This is why you need to include a good vitamin C serum in your daily skincare routine.
replies(5):
Just taking a 500mg x 2 Vitamin C supplements should provide enough for skin repair.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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
IMO, everybody should take at least 2g daily in a couple of doses, particularly smokers.
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.
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.
[0] Source: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/11207686
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.
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.
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
• https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1113/jphy...
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.
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.
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.
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.
… 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.
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
Animals make it in grams, all of them on this planet. Yet you claim 50mg is only OK.
Get serious.
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.
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.
> 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.
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-scientists-won-nobel-prizes.ht...
That's called aging.
?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Today he would reject orthomolecular medicine, because he was an intelligent man and believed evidence.