What Is The "Real" Vitamin C? - Bio-Individual Wellness

Table of Contents

As you know, most mammals can produce their own ascorbic acid, except humans, other primates, and guinea pigs. Poor guinea pigs ...

However, many people in the natural health community, including several authors, believe that ascorbic acid is not vitamin C, or is not the "real " vitamin C, or is not the whole vitamin C "complex", and is even toxic.

Is this true? I used to wonder. Now I do not. Read on to learn why.

This is the third article in a series of articles on vitamin C. You can access the first two articles at the links below:

I touched on the issue of ascorbic acid versus "whole food" vitamin C in the first article but did not do it justice there. I will dig more deeply into the matter here, probably more deeply than comedian Jimmy Fallon did when he concluded that "Vitamin C is Spanish for vitamin 'Yes'" ...

Is Vitamin C Ascorbic Acid Or A Whole Food Vitamin C "Complex"?

In their book, The Four Fold Path to Healing, authors Thomas Cowan and Sally Fallon (probably no relation to Jimmy Fallon, I think) summarized an idea already prevalent in the natural health community that ascorbic acid is only part of vitamin C, defining real vitamin C as “actually a complex of nutrients that includes bio-flavonoids, rutin, tyrosine, copper and other substances known and unknown.”

Other authors have since repeated this concept, including Morley Robbins and Robert Thompson, MD. For some reason these two have substituted the enzyme tyrosinase for the amino acid tyrosine in their definition of the whole food vitamin C complex.

Cowan and Fallon's evidence for their statement about what constitutes real vitamin C comes down to two studies suggesting unhealth effects of supplementation with ascorbic acid, the beliefs of natural nutritionist Royal Lee, and a statement that Cowan and Fallon claim was made by Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, who won a Nobel Prize for his discoveries related to the structure of ascorbic acid and some of its functions in the body.

First, let's consider the two studies cited by Cowan and Fallon that cast doubt on the healthfulness of ascorbic acid supplementation. Note that they apparently only found two concerning studies among the tens of thousands of studies on ascorbic acid.

Does Ascorbic Acid Accelerate Atherosclerosis?

One of the studies referenced by Cowan and Fallon suggested that doses of 500 mg of ascorbic acid in humans accelerated the progression of athersclerosis. In contrast, the evidence from animal studies clearly suggests that ascorbic acid slows the progression of atherosclerosis induced in animals. However, when it comes to the overall research on the effect on atherosclerosis of ascorbic acid supplementation in humans, one review of human studies found the evidence to be inconclusive. (1)

If the evidence is inconclusive, I would suggest that this is likely due to the fact that humans studies usually use an observational instead of interventional study design which is by its nature subject to inaccuracies and confounding variables that compromise or utterly destroy the validity of the data and conclusions.

On the other hand, Thomas E. Levy, MD and Julian Whittaker, MD co-wrote a book entitled, Stop America's #1 Killer!: Proof that the origin of all coronary heart disease is a clearly reversible arterial scurvy. (2) I have not read this book, but it probably contains more evidence regarding the effect of ascorbic acid on cardiovascular disease risk than Cowan and Fallon's book, which referenced only one study on this topic.

Does Ascorbic Acid Damage DNA?

The other study cited by Cowan and Fallon suggested that 500 mg daily of supplemental ascorbic acid was genotoxic (damaging to DNA). However, PubMed is full of studies showing just the opposite. It is probably safe to assume that there is something wrong with one study that concludes the opposite of what the prevailing evidence seems to show.

Royal Lee's Nutritional Philosophy

Royal Lee was a nutritionist that espoused a philosophy that all nutrition should come from nature, that all nutrients come in a "nutrient complex", and that anything manufactured is toxic. The following quotation appears on the DrRoyalLee.com website:

“The Lee Principle of Nutrition states that a vitamin as it appears in nature is never a single chemical, but rather it is a group of interdependent compounds that form a ‘nutrient complex’ so intricate that only a living cell can create it. And just as no single component of a watch keeps time, no single compound in a vitamin complex accounts for the vitamin’s nutritive effect in the body. Only through whole, unprocessed foods can the synergistic effect of a true vitamin be delivered.” — Mark R. Anderson

Overall, I tend to agree with this philosophy in many instances with many nutrients. However, when it comes to ascorbic, I think that the Lee Principle of Nutrition needs to be cross-examined against mammalian biochemistry.

Mammalian Production of Ascorbic Acid

Most mammals produce their own ascorbic acid and increase their production of ascorbic acid during times of stress or exposure to toxic or infectious agents. Mammals smaller than humans that can produce their own ascorbic acid are known to produce 5 - 15 grams per day, and this amount can double when they are under stress. Based on our larger body size, if we humans could produce our own ascorbic acid and produced an amount proportional to the amount produced by smaller mammals, we would produce 10-30 grams per day when not under stress and more when under stress. By the way, this is far more than can be realistically obtained from food sources.

Vitamin C in mammals is ascorbic acid because that is what mammals can produce. Even if ascorbic acid exists in plants as a vitamin C “complex” that also includes bioflavonoids, copper, tyrosine or tyrosinase, and other compounds, this is probably completely irrelevant because mammals do not produce bioflavonoids and therefore do not produce it when they produce ascorbic acid.

Ascorbic acid has been shown to have many of its effects independent of any other nutrients, including its all-important anti-scurvy effect. Scurvy is the most well-known symptom of vitamin C deficiency.

So bioflavonoids, copper, tyrosine, and tyrosinase are not necessary for the essential functions of ascorbic acid in mammals. However, bioflavonoids provide synergistic effects that enhance the activity of ascorbic acid. And copper and tyrosine are involved in certain biochemical reactions in which ascorbic acid also participates, such as in dopamine metabolism.

So if mammals produce ascorbic acid and do not need bioflavonoids, copper, tyrosine or tyrosinase for ascorbic acid to have its anti-scurvy effect, then it is probably safe to say that ascorbic acid is vitamin C in mammals and that these other nutrients are not necessary components of vitamin C activity in mammals.

Again, none of the other nutrients in the purported vitamin C "complex" reverse vitamin C deficiency disease symptoms such as survy. Only ascorbic acid reverses scurvy, according to the massive body of scientific literature on ascorbic acid. Yet Cowan and Fallon claimed that Albert Szent-Gyorgyi said otherwise. Did he?

Albert Szent-Gyorgyi On Ascorbic Acid

In regard to statements Albert Szent-Gyorgyi allegedly made about ascorbic acid and vitamin C, Cowan and Fallon wrote, "He maintained, as did Royal Lee, that the 'whole complex of substances found in vitamin-rich foods is the active ingredient that can cure scurvy' and that this complex of substances is not at all the same as the isolated chemical ascorbic acid."

Did he actually say that? I have searched the internet to find such a quotation and have not found it. But what I have found is that the Encyclopedia Brittanica entry on Albert Szent-Gyorgyi states that "he helped prove that the acid is identical to the antiscurvy vitamin C." (3)

And in the transcript of Dr. Gyorgyi's Nobel Prize Lecture, you can find the following statements:

“This was the first proof that ascorbic acid was identical with vitamin C, and that the substance’s activity was not due to an impurity.” (4)

And ...

"Thanks to international collaboration, in the unbelievably short space of two years the mysterious vitamin C had become a cheap, synthetic product."

In other words, he was celebrating the fact that anti-scurvy factor, vitamin C, had been identified as a molecule that could be inexpensively synthesized (for mass benefit).

And though I have not digested almost a century of research on vitamin C myself, as Linus Pauling did (described in the next section), I am inclined to accept the following statements made by The Vitamin C Foundation's white paper:

"No one who is engaged in conventional medical research believes there is a C-complex, nor are there any peer-reviewed papers accessible in the Medline medical database that support the idea that there is a C-complex, much less that it is the real vitamin C. It is known that animals generally do not require vitamin C in their diets. Almost all mammals, and virtually all animals, synthesize ascorbic acid in the liver or kidney. While most animals synthesize ascorbic acid, there is no scientific evidence that any animal synthesizes the ill-defined C-complex within its body."

Linus Pauling On Ascorbic Acid

In a white paper entitled "The Nature of Vitamin C" (5), The Vitamin C Foundation makes the following statement in reference to Nobel Prize Laureate Linus Pauling's deep knowledge of the research on ascorbic acid:

"Linus Pauling was unequivocal in his belief that the ascorbate fraction of ascorbic acid (called the ascorbate ion) is vitamin C. Referring to scurvy in his landmark Vitamin C and the Common Cold (1970), Pauling stated, 'Ascorbic acid is an essential food for human beings. People who receive no ascorbic acid (vitamin C) become sick and die.'"

And:

"If the naturalists are right about the C-complex being the 'real' vitamin C, then Linus Pauling was wrong in his reviews and analyses of more than 60 years of vitamin C science. There is massive scientific support for Linus Pauling’s position that ascorbic acid is vitamin C. No scientific basis has been found for the existence of the C-complex or that such a complex can cure scurvy without ascorbic acid present. This assertion is proven every day in hospitals around the world. Comatose patients are kept alive using ascorbic acid only. There are no hospitals keeping patients on a feeding tube alive with a vitamin C-complex."

And:

"Any review of the scientific literature that spans 80 years and includes more than 100,000 published studies and reports, concludes that what is commonly called vitamin C, the ascorbate ion, or simply ascorbic acid, is the real vitamin C. Humanity is fortunate that Linus Pauling became interested, for such a review of the literature requires reading the equivalent of 400 bound books just to hold the abstracts. The genius Linus Pauling was probably the only person who could possibly digest and assimilate and then disseminate this much scientific research over the course of his 30-year study. It was his practice to read the body of every study paper, not merely the abstract, draw conclusions and test whether his conclusions match the author of the study.... Linus Pauling made the vitamin C science understandable to the rest of us with his books for the lay public."

Chris Masterjohn On Ascorbic Acid

In an article entitled, "Vitamin C, Whole Food Vs. Synthetic: Does It Matter?" (6 ), Chris Masterjohn, a PhD nutritionist, responds to the following passages from Morley Robbins' book, Cu-RE Your Fatigue: The Root Cause and How To Fix It On Your Own (p. 168, 209-210):

"Real vitamin C as it occurs in nature (food-based) is like a complete car that has an engine, a steering wheel, four wheels, and a shell. And in that whole food vitamin C-complex, the “engine” is an enzyme called tyrosinase, which is one of the most important copper-based enzymes in our body. . . . Compared to the real vitamin C-complex, ascorbic acid and ascorbate are simply the shell of the car, without the engine, nor any other moving parts. . . . Nor is the tyrosinase enzyme all that synthetic vitamin C is lacking. It also lacks the polyphenols rutin and the flavanone glycoside hesperidin (sometimes referred together as “vitamin P”), vitamin K, and factor J (choline), all of which are found in whole food vitamin C-complex, and, along with tyrosinase, are essential co-factor nutrients that work synergistically with ascorbigen, the natural form of L-ascorbic acid that whole food vitamin C-complex also contains. Without these essential co-factors, L-ascorbic cannot be absorbed, which is why 90 percent of synthetic vitamin C supplements are rapidly excreted by the body soon after they are consumed. That should suffice to prove that the human body does not want synthetic vitamin C!"

Masterjohn begins his response to these passages from Robbins' book with, "None of this makes any sense." Then he goes on to provide a detailed blow-by-blow debunking of the ideas in Robbin's statements about vitamin C.

Morley Robbins on Ascorbic Acid

One of the standout examples of the illogic contained in Robbin's statements about vitamin C is idea that tyrosinase is an essential cofactor within the vitamin C "complex" for human consumption. Ascorbic acic inhibits tyrosinase. (7) While there might be a purpose in plants to place ascorbic acid around tyrosinase to inhibit its function (tyrosinase is a polyphenol oxidase that degrades polyphenols), it is hard to imagine a role for tyrosinase as a cofactor or synergistic factor for ascorbic acid in humans if ascorbic acid inhibits the function of tyrosinase.

In humans tyrosinase has a different role than in plants. In humans, it inititiates the synthesis of the pigment melanin that makes skin darker. Ascorbic acid's inhibitory effect on tyrosinase is used in cosmetology to lighten skin color. (8) But again, there is no known role for tyrosinase in potentiating the functions of ascorbic acid.

Robbins strays equally far from from logic and science by stating that ascorbinogen is a natural form of L-ascorbate that the vitamin C "complex" also contains. Ascorbinogen is a glucosinolate found in cruciferous vegetables that is formed when L-ascorbic acid reacts with indole-3-carbinol. (9) Ascorbinogen would not even be found in plants that do not produce glucosinolates that could react with ascorbic acid to form ascorbinoge. For example, fruit generally contains ascorbic acid but not ascorbinogen. So does that mean that by Robbin's definition fruit does not contain the full vitamin C "complex"?

Furthermore, ascorbinogen has different effects in the human body than those of ascorbic acid, even though ascorbic acid is essentially contained within ascorbinogen and is released from ascorbinogen when it is degraded in an acid medium. But it is a real stretch to state that ascorbinogen is a form of ascorbic acid. If a larger molecule (e.g. ascorbinogen) contains another smaller molecule (e.g. ascorbic acid) as part of its structure, this does not make the larger molecule (ascorbinogen) a form of the smaller molecule (ascorbic acid). They are different molecules. And different molecules always have different properties, even if some of them are similar.

Another example that would be more familiar to most people is the fact that proteins contain amino acids and release amino acids when degraded, yet proteins are not amino acids. Proteins and amino are different molecules with different properties.

The Bottom Line On Ascorbic Acid

The bottom line is that it seems quite safe to conclude that ascorbic acid and mineral ascorbate salts like sodium ascorbate are vitamin C in mammals and are not toxic to mammals. That said, synthetic ascorbic acid can contain impurities, especially when it is derived from GMO corn. So if you want to consume more ascorbic acid than you can reasonably or safely obtain from fruits and vegetables that are high in vitamin C, it would make sense to use GMO-free ascorbic acid.

Perque and Duda Energy are two brands I am aware of that produce L-ascorbic acid that claim to be GMO-free. L-ascorbic acid is the form the body readily absorbs. The body does not readily absorb D-ascorbic acid or DL-ascorbic acid, which are often part of what you are getting from ascorbic acid products that are not providing pure L-ascorbic acid.

As mentioned in the earlier article, Vitamin C: Superpowers, Ordinary Powers, and Common Questions, people who are sensitive to polyphenols (e.g. bioflavonoids or salicylates) might not be able to use many foods that are high in vitamin C because of the high polyphenol content of these foods until they have resolved their sensitivity (usually due to low sulfate levels, molybdenum deficiency, and/or overgrowth of certain types of gut bacteria).

Even for people who can use high-polyphenol foods, synthetic ascorbic acid (in the form of mineral ascorbates like sodium ascorbate) is the only option for obtaining the dosages of ascorbic acid that other mammals can produce or that have been shown in research to neutralize toxins, destroy infectious agents, and help reverse certain conditions.

Can Humans Produce Their Own Ascorbic Acid After All?

By the way, there is some evidence that some humans might be able to produce ascorbic acid. The next article will explore this possibility. In the meantime, if you have been experiencing health challenges, and you know that you need to do more than increase your intake of vitamin C, feel free to schedule a time to chat about whether I might be able to help.

You can do that by scheduling a 15-minute conversation or by first learning more about my approach by downloading the Bio-Individual Blueprint Roadmap and watching the walkthrough video.