Topical vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid) at concentrations of 10-20% with pH <3.5 can penetrate the stratum corneum, though stability and formulation significantly impact bioavailability.
You can just freshly mix cheap vitamin C powder and water to the desired concentration, adjust pH to be less irritating. The solution can last for a few days, if cooled and protected from light. For it to be effective (according to studies), it needs to be applied daily/frequently. However, DIY is so cheap, you can use it all over your body. Wash/wipe off excess (see below).
The problem is commercialization. Vitamin C is very, very reactive, so formulating it for shelf storage and production is challenging. I think you either have to add expensive/exotic antioxidant systems, or rely on ascorbate derivatives which may be less/not effective.
Fair warning: Vitamin C degrades to dehydroascorbic acid: After some delay, vitamin C solution may stain skin and everything in contact yellow. DHA may also further break down into erythrulose, a self-tanning agent browning the skin semi-permanently (likely not very healthy). Vitamin C may also react with other things (eg. skin care products) in unpredictable ways and can actually form radicals under some conditions. Eg. It can react with benzoic acid to form benzene. On the modern skin, with UV exposure, a primordial soup of "actives", complex hydrocarbons and all natural metal catalysts, vitamin C may facilitate genesis…
The science is promising, but the chemistry of vitamin C is hard to control, or even reason about.
> The problem is commercialization. Vitamin C is very, very reactive.
… hence it oxidises easily.
There has recently been a novel development, ethyl ascorbic acid, that is much more stable due to being more inert. It resists the oxidation for a much longer time compared to ascorbyl glucoside and L-ascorbic acid, and it has been successfully commercialised in some skincare products. The products using it command a premium, though.
AFAIK, the derivatives are less researched, so hard to argue about. Often, the concentration isn’t disclosed, too.
I would just go DIY, since commercial products are either very, very expensive, or ineffective. Once you got your measurements down, mixing it freshly takes no time. And you can afford to use it all over the body, not just the face. This way you know, it’s not oxidized, it’s exactly what’s used in some better studies, it is effective. Even DIYing a stabilized formulation with ferulic acid is possible and still much cheaper.
Personally, I have trust issues with vitamin C chemistry tho :D
Anyone who can afford the equipment to make fresh vitamin c serum could easily afford several years supply of high end commercial products that have been tested to confirm their ingredients and effects.
You need a mg scale and pH strips as equipment (~ 20€, once); tap water, pure vitamin C and sodium bicarbonate as ingredients (~ 6€, lasts for many, many preparations). Aluminium foil to make any glas container light-tight.
The chemicals are food grade from your next supermarket or drug store. The "recipe" is used in some studies.
the modern skin, you know, uncovered from the outside world. as opposed to the victorian skin which wise hidden away from dangerous UV light behind many layers of undergarments, hoop dresses, 5 piece suits, monocles, and so on
> IMO, everybody should take at least 2g daily in a couple of doses
I strongly caution against this kind of blanket recommendation. For most people, taking such a high dose without medical guidance is unwise. Unless a healthcare professional has specifically advised it, this level of supplementation goes well beyond established guidelines.
There is substantial research highlighting potential risks, including kidney damage, associated with high-dose vitamin C intake (as referenced elsewhere in this thread).
Anyone considering this should thoroughly research the risks and consult a qualified medical professional before proceeding.
Taking vitamin C orally decreases muscle mitochondrial biogenesis and harms the health benefits of training, like increased insulin resistance. (well established from multiple studies, easy to google).
There was huge antioxidant craze in late 90's and 00's when taking antioxidant supplements like C was considered the right thing to do. Now we know that just taking more antioxidants does not directly help with oxidization tress, because it messes up metabolism and can even increase it.
> well established from multiple studies, easy to google
That's not all of them. You can find systematic reviews and meta-analyses walking trough them all. Easy to google.
50-100 mg per day is OK and possible has some benefits, if you go to more than 2 grams like you suggested for health person, there is no evidence of benefits, only harms.
Phrases like "get serious" don’t contribute meaningfully to the discussion. This is a serious topic and deserves a well-informed, balanced perspective.
Recommending that people take over 2 grams of vitamin C daily -- without context or medical guidance —- is irresponsible. I'm sorry, but offering such advice in a public forum without acknowledging potential risks or the need for individual consideration can be genuinely harmful.
There are a large number of studies on this topic, in part because vitamin C supplements are so widely used and easily accessible. Several people have already shared relevant research in this thread.
Before promoting high-dose supplementation as universally safe or beneficial, I strongly recommend doing more in-depth research. It’s important to understand the potential risks especially since this kind of advice, if followed without medical oversight, can have serious health consequences.
If you are asserting that Linus Pauling was the only two-time winner of the Nobel Prize, my doubt in the accuracy of your conclusions has only increased, given that Marie Curie, John Bardeen, and Frederick Sanger have all won two Nobel Prizes.
Pauling took 18g every day, for decades. It's in his book. There is little doubt Pauling would do the same today. He would reject LPI though (as apart from his name, they don't follow his footsteps), but not orthomolecular.
Please don't spread fear here, vitamin C is non-toxic and can only help people, and this place represents a hacking oriented culture.
Find me a case report about the danger of vitamin C (not a theoretical one) and we can talk. Otherwise, you are free to behave and believe in whatever you want.
Are you serious? Prolonged high supplementation doses is actually very dangerous. Aside from the warnings about this in various places, I’ve also had a family member who did permanent kidney damage by prolonged usage of supplementation.
It shows no deaths from vitamins. This is from 2018, but its like that every year. While it doesn't account for damage as its highly uncertain to pinpoint exactly what happened in any human, at least you know there are no deaths, while at the same time, there are deaths for any drug (aspirin for example).
> I’ve also had a family member who did permanent kidney damage by prolonged usage of supplementation.
You mean, you or your doctors suppose it was about supplementation? And what supplementation? You can damage yourself or die with anything, water included, or you come with defective organ from the day 0. All that is not relevant for others.
Bashing on supplements is in any case irresponsible and you spread fear because you are not informed, its similar to anti-vacc movement - it never happens that entire technology domain is invalid - particular instance of drug/supplement/vaccine/herb can be.
The risk to kidneys is well documented. You seem to be concentrating on whether a person dies or not, but the risk to quality of life is not to be dismissed either. There are innumerable warnings and studies about this over the years.
Maybe plasters with ascorbin acid in it? That would be the first thing that comes to mind. Or maybe plaster spray where it's mixed with the typical protein foam?
honestly that video was surprising on how safe zinc is. I mean he went so beyond anything close to a reasonable dose. bro was eating tubes of dental paste.
If there's a real deficiency, it should be managed with blood tests.
Growing up and recently, I've been anemic (iron deficient) without any obvious medical cause. That requires supplementation with an unusual amount of iron.
Also, I'm vitamin A deficient at baseline and have to take large amounts, around 15k IU/day, to stay within the "normal" range. (50% above ordinary UL.)
Blood tests are often misleading, not showing tissue deficiencies. For those there might be 1-2 labs in the world that can do them depending on the type of deficiency.
Vitamin C supplements and cancer risk is an active area of research. Unless there is a genuine deficiency, I would stay away from supplements just to look pretty until there is more clarity.
Vitamin C’s relationship with cancer risk appears complex and context-dependent. While maintaining adequate blood levels (≥60.19 μmol/L) is associated with reduced cancer mortality, supplementation may increase postmenopausal breast cancer risk by 32% in women with already high dietary intake. This suggests a U-shaped relationship where both deficiency and excess may be detrimental, emphasizing the importance of personalized approaches to vitamin C intake.
Vitamin C/ascorbic acid/swimming pool cleener is interesting stuff, but it is not generaly benificient as a suppliment for healthy people.
I will(very) occasionaly chew up a gram, or throw a spoon full into a summer drink concoction, but I also know someone who got a tounge blister from copying me chewing up a vitC pill, someone I knew well, who had such different respinses to things that we started to experiment lightly,they also had a variant form of collegen in all of there conective tissue, which made them vastly more flexible than most people......which(oddly)relates to the titles subject matter
Let's not engage in quakery and resort to knowledge instead.
Oral and transdermal (topical) application of Vitamin C (and other molecules in general) follow completely different routes with different absorption rates and accompanying nuances.
Oral intake. Absorption rate is dosage dependent:
– At moderate doses (≤ 250 mg/day): 70–90 per cent of ascorbate is absorbed into the bloodstream. Bloodstream means just that – Vitamin C will be distributed throughout the entire body, which includes tissues, internal organs and skin. Active absorption takes place in the small intestine predominantly by SVCT1 and SVCT2 sodium-ascorbate co-transporters.
– At high doses (≥ 1g a day): passive diffusion takes over and also takes place in the small intestine although now via GLUT transporters that become saturated and absorption efficiency drops to 50 per cent or lower.
The half-life of Vitamin C taken orally is approximately four hours anyway, after which any excess of it still circulating will be rapidly excreted via the renal route (kidneys). Studies report that significantly less than 0.1 per cent makes into the epidermal (skin) layer.
Transdermal (topical) application. Depends on the concentration and several factors, but a 20% concentration serum (not a cream) can achieve a > 80% absorption rate through the skin into receptor fluid after 24 hours. Half-life of Vitamin C applied topically is approximately 4 days.
Recap: less than < 0.1 % / 4 hours half-life for the oral route vs more than 80 % / 4 days half-life for the transdermal route.
Liposomal C will achieve higher concentrations in cells as it doesn't rely on GLUT/SVCT.
Otherwise, the absorption of high doses depends on stress level - when you are not healthy, your body will absorb A LOT more, as shown by vitamin C bowel tolerance method.
To be sure you have it where it counts, take all forms of C - liposomal, film, AA and topical
Ascorbyl palmitate («liposomal C»), when taken orally, is absorbed by the same active‐transport and passive‐diffusion mechanisms as plain vitamin C, with the same saturation thresholds. And it has the same problem as ascorbic acid, sodium ascorbate and calcium ascorbate – it gets distributed throughout the entire body with only minute amounts reaching the «skin».
Topical application of ascorbyl palmitate/«liposomal C», on the other hand, has very poor uptake due to the molecule size being too big to penetrate the skin layer[0]:
L-ascorbic acid must be formulated at pH levels less than 3.5 to enter the skin. Maximal concentration for optimal percutaneous absorption was 20%. Tissue levels were saturated after three daily applications; the half-life of tissue disappearance was about 4 days. Derivatives of ascorbic acid including magnesium ascorbyl phosphate, ascorbyl-6-palmitate, and dehydroascorbic acid did not increase skin levels of L-ascorbic acid.
Key takeway: «Derivatives of ascorbic acid including magnesium ascorbyl phosphate, ascorbyl-6-palmitate (a.k.a «liposomal C», and dehydroascorbic acid did not increase skin levels of L-ascorbic acid».
Liposomal C IS NOT ascorbyl palmitate. The point is about liposome anyway, not the form of vitamin C. There are a number of research papers showing higher bioavailability, some even claim its similar to IV.
Ah, so you are actually talking about the liposome encased ascorbic acid. I have seen a number of products that misrepresented ascorbyl palmitate as liposomal vitamin C, hence the enquiry.
Taking any form of vitamin C orally still confers statistically insignificant benefits for the skin due to having to propagate and get distributed throughout the entire body.
The article in question discusses the benefits of the topical application of vitamin C, the benefits of which have been extensively studied. Vitamin C (especially in combination with ferulic acid) is amongst very few skincare products that actually work – it has been known for a long time.
> Taking any form of vitamin C orally still confers statistically insignificant benefits for the skin due to having to propagate and get distributed throughout the entire body.
Maybe not if you take it in multiple of grams, e.g. you brute force it to replace non-working GULO gene you have, that would do it in that range if not defective.
> Taking vitamin C by grams will give one a diarrhoea, and a pretty violent one.
Yes when your body gets enough of it (its called Vitamin C Flush and its not harmful), which is dynamic. I take 10+ grams and do not have diarrhoea, I might get it on 20+ IF I am healthy. I don't get it with 100g when I have influenza which is the state of the system when body requires more and SVCT pumps are active like crazy. This is trivially easy to check out yourself, you don't need a study. I have never seen a better feedback system for any drug, really.
> Can you explain and cite a study reference?
There are no studies about it, you need to try it yourself. Vitamin C is non-toxic and doesn't produce kidney stones, contrary to popular belief.
There are medical hypothesis and Linus Pauling wrote a few books about it long time ago.
> One of the common strategies to prolong the circulation of vitamin C is to recycle it by coupling it with, e.g. N-acetyl cysteine.
Yes, I take NAC too, however, the worst offender is sugar, as GLUT2 transports both C and glucose, and since its passive transporter C gets outcompeted given the levels of both.
I can explain 2 decades of experience with it, if you need some info send me a note.
I know this was a joke, but I can't really understand the worldview that says people should accept physical decline in a passive way. The fact is, we actually have a lot of control over how quickly and how well we age. Just using sunscreen can prevent a lot of the age-related loss of skin structure. And interventions like topical retinoids or collagen induction (e.g. microneedling) can even restore some thickness and elasticity that have already been lost. This also goes for fitness, joint health, and a lot of other things. Caring for your body is actually well aligned with the goals of psychotherapy.
As a vaguely related aside, my skin is typically better when I have a decent vitamin c intake. Essentially all I do is have a orange or two every night. Nothing too extreme.
Oranges are not particularly high in ascorbic acid as such things go, so I would expect any effect to be pretty marginal. Other fruits and vegetables contain considerably more.
They are, but you have to eat the peel, too. I actually love it, but it’s not to everyone’s taste. Of course the oranges need to be free of pesticides, peel declared suitable for consumption.
This just found a potential mechanism, right? Because we did know that, AFAIK. A doctor recommended me vitamin C for faster healing of minor lesions about a decade ago.
… coffee is good for you, coffee is bad for you. Table salt is bad for you, table salt is good for you. Red wine is good for you, red wine is bad for you. We have gone a full circle on each of those so many times.
Linus Pauling used IV injections of vitamin C in 1970's to treat terminal cancer tumours, subsequent studies in 1990's failed to reproduce the effect so it was abandoned (and discredited), and over the past decade the interest has rekindled the research and phase 3 trial is underway for high dose IV injections of vitamin C as adjuvant therapy for pancreatic and solid cancer tumours[0].
"I always use an after-shave lotion with little
or no alcohol because alcohol dries your face out and makes
you look older. Then moisturizer, then an anti-aging eye
balm, followed by a final moisturizing "protective" lotion..."
Bateman stares into the mirror. The masque has dried,
giving his face a strange distorted look as if it has been
wrapped in plastic. He begins slowly peeling the gel masque
off his face.
“Looking good doesn’t affect your success” is one of those pernicious anti-advices like “elite university degrees don’t matter” and “family connections are worthless in our meritocratic society.”
In cell cultures. So nothing about topical, or digestive pathways. Just, expose cells to vitamin c rich medium.
How would topical application work, and what kind of homeostasis effect, from ingestion.
If you are low on vitamin c in your diet, sure. If not, you may not get much benefit from having more.
Topical vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid) at concentrations of 10-20% with pH <3.5 can penetrate the stratum corneum, though stability and formulation significantly impact bioavailability.
You can just freshly mix cheap vitamin C powder and water to the desired concentration, adjust pH to be less irritating. The solution can last for a few days, if cooled and protected from light. For it to be effective (according to studies), it needs to be applied daily/frequently. However, DIY is so cheap, you can use it all over your body. Wash/wipe off excess (see below).
The problem is commercialization. Vitamin C is very, very reactive, so formulating it for shelf storage and production is challenging. I think you either have to add expensive/exotic antioxidant systems, or rely on ascorbate derivatives which may be less/not effective.
Fair warning: Vitamin C degrades to dehydroascorbic acid: After some delay, vitamin C solution may stain skin and everything in contact yellow. DHA may also further break down into erythrulose, a self-tanning agent browning the skin semi-permanently (likely not very healthy). Vitamin C may also react with other things (eg. skin care products) in unpredictable ways and can actually form radicals under some conditions. Eg. It can react with benzoic acid to form benzene. On the modern skin, with UV exposure, a primordial soup of "actives", complex hydrocarbons and all natural metal catalysts, vitamin C may facilitate genesis…
The science is promising, but the chemistry of vitamin C is hard to control, or even reason about.
> The problem is commercialization. Vitamin C is very, very reactive.
… hence it oxidises easily.
There has recently been a novel development, ethyl ascorbic acid, that is much more stable due to being more inert. It resists the oxidation for a much longer time compared to ascorbyl glucoside and L-ascorbic acid, and it has been successfully commercialised in some skincare products. The products using it command a premium, though.
AFAIK, the derivatives are less researched, so hard to argue about. Often, the concentration isn’t disclosed, too.
I would just go DIY, since commercial products are either very, very expensive, or ineffective. Once you got your measurements down, mixing it freshly takes no time. And you can afford to use it all over the body, not just the face. This way you know, it’s not oxidized, it’s exactly what’s used in some better studies, it is effective. Even DIYing a stabilized formulation with ferulic acid is possible and still much cheaper.
Personally, I have trust issues with vitamin C chemistry tho :D
Anyone who can afford the equipment to make fresh vitamin c serum could easily afford several years supply of high end commercial products that have been tested to confirm their ingredients and effects.
That’s ridiculous.
You need a mg scale and pH strips as equipment (~ 20€, once); tap water, pure vitamin C and sodium bicarbonate as ingredients (~ 6€, lasts for many, many preparations). Aluminium foil to make any glas container light-tight.
The chemicals are food grade from your next supermarket or drug store. The "recipe" is used in some studies.
I haven't found any evidence that ethyl ascorbic acid is more stable in aqueous solution than ascorbyl glucoside
In skincare, propylene glycol is used as the solvent for ethyl ascorbic acid, not water.
i've never taken organic chemistry, so a noob question:
>adjust pH to be less irritating
if vitamin C is ascorbic acid, doesn't "adjusting its pH" make it be no longer ascorbic acid, perhaps turning it into ascorbic salt?
> On the modern skin
?
the modern skin, you know, uncovered from the outside world. as opposed to the victorian skin which wise hidden away from dangerous UV light behind many layers of undergarments, hoop dresses, 5 piece suits, monocles, and so on
Everybody is low on C in diet. It's thermolabile, and there is glucose competition for GLUT transporters.
IMO, everybody should take at least 2g daily in a couple of doses, particularly smokers.
> IMO, everybody should take at least 2g daily in a couple of doses
I strongly caution against this kind of blanket recommendation. For most people, taking such a high dose without medical guidance is unwise. Unless a healthcare professional has specifically advised it, this level of supplementation goes well beyond established guidelines.
There is substantial research highlighting potential risks, including kidney damage, associated with high-dose vitamin C intake (as referenced elsewhere in this thread).
Anyone considering this should thoroughly research the risks and consult a qualified medical professional before proceeding.
This is not true. 2g is the max recommended dose.
Most people can get enough vitamin C each day from food or drink. 3/4 cup of orange juice daily is enough. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...
Taking vitamin C orally decreases muscle mitochondrial biogenesis and harms the health benefits of training, like increased insulin resistance. (well established from multiple studies, easy to google).
There was huge antioxidant craze in late 90's and 00's when taking antioxidant supplements like C was considered the right thing to do. Now we know that just taking more antioxidants does not directly help with oxidization tress, because it messes up metabolism and can even increase it.
For those who don't want to Google:
• https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1113/jphy...
• https://www.pnas.org/content/106/21/8665
Cherry picking 2 studies out of zillions and calling it science? Good job
> well established from multiple studies, easy to google
That's not all of them. You can find systematic reviews and meta-analyses walking trough them all. Easy to google. 50-100 mg per day is OK and possible has some benefits, if you go to more than 2 grams like you suggested for health person, there is no evidence of benefits, only harms.
There are literary thousands of papers on C every year, basically all are positive.
Animals make it in grams, all of them on this planet. Yet you claim 50mg is only OK.
Get serious.
Phrases like "get serious" don’t contribute meaningfully to the discussion. This is a serious topic and deserves a well-informed, balanced perspective.
Recommending that people take over 2 grams of vitamin C daily -- without context or medical guidance —- is irresponsible. I'm sorry, but offering such advice in a public forum without acknowledging potential risks or the need for individual consideration can be genuinely harmful.
There are a large number of studies on this topic, in part because vitamin C supplements are so widely used and easily accessible. Several people have already shared relevant research in this thread.
Before promoting high-dose supplementation as universally safe or beneficial, I strongly recommend doing more in-depth research. It’s important to understand the potential risks especially since this kind of advice, if followed without medical oversight, can have serious health consequences.
Yeah, you go with orange juice, you seem to know this topic :)
I now enough that your > 2g is bogs claim.
Yeah, me and Pauling, double time Nobel winner and the only one in history :)
If you are asserting that Linus Pauling was the only two-time winner of the Nobel Prize, my doubt in the accuracy of your conclusions has only increased, given that Marie Curie, John Bardeen, and Frederick Sanger have all won two Nobel Prizes.
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-scientists-won-nobel-prizes.ht...
I'm starting to think the person you are responding to is trolling everyone here, unfortunately.
Unshared.
Pauling himself wold be the first to suggest that you don't take over 2g orally. He took vitamin C as injections to treat his Bright's disease.
Today he would reject orthomolecular medicine, because he was an intelligent man and believed evidence.
Pauling took 18g every day, for decades. It's in his book. There is little doubt Pauling would do the same today. He would reject LPI though (as apart from his name, they don't follow his footsteps), but not orthomolecular.
Please do not spread misinformation here. It can be misleading at best, dangerous at worst.
Please don't spread fear here, vitamin C is non-toxic and can only help people, and this place represents a hacking oriented culture.
Find me a case report about the danger of vitamin C (not a theoretical one) and we can talk. Otherwise, you are free to behave and believe in whatever you want.
Are you serious? Prolonged high supplementation doses is actually very dangerous. Aside from the warnings about this in various places, I’ve also had a family member who did permanent kidney damage by prolonged usage of supplementation.
Yes, I am serious, and I practice that stance more then 2 decades, so its not just talk.
> Prolonged high supplementation doses is actually very dangerous.
Reference please.
Here is one: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15563650.2019.16...
It shows no deaths from vitamins. This is from 2018, but its like that every year. While it doesn't account for damage as its highly uncertain to pinpoint exactly what happened in any human, at least you know there are no deaths, while at the same time, there are deaths for any drug (aspirin for example).
> I’ve also had a family member who did permanent kidney damage by prolonged usage of supplementation.
You mean, you or your doctors suppose it was about supplementation? And what supplementation? You can damage yourself or die with anything, water included, or you come with defective organ from the day 0. All that is not relevant for others.
Bashing on supplements is in any case irresponsible and you spread fear because you are not informed, its similar to anti-vacc movement - it never happens that entire technology domain is invalid - particular instance of drug/supplement/vaccine/herb can be.
> It shows no deaths from vitamins
The risk to kidneys is well documented. You seem to be concentrating on whether a person dies or not, but the risk to quality of life is not to be dismissed either. There are innumerable warnings and studies about this over the years.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2296
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002231662...
(these are just for starters -- it's a huge area of research with many results that encourage caution)
There have also been studies shared by others here in this thread with you that you are casually dismissing as "cherry picking". It's irresponsible.
Maybe plasters with ascorbin acid in it? That would be the first thing that comes to mind. Or maybe plaster spray where it's mixed with the typical protein foam?
Oh lord, not another "wellness hack". And here comes the people giving themselves kidney stones and spinal cord problems to be featured on Chubbyemu.
https://youtu.be/oeyt2zVqCG8
honestly that video was surprising on how safe zinc is. I mean he went so beyond anything close to a reasonable dose. bro was eating tubes of dental paste.
This is a weird video to see after one of my son's doctors told me I should supplement him with zinc. Of course I'm following dosage recommendations.
If there's a real deficiency, it should be managed with blood tests.
Growing up and recently, I've been anemic (iron deficient) without any obvious medical cause. That requires supplementation with an unusual amount of iron.
Also, I'm vitamin A deficient at baseline and have to take large amounts, around 15k IU/day, to stay within the "normal" range. (50% above ordinary UL.)
Have you gotten a colonoscopy?
Yeah I'm not going to go into everything but this was based on lab work.
Blood tests are often misleading, not showing tissue deficiencies. For those there might be 1-2 labs in the world that can do them depending on the type of deficiency.
Vitamin C supplements and cancer risk is an active area of research. Unless there is a genuine deficiency, I would stay away from supplements just to look pretty until there is more clarity.
Vitamin C’s relationship with cancer risk appears complex and context-dependent. While maintaining adequate blood levels (≥60.19 μmol/L) is associated with reduced cancer mortality, supplementation may increase postmenopausal breast cancer risk by 32% in women with already high dietary intake. This suggests a U-shaped relationship where both deficiency and excess may be detrimental, emphasizing the importance of personalized approaches to vitamin C intake.
See: https://inspectsupplement.com/vitamin-c/#Cancer
Vitamin C/ascorbic acid/swimming pool cleener is interesting stuff, but it is not generaly benificient as a suppliment for healthy people. I will(very) occasionaly chew up a gram, or throw a spoon full into a summer drink concoction, but I also know someone who got a tounge blister from copying me chewing up a vitC pill, someone I knew well, who had such different respinses to things that we started to experiment lightly,they also had a variant form of collegen in all of there conective tissue, which made them vastly more flexible than most people......which(oddly)relates to the titles subject matter
So possible treatment for age related thinning of the skin.
Well, there are already multiple skin creams with Vitamin C. They have been available for a long time, but they are expensive for what it provides.
Just taking a 500mg x 2 Vitamin C supplements should provide enough for skin repair.
Let's not engage in quakery and resort to knowledge instead.
Oral and transdermal (topical) application of Vitamin C (and other molecules in general) follow completely different routes with different absorption rates and accompanying nuances.
Oral intake. Absorption rate is dosage dependent:
The half-life of Vitamin C taken orally is approximately four hours anyway, after which any excess of it still circulating will be rapidly excreted via the renal route (kidneys). Studies report that significantly less than 0.1 per cent makes into the epidermal (skin) layer.Transdermal (topical) application. Depends on the concentration and several factors, but a 20% concentration serum (not a cream) can achieve a > 80% absorption rate through the skin into receptor fluid after 24 hours. Half-life of Vitamin C applied topically is approximately 4 days.
Recap: less than < 0.1 % / 4 hours half-life for the oral route vs more than 80 % / 4 days half-life for the transdermal route.
Liposomal C will achieve higher concentrations in cells as it doesn't rely on GLUT/SVCT.
Otherwise, the absorption of high doses depends on stress level - when you are not healthy, your body will absorb A LOT more, as shown by vitamin C bowel tolerance method.
To be sure you have it where it counts, take all forms of C - liposomal, film, AA and topical
Ascorbyl palmitate («liposomal C»), when taken orally, is absorbed by the same active‐transport and passive‐diffusion mechanisms as plain vitamin C, with the same saturation thresholds. And it has the same problem as ascorbic acid, sodium ascorbate and calcium ascorbate – it gets distributed throughout the entire body with only minute amounts reaching the «skin».
Topical application of ascorbyl palmitate/«liposomal C», on the other hand, has very poor uptake due to the molecule size being too big to penetrate the skin layer[0]:
Key takeway: «Derivatives of ascorbic acid including magnesium ascorbyl phosphate, ascorbyl-6-palmitate (a.k.a «liposomal C», and dehydroascorbic acid did not increase skin levels of L-ascorbic acid».[0] Source: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/11207686
Liposomal C IS NOT ascorbyl palmitate. The point is about liposome anyway, not the form of vitamin C. There are a number of research papers showing higher bioavailability, some even claim its similar to IV.
Ah, so you are actually talking about the liposome encased ascorbic acid. I have seen a number of products that misrepresented ascorbyl palmitate as liposomal vitamin C, hence the enquiry.
Taking any form of vitamin C orally still confers statistically insignificant benefits for the skin due to having to propagate and get distributed throughout the entire body.
The article in question discusses the benefits of the topical application of vitamin C, the benefits of which have been extensively studied. Vitamin C (especially in combination with ferulic acid) is amongst very few skincare products that actually work – it has been known for a long time.
> Taking any form of vitamin C orally still confers statistically insignificant benefits for the skin due to having to propagate and get distributed throughout the entire body.
Maybe not if you take it in multiple of grams, e.g. you brute force it to replace non-working GULO gene you have, that would do it in that range if not defective.
Can you explain and cite a study reference? I'm not following it. Taking vitamin C by grams will give one a diarrhoea, and a pretty violent one.
One of the common strategies to prolong the circulation of vitamin C is to recycle it by coupling it with, e.g. N-acetyl cysteine.
> Taking vitamin C by grams will give one a diarrhoea, and a pretty violent one.
Yes when your body gets enough of it (its called Vitamin C Flush and its not harmful), which is dynamic. I take 10+ grams and do not have diarrhoea, I might get it on 20+ IF I am healthy. I don't get it with 100g when I have influenza which is the state of the system when body requires more and SVCT pumps are active like crazy. This is trivially easy to check out yourself, you don't need a study. I have never seen a better feedback system for any drug, really.
> Can you explain and cite a study reference?
There are no studies about it, you need to try it yourself. Vitamin C is non-toxic and doesn't produce kidney stones, contrary to popular belief.
There are medical hypothesis and Linus Pauling wrote a few books about it long time ago.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030698...
Check out pharmacokinetics here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1359084080230542...
> One of the common strategies to prolong the circulation of vitamin C is to recycle it by coupling it with, e.g. N-acetyl cysteine.
Yes, I take NAC too, however, the worst offender is sugar, as GLUT2 transports both C and glucose, and since its passive transporter C gets outcompeted given the levels of both.
I can explain 2 decades of experience with it, if you need some info send me a note.
Is the 80% absorbed Vitamin C through transdermal route cross the epidermis & dermis layers?
That is indeed correct.
Therapy is another option
I know this was a joke, but I can't really understand the worldview that says people should accept physical decline in a passive way. The fact is, we actually have a lot of control over how quickly and how well we age. Just using sunscreen can prevent a lot of the age-related loss of skin structure. And interventions like topical retinoids or collagen induction (e.g. microneedling) can even restore some thickness and elasticity that have already been lost. This also goes for fitness, joint health, and a lot of other things. Caring for your body is actually well aligned with the goals of psychotherapy.
Short of a perfect health regimen, I’d also suggest legalizing assisted suicide. It’s cruel to force someone to live.
Red light, or something more chemical?
Ah I should have said "psychotherapy" to get the joke across better
[dead]
So true. I have been vitamin-C deficient the past 20 years and my skin has definitely degraded.
> the past 20 years
That's called aging.
As a vaguely related aside, my skin is typically better when I have a decent vitamin c intake. Essentially all I do is have a orange or two every night. Nothing too extreme.
This is VERY anecdotal!
Oranges are not particularly high in ascorbic acid as such things go, so I would expect any effect to be pretty marginal. Other fruits and vegetables contain considerably more.
They are, but you have to eat the peel, too. I actually love it, but it’s not to everyone’s taste. Of course the oranges need to be free of pesticides, peel declared suitable for consumption.
The effects can be significant, even if not due to vit C but something else in the oranges.
This just found a potential mechanism, right? Because we did know that, AFAIK. A doctor recommended me vitamin C for faster healing of minor lesions about a decade ago.
With conflicting evidence that vitamin C may promote tumour growth, how much study has been done as to whether this might exacerbate skin cancer?
… coffee is good for you, coffee is bad for you. Table salt is bad for you, table salt is good for you. Red wine is good for you, red wine is bad for you. We have gone a full circle on each of those so many times.
Linus Pauling used IV injections of vitamin C in 1970's to treat terminal cancer tumours, subsequent studies in 1990's failed to reproduce the effect so it was abandoned (and discredited), and over the past decade the interest has rekindled the research and phase 3 trial is underway for high dose IV injections of vitamin C as adjuvant therapy for pancreatic and solid cancer tumours[0].
[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12094-024-03553-x
[dead]
Could be why so many suggested home skin remedy moisturisers contain lemon juice.
This is why you need to include a good vitamin C serum in your daily skincare routine.
"I always use an after-shave lotion with little or no alcohol because alcohol dries your face out and makes you look older. Then moisturizer, then an anti-aging eye balm, followed by a final moisturizing "protective" lotion..."
Bateman stares into the mirror. The masque has dried, giving his face a strange distorted look as if it has been wrapped in plastic. He begins slowly peeling the gel masque off his face.
“Looking good doesn’t affect your success” is one of those pernicious anti-advices like “elite university degrees don’t matter” and “family connections are worthless in our meritocratic society.”
I get all my skincare advice from hackernews.
Which daily skincare you recommend to use?
Vanicream Vitamin C serum is 5% THD, oil soluble and gentle on skin!
or invest in a steam cooker and stop eating junk food?
A, B, C, D, E and water.
A is a light retinol. B is niacinamide. C is C. D you should be making from sunlight (or getting from supplements). E is E. Water is moisturiser.
Pretty much all evidence-based skincare comes down to providing these vitamins (plus water) to your skin.
Pauling spins furiously in his grave in approval.
[dead]