3 ms·

Synthetic vitamin C is exactly the same as real vitamin C. [1] When I Googled "synthetic vitamin C carcinogenic" I found a bunch of quackery and the Scientific

Synthetic vitamin C is exactly the same as real vitamin C. [1] When I Googled "synthetic vitamin C carcinogenic" I found a bunch of quackery and the Scientific American article. Mostly the sites were screaming "IT'S A CHEMICAL!! CHEMICALS ARE BAD!!!!" as if water and foods aren't also made up of chemicals... :| [1] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natural-vs-synthetic-chemicals-is-a-gray-matter/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natural-vs-sy...

SamBam 10y ago
Yes, but there has been plenty of well-researched, highly-repeatable evidence linking taking supplements of the antioxidant vitamins (A, C & E) with higher cancer risk. Not to do with synthetic vitamins, of course, but certainly to do with the selling of vitamins as something you need to supplement.
- SomeCallMeTim 10y ago
  Sorry, but I'm going to have to say [Citation Needed]. From what I can tell, large doses of Beta Carotene (one kind of Vitamin A) and Folic Acid (a vitamin in the B family) are correlated with higher cancer risk. But if you avoid mega-doses of those, it's all good. Here's my reference: [1] Key Quote: >One of the largest, longest, and most carefully conducted human trials on multivitamins, the Physicians’ Health Study II, showed that the daily consumption of these supplements over 11 years reduced total cancer incidence by 8%, better than any pharmaceutical drug to date. This could translate into 130,000 fewer cancer cases in the U.S. every year. [1] http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/feature-story/vitamins-do-not-cause-cancer http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/feature-story/vitamins-do-not-cau...
  - SamBam 10y ago
    1. Your article is from the Linus Pauling Institute, which, as has been noted upthread, is the biggest pusher of the high-dose vitamin C myth, which has been pretty much debunked by now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research_and_vitamin_C_advocacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research... 2. One of the whole arguments against supplements (which is what we're talking about here, not the quantities found in an every-day diet) is that they tend to mega-dose. But not "mega-dose" in some scary, doping type way. The vast majority of bottles of supplements list RDA values of 200%-1000%, as if that's a good thing. 3. The studies that show cancer link do so with double-blind, placebo-controlled studies using normal, grocery-store supplement levels of antioxidants. e.g. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199404143301501 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199404143301501, http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104493 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104493 4. When you look at reviews that are not pushed by the Linus Pauling Institute, you get quotes like > A recent review of the last 20 years of literature on the subject, presented at the American Association for Cancer Research 2015 meeting, found an overall increased risk of cancer among vitamin users. https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vitamins-and-cancer-risk/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vitamins-and-cancer-ris...
TheLarch 10y ago
I don't remember where I picked up the bit about synthetic C. Thanks for pointing this out.

SamBam 10y ago

Yes, but there has been plenty of well-researched, highly-repeatable evidence linking taking supplements of the antioxidant vitamins (A, C & E) with higher cancer risk. Not to do with synthetic vitamins, of course, but certainly to do with the selling of vitamins as something you need to supplement.

SomeCallMeTim 10y ago
Sorry, but I'm going to have to say [Citation Needed]. From what I can tell, large doses of Beta Carotene (one kind of Vitamin A) and Folic Acid (a vitamin in the B family) are correlated with higher cancer risk. But if you avoid mega-doses of those, it's all good. Here's my reference: [1] Key Quote: >One of the largest, longest, and most carefully conducted human trials on multivitamins, the Physicians’ Health Study II, showed that the daily consumption of these supplements over 11 years reduced total cancer incidence by 8%, better than any pharmaceutical drug to date. This could translate into 130,000 fewer cancer cases in the U.S. every year. [1] http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/feature-story/vitamins-do-not-cause-cancer http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/feature-story/vitamins-do-not-cau...
- SamBam 10y ago
  1. Your article is from the Linus Pauling Institute, which, as has been noted upthread, is the biggest pusher of the high-dose vitamin C myth, which has been pretty much debunked by now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research_and_vitamin_C_advocacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research... 2. One of the whole arguments against supplements (which is what we're talking about here, not the quantities found in an every-day diet) is that they tend to mega-dose. But not "mega-dose" in some scary, doping type way. The vast majority of bottles of supplements list RDA values of 200%-1000%, as if that's a good thing. 3. The studies that show cancer link do so with double-blind, placebo-controlled studies using normal, grocery-store supplement levels of antioxidants. e.g. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199404143301501 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199404143301501, http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104493 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104493 4. When you look at reviews that are not pushed by the Linus Pauling Institute, you get quotes like > A recent review of the last 20 years of literature on the subject, presented at the American Association for Cancer Research 2015 meeting, found an overall increased risk of cancer among vitamin users. https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vitamins-and-cancer-risk/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vitamins-and-cancer-ris...

TheLarch 10y ago

I don't remember where I picked up the bit about synthetic C. Thanks for pointing this out.