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

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

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

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:


> >>>>>>> Andy wrote:

> >>>>>>>> that synthetic vitamins are useless.

> 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?

Andy knows!



The fact that you couldn't find anything reputable tells me something.
When I see wild claims here on the internet, and look up the numerous
cites given, sometimes there is that pattern.

I looked at my HMO web site. They have a *lot* of information about
health there. I put in "coconut" and got six hits. The first was
coconut oil (bulk) as a medicine. There was no information. I'll bet I
could have gotten information, but I'm willing to bet a very small
amount of money that you apply it to your skin. Four hits were
"gastrointestinal complications", mostly cancer. Coconut oil was
mentioned as something to *avoid*, along with other high fat and high
fiber items. The last was:

"You use all of your senses in guided imagery. For example, if you want
a tropical setting, you can imagine the warm breeze on your skin, the
bright blue of the water, the sound of the surf, the sweet scent of
tropical flowers, and the taste of coconut so that you actually feel
like you are there. "

That was your humor for the day!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA