Interesting studies

[skwoodwiva]

[skwoodwiva]

so no extra viT C is needed?
is that what the study is saying?

"
To our knowledge, our current results are the first empirical evidence in humans to show that vitamin C deficiency, as measured by low plasma ascorbate concentration, is a risk factor for coronary heart disease. In our cohort plasma vitamin C concentration above the limit of deficiency was not associated with the risk of acute myocardial infarction. Thus, high intakes of vitamin C or vitamin C supplements would >> probably << not reduce the risk of acute myocardial infarction. Our findings suggest, instead, that if a minimal necessary requirement of vitamin C is not met the risk of myocardial infarction is increased. "

>> probably << there were no high dosers in their data

[ofonorow]

Thanks for the link.

First, I am biased against Finish studies, maybe unfairly, because of the so-called "beta caratene" link to lung cancer, that Yale Researchers later debunked.. using the same data. There was really no such link between beta caratene and lung cancer, as a review of the entire set of data showed, but the damage had been done because the first finding made news, the correction didn't.

Back to this apparently favorable study. It claims to be based on blood plasma levels. This is good/terrific!

From the abstract, this study seems to be indicating that your risk of having a heart attack, is 2 to 3 times higher, if your blood plasma vitamin C is low.

Added, and this illustrates another "technique" used to damn nutrients... If this was a drug, instead of 2.5 times, we'd see a 250% higher risk!

[skwoodwiva]

[skwoodwiva]

[ofonorow]

I know a lot of people have felt better from IV/EDTA chelation therapy, but we learned early, heart patients only if their doctors included vitamin C( and magnesium). So while chelation has a detox effect, it is not going to cure CVD like you can with the proper high dosage every day orally.