents of the county who were fifty years old or older. They obtained much information about their state of health and about environmental, behavioral, and nutritional factors that might affect it. After seven years they examined the death records and compared the age-corrected death rates for the subpopulations related to the different factors. Of all of these factors, the intake of vitamin C was found to have the greatest correlation with the age-corrected death rate, even greater than that for cigarette smoking (Chope and Breslow, 1955).

Whereas cigarette smokers have at each age twice the chance of dying that a nonsmoker has, the persons with a lower intake of vitamin C (calculated from the content of vitamin C in the food that they ate) had a chance of dying 2.5 times greater than the persons with a higher intake of the vitamin. The amount of illness was also correspondingly greater. This difference means that the length of the period of good health and of life was ten years greater for the persons with the higher intake than for those with the lower intake of vitamin C. The dividing line was 50 mg per day, approximately equal to the recommended dietary allowance. The average intake of the low-intake group was 24 mg per day and that of the high-intake group was 127 mg per day.* [*These averages are calculated on the assumption that the distribution of intakes for each of the two groups is the same as that for the corresponding groups (age over sixty) in the First Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. 1971-72 (Abraham. Lowenstein. and Johnson, 1976)] It is interesting that drinking a large glass of orange juice each day (about 90 mg of ascorbic acid in 6 ounces of juice) or taking a 100-mg tablet each day would put a person in the high-intake group.

Part of the improvement in health in the high-intake group may be attributed to other substances in the foods that provided the extra vitamin C. There is no doubt that orange juice, lettuce and other vegetables, and fruits contain important nutrients in addition to vitamin C. But the effect of a higher intake of vitamin A in improving the health was found in the San Mateo study to be only half as great as that of vitamin C, and the effect of niacin, one of the B vitamins, was only one-quarter as great. The foods with a high content of vitamin A and niacin, although they have value in improving the health, are not so valuable as those with a high content of vitamin C.

When vitamin C is taken by mouth, most of it is absorbed into the blood through mucous membranes of the mouth and the upper part of the small intestine. If the amount taken is rather small, up to 250 mg, about 80 percent is absorbed into the blood. With larger doses the amount absorbed is less, about 50 percent for a dose of 2 g and still smaller for larger doses (Kubler and Gehler, 1970). Accordingly it is more economical to ingest vitamin C in smaller doses, such as 1 g every three hours, than to take a single, much larger dose once a day. Also, a quantity of sodium ascorbate injected into the bloodstream is more effective in the treatment of disease than the same amount taken by mouth.

For a small daily intake of ascorbic acid, up to about 150 mg, the concentration in the blood plasma is nearly proportional to the intake: this concentration is about 5 mg per liter for a daily intake of 50 mg, 10 mg per liter for 100 mg, and 15 mg per liter for 150 mg. Above an intake of 150 mg per day the concentration in the blood increases much less with increasing intake, reaching about 30 mg per liter for an intake of 10 g per day (ascorbic acid plus dehydroascorbic acid: Harris, Robinson, and Pauling, 1973).

The reason for this change when the intake exceeds about 150 mg per day is that a larger amount of the vitamin then begins to be excreted in the urine. One of the functions of the kidney is to clear the blood of unwanted and harmful molecules, the molecules of toxic substances that have got into the blood through the food or impure air or of waste products such as urea, the compound of nitrogen that is formed when old protein molecules in the body are degraded. Every twenty minutes the entire volume of the blood passes by a set of molecular filters in the two million glomeruli of the kidney. In the glomeruli the capillaries through which the blood is flowing have small holes in them. These holes, the pores of the glomerular filter, are small enough that the protein molecules in the blood, such as the antibodies (globulins) that protect us against disease, cannot pass through them, but water molecules and other small molecules, such as those of blood sugar (glucose) and ascorbic acid, can pass through. The blood pressure operates to push part of the water of the blood, together with its burden of small molecules, through these pores into a surrounding capsule.* [*A seriously ill person or a person in shock may have such low blood pressure that he cannot produce any urine.] The glomerular filtrate, with its dilute urine, is produced in amounts of about 180 liters (1) per day, thirty-six times the volume of the blood itself. We cannot stand to lose so much water, and fortunately there is a mechanism to concentrate the urine to the usual volume of one or two 1 a day. As the glomerular filtrate moves along through tubules toward the vessels that carry the urine to the bladder, molecular pumps in the walls of the tubules transfer most of the water back into the bloodstream.* [*The process of concentrating the unne is regulated by the antidiuretic hormone, which is secreted hv the pituitary gland Some people develop I rather rare illness, diabetes insipidus, involving an insufficient output of this hormone; their unne volume may reach 40 liters per day. requiring them to drink an equal amount of water] The blood sugar is valuable as a fuel for the body, and it would not be good to lose it. Accordingly, there are special tubular pumps to pump the glucose molecules back into the blood. There are also special pumps for other important molecules, including those of vitamin C.

This is fortunate, because if the process of tubular reabsorption of vitamin C did not operate, even a big dose of the vitamin would be nearly completely excreted in an hour or two. In fact, a person who ingests 100 mg per day excretes only about 10 mg in the urine. As discussed in Chapter 7, the necessity of conserving our supply of ascorbic acid arose when our ancestors lost the ability to synthesize it and we were required to depend on what we could obtain in our food. We have developed the mechanism of tubular reabsorption to such an extent that it works nearly perfectly (pumping 99.5 percent of the ascorbate in the glomerular filtrate back into the bloodstream) until it reaches the limit of its pumping capacity. This limit is reached when the concentration in the blood plasma equals about 14 mg per liter, corresponding to a daily intake of about 140 mg.

On the one hand, when the discovery was made that at higher intakes than 140 mg per day a greatly increased amount of vitamin C is excreted in the urine, the idea developed that at 140 mg per day the tissues of the body are saturated with the vitamin and are beginning to reject any additional amount. Although this idea is false, it continues to be advanced in the medical and nutritional literature, and the intake of 140 mg per day, corresponding to the so-called tissue saturation, is considered to be an upper limit to the amount of vitamin C required for 'ordinary good health."

An argument similar to those developed in Chapter 9, on the other hand, leads us to the conclusion that this intake, at which the tubular pumps reach their capacity, is a lower limit to the optimum intake (Pauling, 1974). Let us compare a tubular pump for ascorbic acid that pumps until the concentration of ascorbic acid in the blood is 14 mg per liter with one that operates only until concentration is 13 mg per liter. The second pump is 7 percent smaller than the first and requires 7 percent less energy, which is provided by the food that we burn as fuel, for its operation. The smaller pump would accordingly be less of a burden to us than the larger one. Then why should we have developed the larger pump? The answer surely is that we need the larger pump to conserve the extra 7 percent of vitamin C. Hence the limit to which tubular reabsorption has been developed represents a lower limit to the optimum intake of vitamin C. This lower limit is more than twice the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) set by the Food and Nutrition Board.

If a large amount of vitamin C is taken, 62 percent of the amount that enters the bloodstream is excreted in the urine, so that only about 38 percent remains in the body to carry on its valuable functions. It is, however, good to have vitamin C in the urine. It protects against urinary infections and also against cancer of the bladder, as will be shown in Chapter 19.

Moreover, that fraction of a large dose of vitamin C taken by mouth that remains in the intestines has value. DeCosse and his coworkers studied the effect of 3 g per day of ascorbic acid in controlling the growth of adenomatous polyps of the rectum in people who have inherited the tendency to develop them (1975). This polyposis is serious because the polyps usually develop into a malignant cancer. In a group of eight patients, the polyps regressed completely in two and partially in three.

The appearance of vitamin C in the urine has been used by nutritional authorities as an argument against a high intake. Dr. Fredrick J. Stare in his book Eating for Good Health (1969) states that 60 mg or 70 mg per day is enough: "An extra amount of the vitamin cannot be stored in the body and is simply excreted. You don't need vitamin-C pills under normal circumstances.'* These statements are repeated by him in his latest book Panic in the Pantry (Whelan and Stare, 1975). The statements are not true.

The observations that have been made on the concentration of ascorbate in the blood plasma corresponding to the capacity of the mechanism of tubular reabsorption in different people give some information about biochemical individuality with respect to vitamin C. In one study, with nineteen subjects, the capacity varied between 10 mg and 20 mg per liter (Friedman, Sherry, and Ralli, 1940). Similar variation has been found by other investigators.

Ascorbic acid is present in the various body fluids and organs, especially the leukocytes and the blood. Its concentration in the brain is also high. When a person with an insufficient supply of ascorbic acid ingests a quantity of it, it moves very rapidly from the blood serum into the leukocytes, other cells, and organs such as the spleen. The amount remaining in the blood serum may be so small, less than the capacity of the mechanism of tubular reabsorption, that very little is eliminated in the urine.

A test was developed long ago (Harris and Ray, 1935) to show the avidity with which the tissues remove ascorbic acid from the blood serum. This test, called a loading test, involves giving the subject a certain amount of vitamin C by mouth or by injection, collecting the urine for the following six hours, and analyzing it for ascorbic acid. If an oral dose of about 1 g is given, most people whose blood serum is not depleted of the vitamin eliminate about 20 to 25 percent of it in the urine in six hours.

A person who eliminates a smaller fraction of the ingested ascorbic acid may do so either because he or she has been living on a diet containing an insufficient quantity of the vitamin, such that the tissues are depleted, or because some biochemical abnormality of his or her body operates to remove ascorbate from the blood serum very rapidly, perhaps by converting it rapidly into other substances. It was reported by VanderKamp in 1966 that patients with chronic schizophrenia required a loading dose of ascorbic acid about ten times greater than that required by other persons to cause the appearance of a certain amount in the urine. This observation was verified by Herjanic and Moss-Herjanic (1967).

The results of another loading test are shown in the illustration on page 114 (Pauling and others, Chapter 2 in Hawkins and Pauling, 1973). In this study forty-four patients recently hospitalized with acute schizophrenia and forty-four other subjects were given 1.76 grams of ascorbic acid by mouth, and the fraction excreted in the urine in six hours was measured. There was a twentyfold individual variation in this fraction, from 2 percent to 40 percent, with the schizophrenic patients excreting only about 60 percent as much as the others. This variation is probably partly nutritional and partly genetic in origin.

The distribution functions suggest that there are three kinds of human beings with respect to their handling of ascorbic acid, the low excretors, the medium excretors, and the high excretors. This idea has not, however, been thoroughly tested as yet.

Some of the subjects in this study were given 1.76 g of ascorbic acid every day for eight days, and the fraction excreted in the six hours after the last dose was determined. Of sixteen low excretors (less than 17 percent excreted), eight had moved out of the low-excretor class, whereas the excretion of the other eight remained low. This observation suggests that these persons have an abnormal way of handling their ingested vitamin C. They might require much larger intake to be in good health.

Several serious genetic diseases, such as phenylketonuria, galactosemia, and methylmalonicaciduria, are discussed in Chapter 11. Of the many such diseases now known, some can be controlled by a large intake of an appropriate vitamin. It is harder to recognize a mild genetic disease than a serious one, but the mild genetic diseases may in the aggregate cause more suffering than the serious ones, because so many more people suffer from them. It is likely that many of the low excretors of ascorbic acid shown in the illustration on page 114 have a genetic defect such that a low intake of vitamin C is more damaging to them than to other people. For them a larger intake of the vitamin may be essential if they are to avoid a short and miserable life. At the present time it is very difficult to determine the nutritional needs of an individual person except by trial of various intakes, but we may hope that reliable clinical tests that show the individual needs will be developed before long.


115
 

Aidan Walsh

Senior Member
Messages
420
Until recently I was only using a couple grams of vitamin C in the morning, it gave me a little energy but nothing more and I am far worse without it in all areas. I never though to go higher because if I'm taking that already I didn't think I would get anything at all from adding more. Until one day I just decided to go for it and took a couple grams at 3 PM one day, I immediately got more relaxed but more functional cognitively and my senses became much clearer. So I kept at this and the effects stuck so as long as I kept on this dosing schedule. 2 grams in the 2 grams 3-3:30 PM usually.

Then I decided to try more and this is where things get weird. I tried 1 more gram at 9 PM and got more sensory clarity again but the late night dose induced a weird insomnia where I'd be able fall asleep but wouldn't be able to enter deeper sleep and would wake up much earlier feeling rather wired but clearer. Another thing I noticed is that with each higher dose my speech problems got somewhat better too.

This trend continued until eventually my body got used to the 9 PM 1 gram dose and the whole insomnia thing didn't happen anymore. I then decided to make one more push, to hit the full 2 gram 1/2 teaspoon at 9 PM. When I do this now expecting the insomnia thing to occur again and feeling more wired I actually just feel somewhat better and after some days at this 2-2-2 dosing schedule my senses are much clearer, I am much more functional, my voice tends to be better though not perfect, and I noticed my skin is clearer too.

An interesting note is if I'm having an immune reaction to something I will get the neurological effects I am prone to from it but my senses remain very clear. I'll get regressions in my vocal ability, a surge of typical reactionary neuropathy in my face/head, inflammation feeling behind forehead/sinus area, and brain fog with a reduced ability to concentrate. The fatigue though from all reactions is greatly lessened now but due to my extreme environmental sensitivities as it seems my body is allergic to life itself my cognitive ability is very prone to fluctuating every day and I still am unable to do things like drive.

My big question though is why does my body need such a ridiculous amount of vitamin C to function at this level of normalcy? I am over sensitive to everything and eating anything just makes my symptoms worse. I am down to a small handful of safe enough foods to eat consistently that don't produce too many symptoms and the rest is just entertainment with a side of variety now and then. Whether I'm at work, walking down the street, or in the forest I am having a reaction immune wise to just about everything to some degree to manage save for sitting still at home in a largely fasted state. But mysteriously my body apparently needs a combination of at a baseline this extremely high dose vitamin C now, methyl-b12 2000 mcg, and life becomes impossible if I put the coffee down (not exaggerating, even past physical withdrawals it like the B12 just starts to shut down on me and more food only makes me sicker). I honestly don't know what to do anymore, I'm only on mild island as long as I keep this up, do nothing with myself (all of my hobbies unfortunately cause symptom flares to deal with from reading to hiking), and I can't get rid of my environmental sensitivities it seems no matter what.
Vitamin C is also linked to Cancer treatments. It is possible you could have an underlying undiagnosed Cancer & why you feel better with the higher dose? Many with ME/CFS have Lymphomas or Leukemias
 

Dysfunkion

Senior Member
Messages
575
Vitamin C is also linked to Cancer treatments. It is possible you could have an underlying undiagnosed Cancer & why you feel better with the higher dose? Many with ME/CFS have Lymphomas or Leukemias

I wouldn't be surprised in fact it'd be nice to have something to go off of. After my old house and how bad my symptoms were from the consistent mold exposure I'm actually surprised I'm even still alive and if I didn't have the money I wouldn't be either because I wouldn't have been able to keep trying things. I wouldn't survive most modern cancer treatments anyways. Whether I do or not I'm largely just focused on building a supplement stack that improves my quality of life because I have so many revolving immune and neurological symptoms, I'm past 30 already now, and I'll never be able to live a normal life anyways. I also because of what I need to uphold anyways in my life to keep money coming in don't have the space to do anything very drastic with long up's and downs that can effect my daily functioning like I mentioned for example in another post extended fasting and such.
 
Back