Michael Davis, John Austin, and David Partridge wrote:Vitamin C forms complexes with metals, even those which it is capable of reducing, such as iron or copper. It is a potentially bidentate ligand...
... the complexes formed are weaker than they should be in comparison to the complexes of similar chelating ligands...
... such complexes are formed in alkaline solution.
- Quoted from the book Vitamin C: Its Chemistry and Biochemistry published by the Royal Society of Chemistry (UK) on page 133 of the paperback, under the section title Reactions with Metal Ions, by Michael B Davis, John Austin, and David A Partridge
Andrew Hall Cutler wrote:(Edit)...what is a chelator is determined by the competitive equilibrium in the solution in question.
What they said [Davis, Austin and Partride quoted just above] is vitamin C is a weak chelator (as are all the nonsulfur/selenium amino acids). In solutions with a lot of amino acids, proteins, sulfur bearing compounds, etc. like blood plasma or cytosol vitamin C is not a chelator for heavy metals.
-Quoted from http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/frequent-dose-chelation/message/52840
Please don't pass along anything to Mr. Bates. Debating this topic with one fool is enough for me, thank you very much. And even that is getting old fast.ofonorow wrote:We have had this discussion previously, and you are still incorrect. Vitamin C fulfills all the common requirements of a "chelator" according to the strict definition. I supplied the references previously at this forum. The only "new" piece of information (from Phil Bates) is that perhaps only the ascorbic acid form should be considered as a chelator, because any mineral ascorbate is already bound to a mineral.
If you want to argue with Phil Bates, I'll pass it along, as his arguments (and the in vivo experiment) can be found in this topic
It might be one thing to debate the pharmacokinetics of vitamin C with someone who doesn't understand what competitive equilibrium means. But since Cutler's explanation above has already been posted here in another thread, I'm beginning to see that what we have here is someone who remains militantly ignorant of the science, a willful blindness if you may. This is precisely what we loathe to see in someone dispensing medical advice.