Heard this on the radio while driving this morning.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/vitamin-c-tablet-helps-diabetes-study
That piece doesn’t link to the actual research paper. Poik? Opinion?
And I’m not getting anything on a PubMed search either.
Found it. You have to search on ascorbic acid, not Vitamin C.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dom.13571
buffy said:
Found it. You have to search on ascorbic acid, not Vitamin C.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dom.13571
That’s very interesting.
Peak Warming Man said:
buffy said:Found it. You have to search on ascorbic acid, not Vitamin C.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dom.13571
That’s very interesting.
And the blood pressure bit too. I only scanned the paper, but they say the results didn’t show up in the HbA1c results. Probably because the study period was 4 months and HbA1c is done three monthly. Not really long enough for things to have stabilized.
buffy said:
Heard this on the radio while driving this morning.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/vitamin-c-tablet-helps-diabetes-study
That piece doesn’t link to the actual research paper. Poik? Opinion?
Trial registration https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370078&isReview=true
Actual study https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dom.13571
f@#$ that was hard to find…
Weirdly, the decreases in the ascorbic acid group were possibly more significant because the placebo group had rather large increases in their post prandial BGLs, which is odd – if it’s business as usual you wouldn’t expect a massive change in the baseline group.
On the plus, it’s unlikely to do any harm and may get you that 1-2 mmol/L reduction in BGLs.
poikilotherm said:
buffy said:Heard this on the radio while driving this morning.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/vitamin-c-tablet-helps-diabetes-study
That piece doesn’t link to the actual research paper. Poik? Opinion?
Trial registration https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370078&isReview=true
Actual study https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dom.13571
f@#$ that was hard to find…
I went to the journal and looked through the current edition’s contents page. It was actually quite a long way down and I was thinking I must have been in the wrong place.
poikilotherm said:
Weirdly, the decreases in the ascorbic acid group were possibly more significant because the placebo group had rather large increases in their post prandial BGLs, which is odd – if it’s business as usual you wouldn’t expect a massive change in the baseline group.On the plus, it’s unlikely to do any harm and may get you that 1-2 mmol/L reduction in BGLs.
That is interesting. I probably should read it a bit more thoroughly, but I’ve got some other things to do. Mr buffy thinks it can’t hurt. We used to take Vit C tabs with our breakfast as kids. As well as drinking home squeezed lime juice (very tart, yuck, and we hated doing the squeezing for the 6 of us, even with a mechanical squeezer on the Kenwood)
I take my vitamins via the anus, works better than way just time consuming sticking a dozen or tablets up there every morning
way back I think humans got a hit of vitamin C with sugar, as in like fruit.
Don’t you need some protein to absorb vitamin c more effectively?
Arts said:
Don’t you need some protein to absorb vitamin c more effectively?
I think it’s fat. Or is that Vitamin A. I’ve forgotten. Anyway, it’s why you put a smidge of butter on spinach and carrots.
Sorry, just checked. It’s Vitamin A that is fat soluble. Vitamin C is water soluble.
Of course it’s Vitamin A. I deal in eyes. Of course I think in Vitamin A…
buffy said:
Of course it’s Vitamin A. I deal in eyes. Of course I think in Vitamin A…
We all know that. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vlL9G0ugKmM
It’s the first one!
Peak Warming Man said:
buffy said:Found it. You have to search on ascorbic acid, not Vitamin C.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dom.13571
That’s very interesting.
> A total of 31 individuals with type 2 diabetes
Not nearly enough, given Texas sharpshooter problem.
mollwollfumble said:
Peak Warming Man said:
buffy said:Found it. You have to search on ascorbic acid, not Vitamin C.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dom.13571
That’s very interesting.
> A total of 31 individuals with type 2 diabetes
Not nearly enough, given Texas sharpshooter problem.
They do acknowledge that. Looks like a proof of concept, given they reference some earlier work that suggested it to them.
Arts said:
Don’t you need some protein to absorb vitamin c more effectively?
That’s why you have to eat the whole fruit.
Arts said:
Don’t you need some protein to absorb vitamin c more effectively?
No, it’s saturable absorption though, so large doses become less ‘effective’, i.e. at a dose of ~200mg you absorb about 70%, at a dose of 1000mg you absorb 50%.
poikilotherm said:
Arts said:
Don’t you need some protein to absorb vitamin c more effectively?
No, it’s saturable absorption though, so large doses become less ‘effective’, i.e. at a dose of ~200mg you absorb about 70%, at a dose of 1000mg you absorb 50%.
So, with those 2× 500mg doses….would a couple of smaller doses actually provide more active Vit C? Perhaps one smaller dose for the same effect? I can’t be bothered doing the maths….
buffy said:
poikilotherm said:
Arts said:
Don’t you need some protein to absorb vitamin c more effectively?
No, it’s saturable absorption though, so large doses become less ‘effective’, i.e. at a dose of ~200mg you absorb about 70%, at a dose of 1000mg you absorb 50%.
So, with those 2× 500mg doses….would a couple of smaller doses actually provide more active Vit C? Perhaps one smaller dose for the same effect? I can’t be bothered doing the maths….
Maybe; but the study looked specifically at two doses of 500mg not a calculation thereof.