Page 1 of 1

Sodium L-ascorbate and not L=ascorbic acid ?

Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:43 pm
by rmb60
From http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/30016/

"CardioRetinometry can identify those who will reach 100 without ever taking vitamins and those needing vitamin C in amounts like Dr. Russell Jaffe discovered recently—up to 130 grams per day."

Do we now need to significantly up our daily dosage ?

"Do not trust vitamin C tablets. Pharma makes them! Some health food stores have pure vitamin C powder. But it is acid. Although weakly acidic, its acidity is between citric acid and acetic acid. It can damage teeth like fruit juices but cannot increase stomach acidity.
I advise sodium L-ascorbate powder, which now costs 20 times more than before the Olympics, when China closed two factories after gaining 98 percent of the world market."

So do we also need to stop our Ascorbic Acid intake and change to Sodium L-ascorbate

Re: Sodium L-ascorbate and not L=ascorbic acid ?

Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:42 pm
by Ralph Lotz
So do we also need to stop our Ascorbic Acid intake and change to Sodium L-ascorbate


You can still get ascorbic acid at Trader Joe's for $10 a pound. Since you probably don't have a gram scale in the kitchen, add 1/8 teaspoon to each 1/4 teaspoon of ascorbic acid in an ounce or two of water and it will be pretty close to sodium ascorbate providing about 1 gram of ascorbate at a pH between 6 and 7?

Re: Sodium L-ascorbate and not L=ascorbic acid ?

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:45 am
by rasarver
I've seen several posts for cheap vitamin C at Trader Joe's. Here http://www.puritan.com/antioxidants-040 ... ortOrder=2 is five containers, 20 ounces (567 grams) each, for a total price of $62.98. At times you can get free S&H from this site. Also, at times the price is about half of the $62.98--sometimes this happens in January during sales. I bought 20 containers last month at the half price sale. Seven years ago during a January sale I bought 50 containers. There is no expiration date on the label (I've heard that crystals will keep indefinitely if kept cool and dry). If you're patient and willing to check the price of this product in December and January each year, you can eventually buy your vitamin C at a very reasonable price.

Re: Sodium L-ascorbate and not L=ascorbic acid ?

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:17 am
by Lemonaid
I just got an email from Puritan's Pride today for 25 bucks off any purchase of 75 bucks or more. So if you could find something else for 13 bucks you could get 100 ounces plus whatever else you bought for "13 bucks" for $50.

Re: Sodium L-ascorbate and not L=ascorbic acid ?

Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:25 pm
by Ralph Lotz
This is what a typical Certificate of Analysis from a vitamin C manufacturer will say:

Packing and storage: 25KG net weight carton lined with PE bags

Gross Weight 26.5kg/carton. Store in cool, dry and well closed place

Shelf life: 2 years in original packages under the described conditions.

Re: Sodium L-ascorbate and not L=ascorbic acid ?

Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:56 am
by rasarver
Thanks you for your 2 year shelf life post. It's the first time I've heard of that.
I'm using the last couple of containers of vitamin C crystals that I bought seven years ago. The crystals are still white as ever, free-flowing, and seen to be as potent as ever. The containers are well sealed and I keep them in a heated/air conditioned space that controls the temperature within a few degrees of 70F.
I read somewhere of vitamin C crystals that changed colors (became a little darker than the usual bright white) after a couple of years of storage.

I worked in the chemical industry for many years. I've run aging and accelerated aging studies of complex organic molecules. The rule of thumb is that aging (degradation) doubles for every 10 degrees C temperature increase. In other words, an organic compound degrades twice as fast at 30C as it does at 20C.

I find it interesting that livon labs says that after one year in controlled temperature storage that their Lypo C is still 100 per cent effective. If that is true it means that the rate of degradation of their product is zero. If the rate of degradation is zero, it will still be 100 per cent effective after 10 years or 100 years. I think what livon labs means is that the rate of degradation is either too small to measure with their standard technique or too small to be significant. In any case, it means that their product will be essentially 100 per cent effective for many years.