Vitamin C Dead Zone

The Vitamin C "Dead Zone"
and Why It's So Important

Most medical practitioners poorly understand how the body utilizes high concentrations of ascorbates (Vitamin C and it's buffered variants). As a result clinical studies for Vitamin C are poorly designed and result in inadequate and misleading conclusions. Ultimately such misleading conclusions discourage medical practitioners from using vitamin-based treatments despite a growing number of studies with seemingly polar opposite conclusions that strongly promote the use of vitamin-based therapies and treatments. This is a globally important issue, since vitamin-based therapies provide the world with cheap and effective treatments that are readily available. Sadly those same therapies are widely disparaged because of an overwhelming amount of research inappropriately done in what I call the "dead zone".

Although I am not a medical doctor myself, I have benefited from such treatments that were NOT done in this "dead zone" and having studied this vitamin C phenomena in depth I have created a visual representation to describe what I've learned (and experienced first-hand) about this "dead zone". The model explains many things, the most important being why so many studies and experiments on Vitamin C fail to produce positive results and why the AMA has wrongly disparaged one of the most promising medicines of the future. The representation is as follows:

Chart #1 - Effective Ascorbate Concentrations

The above chart is qualitative only, as it is for instructional purposes, and because every person under different circumstances will exhibit a different scale for the above shown events, especially with regard to the area termed the "dead zone". The following observations in the above representation are important:

THE NUTRITIONAL EFFECTIVENESS CURVE (see chart #1)
This is a somewhat logarithmic shaped curve indicating what medical practitioners have always known: the nutritional benefit of all vitamins is adequate at some general concentration, above which there is little additional nutritional benefit. Note that for ascorbates this curve levels off, but never goes down since it is impossible to consume too much vitamin C where the patient experiences negative long term effects.

NS - NUTRITIONAL STAGNATION point (see "NS" on chart #1)
This is the point where significantly diminishing gains of nutritional benefit are expected with increasing concentrations of Vitamin C. Although not indicated on this chart there is substantial evidence that the RDA (recommended daily allowance) of 72 mg/day (0.072g/day) is barely enough to stave off gross examples of vitamin C deficiency and that basic nutrition for many people (example: pregnant or breastfeeding mothers) requires a higher concentration. Therefore this term, NB, that I've introduced here is possibly much higher than the RDA , possibly around the 1g/day concentration for most people, but again this is highly depended on the individual and their circumstances.

THERAPEUTIC EFFECTIVENESS CURVE (see "TT" on chart #1)
Traditional medicine (allopathic medicine) maintains that this curve does not exist for nutritional supplements. The existence of such a curve goes against the historically popular theory that vitamins are ineffective in the treatment of all diseases and illnesses. The shape as it has been drawn on the above chart is based on dozens of clinical studies in fields including cancer, polio, rhinitis, sids, psychiatry, fevers, infections, and the list goes on (http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate). The point here is that this s-shaped curve starts at an astonishingly high concentration compared to nutritional concentrations.

The Therapeutic Threshold is the most important, most neglected, and most elusive data point in ascorbate-related science.

TT - THERAPEUTIC THRESHOLD (see chart #1)
This is the most important, most neglected, and most elusive data point in ascorbate-related science. This point defines the lowest concentration where a therapeutic benefit can be experienced. This point, for vitamin C, is astonishing high when compared to the highly overrated RDA. In fact when I'm coming down with a cold for me it is around 20 - 25 g/day, which is 400 times higher than the RDA of 0.072 g/day. The fascinating thing about this point is that not only does it change significantly from one person to the next, but also that it changes with the health of individual. When I've been sick I've had to take as high as 60 g/day to experience a therapeutic benefit. What's even more interesting is that the common temporary side effects (bowel discomfort) are not experienced until the TT is reached. That means when I am very sick and in need of 60 g/day then I will not experience bowel discomfort at any lower concentrations, like say 50 g/day. This is a well documented phenomena, known as "bowel titration" among other things. Cancer patients may have a TT as high as 200 g/day, but can only get the needed concentrations by injecting ascorbates directly into the blood stream.

The TT is also different for each disease or illness. For example, it takes much more Vitamin C to treat cancer that it takes to treat rhinitis. This is simply a function of the health of the individual, as the heath of the cancer patient is generally in much worse than the rhinitis patient.

DEAD ZONE (see chart #1)
This is the range between the NS (Nutritional Stagnation) and the TT (Therapeutic Threshold). This is also the range where all megascorbic studies are done that result in negative or inconclusive results. Every time you read a study which indicates that Vitamin C has no effect or little effect on the common cold you should read the fine print. You will discover that they are using "large concentrations" in the 2g/day to 15g/day range. For most people, this is the dead zone, especially when they are very sick (so that their therapeutic threshold, TT, increases).

Likewise nearly all the megascorbate studies that have concluded that vitamin C has therapeutic value have used concentrations above the TT for the patient (not in the "dead zone"). As indicated earlier this number can be very high depending on the illness or disease.

Note that the "dead zone" derived it's name because it covers the range of the least amount economic advantage representing a sort of "dead spot" in the "Ascorbate Economics" chart below.

ASCORBATE ECONOMICS (see chart #2)
One of the frequent things you'll hear from allopaths is that large doses of Vitamin C is a waste of money. They are correct only if 1) you are healthy, or 2) you are unhealthy but your daily intake however high is in the "dead zone". This is apparent in the following chart that was obtained by dividing the above graph by the cost of increasing doses of vitamin C.

Chart #2 - Ascorbate Economics

As can be observed above, if you are healthy then it doesn't make financial sense to consume more than the NS for Vitamin C. Of course, the first point on the graph shows your biggest bang for the buck occurs at the first data point. Thats roughly 1g/day. Many, if not most people would probably even get roughly the same benefit from 500mg/day or even 250 mg/day. It believe there is merit also in the studies which indicate that you can not stave off a cold with Vitamin C, unless you are constantly taking therapeutic concentrations (above the TT) - and for most people that simply isn't worth it. In fact, all th studies which have investigated staving off a cold with Vitamin C use concentrations in the "dead zone". It's a waste of time and money.

So can you stave off a cold by taking Therapeutic concentrations of Vitamin C? Sure, but is it worth it to swallow twenty huge 1000mg tablets every day? Probably not, and that is why no studies have been done to prove it. However once you catch a cold you can get rid of it within 24 hours if you quickly take a therapeutic concentration of Vitamin C. You can usually estimate where your TT is at the time by evaluating the severity of the cold. I have, for example, been knocked flat on my tush within 12 hours of catching on a cold and estimated it to be a 60 g/day cold. I was right. It was gone within 24 hours. Those around me held on to it for no less than a week.

The same thing goes for other vitamin-based therapies. Many, but not all, vitamins have therapeutic value at high concentrations. Vitamin C tends to be the golden child out of the mix, but Vitamins E, D, and A, as well as some others seem effective in various treatments. Unlike Vitamin C, however, many of these other vitamins have a toxicity concentration, above which the patient can suffer significantly. Oddly, most doctors disparage the use of vitamins at high concentrations for this reason but have no problem administering pharmaceuticals that are toxic by nature and are rife with negative side effects including impotence, hair loss, memory loss, and even death. It is estimated that at least 100,000 deaths occur each year in the United States due to the toxic side effects of drugs. Nobody has ever suffered long term effects of an oral Vitamin C overdose, let alone died from one.

Vitamin C, along with a few other nutritional supplements, do not have a toxic limit and there is absolutely no reason to disparage their use when the typical alternative is so much more dreadful. But remember - if you aren't taking enough Vitamin C to make your bowel's soft, you're in the dead zone and you might as well take nothing (note: add vitamin E for firmer stools).