Testing my limits (vitamin C)
 

Not to interesting really. But I've been reading up on vitamins and such things. But I've read that vitamin C is one of those things where you can have almost as much as you want (a couple of pounds will kill you). But I find it quite interesting. It seems other than overdose casuing death the only bad thing to come of it is diarheria ( which can be a pain in the ass, haha, but its worth trying).

I think the daily suggested value is around 90mg. Thus far today I've taken around 1500mg and so far I seem fine. My goal is to reach 2500mg, 2.5 grams.

from wikipedia.org
"The U.S. Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for a 25-year old male is 2000 mg/day."

Oh well, I havent started many threads lately, so hello, how are you?

well it's actually UNHEALTHY to eat so much vit c!! but good luck anyway..:)

yes it is unhealthy

eat that much B vitamins and you will turn into an orange human

eating a lot of carrot will turn you orange too

hahaha, repped.

There's a comic where the guy lives off grass and he turns green.

:) but with that carrot it's really proved..;)

carrots aren't as big as bananas, e.g.

or cucumbers

innnnnteresting. very innnnnnteresting

these czech republic chicks rule.

we just love cooking:D;)

it all depends on the individual. my tolerance seems quite high. It's advisable to work your way up though because it can have haderous effects on blood levels. Theres been cases of people taking 10 grams daily. Thats more than 100x the suggested Daily amount.

you know that any vitamins you take over the daily dose your body can absorb get peed out right? it is wasteful and pointless. the vitamins that do NOT get peed out get stored in yr fat reserves and can build up a very unhealthy level, causing a toxic shockof sorts.

well let me know when your hair will begin to fall out or something:)
you can't expect immediate consequences..

yes I realise, which is the good thing about vitamin C. the fact you urniate it out, instead of going through the whole digesting process.

from wikipeida.org
Vitamin C exhibits remarkably low toxicity. For example, in a rat, the LD50 (the dose that will kill 50% of a population) has been reported as 11900 mg/kg.[35] For a 70 kg (155 pound) human, this means that 833,000 mg (0.833kg or 1.8 pounds) of vitamin C would need to be ingested to stand a 50% chance of killing the person. However, vitamin C could not result in death when administered orally as large amounts of the vitamin cause diarrhea and are not absorbed.[36] An extremely large amount of vitamin C would need to be rapidly injected by IV to stand any chance of killing a person. Robert Cathcart, MD, has used intravenous doses of vitamin C of 250 grams and reports that he has had no problems.[37] The Council for Responsible Nutrition has set an Upper Level (UL) of 2 grams, based on transient diarrhea. Their publication on vitamin C safety notes that [38]
“...very large doses of vitamin C have been taken daily over the course of many years, and only minor undesirable effects have been attributed with any certainty to the vitamin’s use[...] Clearly, vitamin C has a low order of toxicity.

wikipedia? you believe only wikipedia? what about some doctors? never trust internet shit.. it's your health!

why are you trying to give yourself diarrhea?

Wiki isn't the only site I've been looking at.
I've been doing my homework.

haha, that fact is just a simple sign that your taking too much in.

Only natural vitamins in fresh (organic produce is, of course, best) foods can be absorbed properly (& fully) into the human bloodstream. Plus, supplements give you none of the natural fiber.

If you want a mega vitamin-C boost, eat an organically-grown orange or lemon. Then, eat the whole peel. Try to chew it as many times as possible.
Remember to brush your teeth after eating lemons though.
The citric acid in a lemon is so powerful that it can take the enamel right off your teeth. It's really best to have lemons in teas or in drinks like lemonade.

I realise that supplements do lack certain things, so I keep a healthy diet. But it's hard getting such high doses of vitamins by eating fruits anf veggies. Thats a lof of broccali

"the over-abundance of vitamin c causes kidney stones"....

said the man taking 30 times the recommended daily dosage.

vitmain C can also prevent certain kidney stones. The exccess C is passed through the urnice making it acidic and thus desolving the stone.

only when it's normal daily dosage..

My cat died of kidney stones.

sorry

vitamins and mineral supplements have been conclusively shown to prevent certain diseases that are purely a result of vitamin deficiencies, rickets, scurvy, many others. BUt there is absolutely NO proof or evidence that large doses of vitamins do anything at all and there is very litle supporting evidence that multi vitamins actually better your health.

just eat veggies and fruits.

The USDA recommended dosages is based on the very minimum amount needed to keep a human alive during wartime, they were developed for WW2. So its really old research for one thing. Natural sourced vitamins are better for you - using rosehips instead of Walmart brand Vit C. Personally I like Ester-C, it lets you use a lot less but because it is more easily absorbed by the body. My doctor told me to use Vit C when ill using 1000 mg an hour until bowel intolerance is reached (ie squirts and/or gas). This always helps. I'm also a big fan of zinc lozenges for sore throats. But if you're drinking soda and eating shit it won't help you much anyway.

interesting
http://www.advance-health.com/c.html

I'm sure Instigator & Tesla know this, but Vitamin C also amplifies the effects of THC and LSD on the brain.

As for longevity derived from diet (referencing your link above), you better get some raw broccoli and cauliflower in there too. I have it chopped up Choppin' Broccoli! Choppin' Broccoli!... in salads with balsamic vinaigrette.

I'm also a big lover of mild peppers like pepperonici and banana peppers, so those are good antioxidants too. Love 'em in wheat flour quesadillas with some skim monterrey jack and chopped onion. Pizza is overrated.

For snacks, I like beer, nuts, fruit (usually bananas or grapes), yogurt, yogurt with fruit, carrots, celery (with some dressing), & sometimes, some pretzels or tortilla chips. About once a month, I'll buy some cookie dough and bake some cookies. I get the Nestle white chocolate chip macadamia nut kind.

Sometimes though (well, about once or twice a week really) like last night being the game, I've got to have a high-end cut of beef. I ate a top loin last night with some cottage cheese and some broccolli sprigs and baby carrots on the side. I love seafood more than steak though. I have seafood three or four times a week for dinner. I'm not big on ground beef (even the leaner chuck or ground sirloin), pork, chicken (although the only fast food places I will (rarely) go to are Boston Market or Chick-Fil-A). It's been a long time since I ate any of those foods.

all those guidelines have been redone. The USDA has redone their guidelines on RDA's (recommended daily allowances) every two years for the past decade.

I think I just overstimulated myself with the ad naseum description of my diet.

hey, atari, i sent you a pm a few days ago.. did you get it?

this is slightly off topic but it answers an obsession of mine
Is Supplement Availability in Danger?
Provided by: DrWeil.com

 

Q: I'm very concerned about the Codex agenda/issue and our freedom to buy supplements. I read that Big Pharma is trying to take control of the supplement industry and to create the illusion that vitamins, minerals and herbs are dangerous and need to be prescribed by an M.D. -- Susan B.

A: I've had a lot of questions about Codex, often based on alarmist and erroneous information being circulated on the Internet. I'm happy to set the record straight. Here's the story: in 1963 the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization created the Codex Alimentarius Commission to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the international food trade through development of food standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations. For the past decade, Codex has been developing guidelines for vitamins and mineral supplements focusing on establishing new potency levels. Codex completed its work in November 2004, and the guidelines were adopted at the Commission's July 5, 2005 meeting.
This development has given rise to widespread misunderstanding. The thrust of the wrong-headed information being circulated on the Internet is that the Codex guidelines will restrict the availability of vitamins and minerals in the United States. Even more fanciful is the claim that once the Codex guidelines on vitamins and minerals are adopted, supplements that exceed the RDA will be available in the U.S. only by prescription and that this "stealthy" takeover of the supplement industry has been plotted in secret by the pharmaceutical industry working underneath the radar in Europe.
None of this is true. First of all, the Codex guidelines are non-binding on the United States (or any other country) and do not override U.S. law as many people claim (only Congress can change U.S. law regarding supplements). This country's participation in Codex is strictly voluntary. The guidelines will not in any way affect the availability of supplements to consumers in the United States.

Here's what you should know about the Codex guidelines:

• They're limited to vitamins and minerals only, and do not extend to herbs and other dietary supplements.
• Contrary to the circulating scare stories, the guidelines do not set upper limits for vitamins and minerals in supplements. Instead, they specify that maximum amounts should be established by scientific risk assessment, a process that will now be undertaken by a panel of scientific experts.
• There is nothing in the guidelines requiring that supplements be sold as prescription drugs in the United States or elsewhere.

As for the notion that the drug industry has engineered the Codex guidelines in an effort to take over the supplement market, the truth is that some of the largest supplement manufacturers in the U.S. already are owned by big pharmaceutical firms or their parent companies.
Andrew Weil, MD
Last Reviewed: July 2005

well you seem to be quite the healthy person.

Well, I have to try because I am a smoker and drinker. The thing is, I actually like healthy foods more. They make you feel good and taste better. I feel healthy, I don't get sick, and I don't seem to be aging as much as my peers. Salads are delicious, seafood is king, and fruits make the best desserts.

Foods filled with trans-fats or sugars make me feel blah like some brown frown would, so I avoid them.

I've been trying to cut down on beer, and with some success. I can't really substitute for wine or liquor, because I'll drink up whatever is in the house. Too much red meat, as we know, isn't good for you either.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/article/dietbad/1059/
The first Recommended Dietary Allowances were established in the United States in the 1940s to provide standards for good nutrition. The allowances were not considered permanent, but rather recommendations based on the best available scientific knowledge. Since 1943 the RDAs have been revised approximately every five years as new data became available. In 1985, the RDAs came under attack by segments of the scientific and medical community as not serving the needs for establishing optimal nutrition.
What are the RDAs? They are defined as "the level of intake of essential nutrients considered in the judgment of a government nutrition board on the basis of available scientific knowledge to be adequate to meet the known nutritional needs of practically all healthy persons." What adequate means is a point of contention surrounding the RDAs. Does adequate mean a margin of protection against the nutritional deficiency diseases like scurvy in the absence of vitamin C, beri-beri in the absence of vitamin B1 or B2, or pellagra in the absence of vitamin B3? Or does adequate imply good health? These are questions which have framed the basis of the debate today that swirls around the RDAs.
Secondly, questions have been raised as to who "practically all healthy persons" are. Individuals who do not fall into this category include:

1. People engaged in heavy work or physical exercise which increases their energy and nutrient needs.
2. People who live in very warm or cold climates who may require special levels of certain nutrients.
3. People who are aging and as a consequence have specific nutrient requirements.
4. People with specific kinds of health problems such as metabolic disorders, chronic diseases and injuries.
5. People consuming drugs or alcohol, people who have undergone recent surgery, people suffering from illnesses, trauma, burns, intestinal diseases or other unique genetic requirements.

What is meant by optimal versus adequate nutrition? In 1985 the United States Food and Nutrition Board recommended to the National Academy of Sciences revisions for the 1980 RDAs. In 1986, however, Dr. Frank Press, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences, stunned the nutritional community by failing to accept the recommendations of the Food and Nutrition Board. In a letter from Dr. Press to Dr. Wyngaarden, then chairman of the National Research Council, Food and Nutrition Board, Dr. Press comments, "Our decision not to accept the revisions of the RDAs at this time stems primarily from an impasse that resulted from scientific differences of opinion between the committee and reviewers from the Food and Nutrition Board related to assumptions about the indications of good health." He goes on to say that "Most reviewers from the National Academy of Sciences believe that modification to the RDA are justified in the face of compelling new evidence not merely as a result of reinterpretation of existing data based on assumptions." - He also stated that, "The decision not to accept the recommendation was based upon the deepening understanding of the interplay between nutritional factors and health, especially the importance of these factors in the aging process and susceptibility of the older people to chronic diseases. Scientific developments in the past five years relating nutrition to health need be more seriously considered and a more comprehensive approach to establishing the RDAs is now warranted for assessing nutrient intake to satisfy the known nutritional needs of practically all healthy people." He concludes by stating, "The RDAs should be more than just the avoidance of nutritional deficiency diseases. More emphasis on what nutrients are important for preventing diet-related disease and promoting optimal health should be considered."
How this relates to nutritional supplementation and trying to provide a more optimal level of intake of specific nutrients has been addressed by individuals such as Dr. Edward Schneider who is director of the National Institutes of Aging in Bethesda, Maryland. In his article on Recommended Dietary Allowances and the elderly (E.L. Schneider, E. M. Vining, E. C. Hadley, S. A. Farnham, "Recommended Dietary Allowances and the Health of the Elderly,"NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 314:157; 1/16/86) he advises that the RDA should be seriously reconsidered as it relates to nutrient need of the older-aged segment of our population to help promote disease resistance. Dr. Schneider points out we are a population of people who have vastly different nutritional needs depending on genetic uniqueness. He suggests that the RDAs are too constraining and do not properly reflect this array of biochemical uniqueness,
This point is most important as it relates to the demographic transition that is now occurring in the developed world. The post World War II baby boomers are now growing up to become mid-life individuals and soon to become older-aged individuals. Within the next twenty years, many more people will be in hospitals and institutions due to poor health associated with the aging process. Dr. Gio Gori, ex-director of the National Cancer Institute in the United States has pointed out that we must implement preventive nutrition now to help prevent the diseases of the aged not only to improve the quality of life of older-aged population, but also to reduce the tremendous cost and expenditures that come with hospitalization (G. B. Gori, B. J. Richter, "Macroeconomics of Disease Prevention in the United States," SCIENCE, 200:1124; June 1978).
Suboptimal nutrient intake results in suboptimal health which then increases the risk of many degenerative diseases. Early warning precursor markers of later-stage disease may be such things as fatigue, muscle weakness, insomnia, anxiety, reoccurring bad dreams, intestinal complaints of unknown origin and maybe even depression or other psychological or behavior changes. The work of Dr. Myron Brin has indicated that the early warning signs of suboptimal vitamin intake are these chronic health complaints, many of which may be psychological in origin. (M. Brin, "Erythrocyte as a Biopsy Tissue for Functional Evaluation of Thiamine Adequacy," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 187:762; March 1964)
It is now recognized that there are a number of conditions or lifestyle habits which may further indicate the need for high levels of intake of specific nutrients. For example, Dr. Daphne Roe of Cornell University has found that female athletes have higher needs for vitamin B2 to promote optimal nutrition in women of the same age who are not heavy exercisers. In the absence of increased intake of vitamin B2, these athletic women may be suboptimally nourished and have more fatigue or poor recovery after exercise. (Daphne A. Roe, "Reply to Letter by Horwitt, " AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 39/1:159-163; Jan. 1984)
Dr. Karl Folkers, an internationally known biochemist who has studied vitamin B6 for over forty years, has recently indicated that many of the muscle aches and pains associated with older age may be manifestations of suboptimal vitamin B6 intake. He considers suboptimal intake of B6 in the older age population to be equivalent to the 2 mg per day RDA. He suggests that a range of 25 to 50 mg per day of vitamin B6 would be considered an improvement in overall nutritional status which could result in improved physiological performance, (K. Folkers, "Perspectives from Research on Vitamins and Hormones," JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION, 61:747; 1984). Twenty-five milligrams a day is twelve-fold the RDA, but is certainly within the safe range of vitamin B6 intake. Therefore the benefit to risk ratio is far on the side of benefit. Dr. Mark Levine at the National Institutes of Health has also spoken to the difference between adequate and optimal levels of vitamin C. He points out from a number of scientific studies he has conducted on vitamin C that the RDA level will certainly be enough to prevent scurvy, but may not provide the enhanced levels of immunological functioning that are found with increased intake of vitamin C (M. Levine, "New Concepts in the Biology and Biochemistry of Ascorbic Acid," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 314:892; 1986),

I'd like to start eating more healthy than I do now. Once I get on my own, I can set up my own menu.