Natural Vs Synthetic vitamins
In article >,
in a previous thread which I have lost, hence this new one "cybercat" > quoted: >>>> Mark Thorson > wrote: >>>>> Andy wrote: >>>>>> The most important point that folks constantly fail to realize is >>>>>> that synthetic vitamins are useless. >>>> >>>>> How does your body know whether a molecule of vitamin C >>>>> was made by a plant or in a factory? They both have >>>>> all of the same atoms in all of the same place. I don't know about vitamins as such, but IICR organic chemistry from 50 years ago, compounds that exist in two optically active forms (Dextro and Levo) are often (always?) biased to one form in natural biological systems but are made in equal amounts in lab processes unless such are designed to produce the separate forms. The two mirror forms of racemic compounds are known as enantiomers and have identical properties except for the rotation of plane polarised light. However, the racemate [the 1:1 mixture] often has different properties to the pure enantiomers (different melting points and solubilities are very common). In the present context it's worth noting that pharmaceuticals may be available as a racemate or as the pure enantiomer, which might have different potencies. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racemic_mixture> Enantiomers of each other often show different chemical reactions with other substances that are also enantiomers. Since many molecules in the body of living beings are enantiomers themselves, there is often a marked difference in the effects of two enantiomers on living beings. In drugs, for example, the working substance is often one of two enantiomers, while the other one is responsible for adverse effects. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiomer> It worth noting that virtually all active forms of amino acids are of the L-form (d-serine being a notable exception) and most biologically relevant sugars are of the D-form. Typically, the alternative form is inactive and sometimes even toxic to living things. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality> [All of which goes to show that my memory has not yet completely failed; and suggests that Andy may have had a good point when talking about synthetic vitamins.] Cheers, Phred. -- LID |
Natural Vs Synthetic vitamins
Phred wrote on Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:48:00 GMT:
> In article >, > in a previous thread which I have lost, hence this new one > "cybercat" > quoted: >>>>> Mark Thorson > wrote: >>>>>> Andy wrote: >>>>>>> The most important point that folks constantly fail to >>>>>>> realize > is >>>>>>> that synthetic vitamins are useless. >>>>> >>>>>> How does your body know whether a molecule of vitamin C >>>>>> was made by a plant or in a factory? They both have >>>>>> all of the same atoms in all of the same place. > I don't know about vitamins as such, but IICR organic > chemistry from 50 years ago, compounds that exist in two > optically active forms (Dextro and Levo) are often (always?) > biased to one form in natural biological systems but are made > in equal amounts in lab processes unless such are designed to > produce the separate forms. > The two mirror forms of racemic compounds are known as > enantiomers and have identical properties except for the > rotation of plane polarised light. However, the racemate [the > 1:1 mixture] often has different properties to the pure > enantiomers (different melting points and solubilities are > very common). In the present context it's worth noting that > pharmaceuticals may be available as a racemate or as the pure > enantiomer, which might have different potencies. > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racemic_mixture> > Enantiomers of each other often show different chemical > reactions with other substances that are also enantiomers. > Since many molecules in the body of living beings are > enantiomers themselves, there is often a marked difference in > the effects of two enantiomers on living beings. In drugs, for > example, the working substance is often one of two > enantiomers, while the other one is responsible for adverse > effects. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiomer> > It worth noting that virtually all active forms of amino acids > are of the L-form (d-serine being a notable exception) and > most biologically relevant sugars are of the D-form. > Typically, the alternative form is inactive and sometimes even > toxic to living things. > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality> > [All of which goes to show that my memory has not yet > completely failed; and suggests that Andy may have had a good > point when talking about synthetic vitamins.] All that is true and interesting but we should not get distracted from the fact that truly generic drugs possess the same handedness as the originals. The only real difference can be in the formulation of pills which may dissolve at different rates. I don't have any particular liking for multivitamins and have doubts about their efficacy and even what they are supposed to achieve. The same applies to plant extracts like Echinacea whose content of the named active principle can vary over a vast range. -- James Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not |
Natural Vs Synthetic vitamins
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:52:54 -0500, James Silverton wrote:
> Phred wrote on Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:48:00 GMT: > >> In article >, >> in a previous thread which I have lost, hence this new one >> "cybercat" > quoted: >>>>>> Mark Thorson > wrote: >>>>>>> Andy wrote: >>>>>>>> The most important point that folks constantly fail to >>>>>>>> realize >> is >>>>>>>> that synthetic vitamins are useless. >>>>>> >>>>>>> How does your body know whether a molecule of vitamin C >>>>>>> was made by a plant or in a factory? They both have >>>>>>> all of the same atoms in all of the same place. > >> I don't know about vitamins as such, but IICR organic >> chemistry from 50 years ago, compounds that exist in two >> optically active forms (Dextro and Levo) are often (always?) >> biased to one form in natural biological systems but are made >> in equal amounts in lab processes unless such are designed to >> produce the separate forms. > >> The two mirror forms of racemic compounds are known as >> enantiomers and have identical properties except for the >> rotation of plane polarised light. However, the racemate [the >> 1:1 mixture] often has different properties to the pure >> enantiomers (different melting points and solubilities are >> very common). In the present context it's worth noting that >> pharmaceuticals may be available as a racemate or as the pure >> enantiomer, which might have different potencies. >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racemic_mixture> > >> Enantiomers of each other often show different chemical >> reactions with other substances that are also enantiomers. >> Since many molecules in the body of living beings are >> enantiomers themselves, there is often a marked difference in >> the effects of two enantiomers on living beings. In drugs, for >> example, the working substance is often one of two >> enantiomers, while the other one is responsible for adverse >> effects. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiomer> > >> It worth noting that virtually all active forms of amino acids >> are of the L-form (d-serine being a notable exception) and >> most biologically relevant sugars are of the D-form. >> Typically, the alternative form is inactive and sometimes even >> toxic to living things. >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality> > >> [All of which goes to show that my memory has not yet >> completely failed; and suggests that Andy may have had a good >> point when talking about synthetic vitamins.] > > All that is true and interesting but we should not get distracted from > the fact that truly generic drugs possess the same handedness as the > originals. The only real difference can be in the formulation of pills > which may dissolve at different rates. > > I don't have any particular liking for multivitamins and have doubts > about their efficacy and even what they are supposed to achieve. The > same applies to plant extracts like Echinacea whose content of the named > active principle can vary over a vast range. it seems to me that the FDA should have weighed in on this, but damned if i can find it. (googling [natural vs synthetic vitamins] turns up mostly arguments from parties with an obvious vested interest in saying synthetics are the tool of the devil.) does anyone know? your pal, blake |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter