Vitamin C - A discussion

[robblok]

10 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

Vit c aids weight loss. C, cod liver oil and zinc plus fasting salts have plenty of science to support them.

 

Vit Bs too.

 

Most pros take supplements of some kind. What does that tell you?

Your focusing too much on small things.  I would not worry as much. Just eat in a deficit and be done with it. 

 

Supplements are not going to increase your weight loss in a meaningful way. 

 

I do take salt and potassium myself especially when i sweat a lot from cardio. However im not such fool to think it helps weight loss. It combats cramps and you need salt and other minerals in the body. But even without them your weight loss will go on.

 

You take things out of contect all the time. Can you show me any study that points out that there is meaningful extra weight loss from supplements like vitamin c.

[robblok]

3 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/fitness/vitamin-c-deficiency-can-spoil-the-best-weight-loss-plan-here-s-what-to-do/story-oK5hnWXp7LQ8jEVbJKfZ6K.html

There is no proof that you lose less fat if you have a vit c problem. It just stated what it does or can do.

[Sparktrader]

Individuals with adequate vitamin C status oxidize 30% more fat during a moderate exercise bout than individuals with low vitamin C status; thus, vitamin C depleted individuals may be more resistant to fat mass loss. Food choices can impact post-meal satiety and hunger. High-protein foods promote

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15930480/#:~:text=Individuals with adequate vitamin C,post-meal satiety and hunger.

[Sparktrader]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

There is no proof that you lose less fat if you have a vit c problem.

Just posted the proof.

[robblok]

2 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

 

 

You do understand that how your body looks is for a huge part based on genetics ?  I mean if you base knowledge on how someone looks your falling in the trap most uneducated people do too. 

 

[Sparktrader]

30% mate. I was right.

[Sparktrader]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

There is no proof that you lose less fat if you have a vit c problem

Your words. Study says 30% difference.

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Individuals with adequate vitamin C status oxidize 30% more fat during a moderate exercise bout than individuals with low vitamin C status; thus, vitamin C depleted individuals may be more resistant to fat mass loss. Food choices can impact post-meal satiety and hunger. High-protein foods promote

can you give a link please ? I mean copy and paste ? Plus this is taking about burning during exercise, not diet ? But a link please.

[Sparktrader]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

You do understand that how your body looks is for a huge part based on genetics ?  I mean if you base knowledge on how someone looks your falling in the trap most uneducated people do too.

Nadal knows how to do a backhand. Super fit blokes know how to get fit. Yes genes is 50% but knowledge and execution is 50%.

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

can you give a link please ? I mean copy and paste ? Plus this is taking about burning during exercise, not diet ? But a link please.

Link above

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Sparktrader said:

Nadal knows how to do a backhand. Super fit blokes know how to get fit. Yes genes is 50% but knowledge and execution is 50%.

Seriously I don't know where you pull your numbers from but they are crazy. But then you and I could use your method to see who of us is more knowledgeable.. that is how it works is it not ?

[robblok]

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/806272

 

 

The highly-controlled diet worked for all participants. Although body fat mass decreased slightly more in the vitamin C group, approaching but not reaching statistical significance, both groups lost an average of nine pounds, indicating that vitamin C depletion did not appear to affect the ability to lose weight in the short term. 

 

Too bad labratory controlled tests dont back you up

 

So in the  real word they did a labrotry test with two groups of people one group got vit c supplements the other was deficient and guess what no statistical difference.

 

 

[Sparktrader]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/806272

 

 

The highly-controlled diet worked for all participants. Although body fat mass decreased slightly more in the vitamin C group, approaching but not reaching statistical significance, both groups lost an average of nine pounds, indicating that vitamin C depletion did not appear to affect the ability to lose weight in the short term. 

 

Too bad labratory controlled tests dont back you up

 

So in the  real word they did a labrotry test with two groups of people one group got vit c supplements the other was deficient and guess what no statistical difference.

 

 

As vitamin C blood concentrations fell, so did the participants' ability to oxidize fat (an 11 percent reduction).

 

(From your own link. Own goal)

[Sparktrader]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

Come on you and me ..  i mean that would shut you up comparing who is more lean and more muscular ? 

 

Seriously I don't know where you pull your numbers from but they are crazy. But then you and I could use your method to see who of us is more knowledgeable.. that is how it works is it not ? according to you.

You just posted an own goal. As Vit C went down 11% less fat oxidation.

 

You failed to read the whole link. 

 

So according to your own research Vit C has a role to play. At certain levels of exercise stress or levels it is important.

 

 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Sparktrader said:

As vitamin C blood concentrations fell, so did the participants' ability to oxidize fat (an 11 percent reduction).

 

(From your own link. Own goal)

Yes but there was no difference in weight loss after 4 weeks between the group with vit c and without. So the fat ocidation of 11% does not mean a thing for weight loss. 

 

So i have just proven that vit C supplements dont help in losing weight. 2 groups of people one got vit C during their diet and the other did not. The people were in the labratory the diet was controlled. So that totally shows your fat oxidation rate to be useless.

 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Sparktrader said:

You just posted an own goal. As Vit C went down 11% less fat oxidation.

 

You failed to read the whole link. 

 

So according to your own research Vit C has a role to play. At certain levels of exercise stress or levels it is important.

 

 

My point was that after 4 weeks of diet there was no difference in fat loss between the group that got vit C and the group that did not. That shows that fat oxidation rates are not useful to measure. Because a higher rate does not help a thing in a diet setting. Otherwise after 4 weeks there would have been a difference between the two groups.

 

[Sparktrader]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564400/#:~:text=Vitamin C is a cofactor,vitamin C status and adiposity.

 

"Vitamin C is a cofactor in the biosynthesis of carnitine, a molecule required for the oxidation of fatty acids. A reduction in the ability to oxidize fat may contribute to the reported inverse relationship between vitamin C status and adiposity. To examine this possibility, we conducted a preliminary trial to evaluate the impact of vitamin C status on fat oxidation during submaximal exercise.

Results

Individuals with marginal vitamin C status oxidized 25% less fat per kg body weight during the treadmill test as compared to individuals with adequate vitamin C status.

Conclusion

These preliminary results show that low vitamin C status is associated with reduced fat oxidation during submaximal exercise

[robblok]

Basically you don't like real studies

 

2 groups 1 added vit C one not. Both same amount of calories for 4 weeks both groups lost 9lbs of fat

 

So no difference. I cant make it any clearer. You keep peddling psuedo science

[Sparktrader]

Anyway I get you. You are right no matter what the science says. Weighted avg data says increased fat oxidation.

 

 

[robblok]

All those things you post have no real world application just like my study showed.

 

Vit C might give higher fat oxidation rates but that does not really matter. Because the amount of fat being burned during a diet is never so high that a lower o oxidation rate cannot cope. 

 

So there is no practical application. That is why i posted the study just that something gives benefits does not mean it translates to real life results.

 

[Sparktrader]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Basically you don't like real studies

 

2 groups 1 added vit C one not. Both same amount of calories for 4 weeks both groups lost 9lbs of fat

 

So no difference. I cant make it any clearer. You keep peddling psuedo science

Sorry thats not how science works. You cant cherry pick one 20 person study and claim it's gold. It's not.

 

Science is based on overall evidence. Nearly all studies show increased oxidation which means it help with weight loss. It also works with other nutriuents

 

Likewise I could cherry pick one fasting study that is different to 10 others. Then I could claim that one study gold.

 

 

 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Anyway I get you. You are right no matter what the science says. Weighted avg data says increased fat oxidation.

 

 

No i am not disputing the fat oxidation rates. I am disputing that it has no practical application. That is what the study i showed you tells us.

 

Fat o rate oxidation is not the limiting factor in weight loss. It never comes to a point where this rate limits our weight loss.

 

Even at impaired rates our body can still easily lose a kg per week (that is what the study shows). Maybe if they had made the caloric deficit higher double it then maybe at that rate the fat oxidation would be limiting. But for normal dieets (a kg a week is already on the high side) it does not matter a thing.

 

Please read what im writing try to understand it. It just means that there is no practical application.

 

 

[Sparktrader]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

All those things you post have no real world application just like my study showed. The problem is you are too uneducated to even understand why that is.

 

I can explain it to you because i know a lot more then you. Vit C might give higher fat oxidation rates but that does not really matter. Because the amount of fat being burned during a diet is never so high that a lower o oxidation rate cannot cope. 

 

So there is no practical application. That is why i posted the study just that something gives benefits does not mean it translates to real life results. That is your problem and that is why you trust the wrong sources.

 

 

 

 

I spend months looking at studies. I dont cherry pick 1 inconclusive 4 week 20 person study. One study is statistically insignificant ( science 101)

 

That's not even science. It is pure cherry picking confirmation bias.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

Sorry thats not how science works. You cant cherry pick one 20 person study and claim it's gold. It's not.

 

Science is based on overall evidence. Nearly all studies show increased oxidation which means it help with weight loss. It also works with other nutriuents

 

Likewise I could cherry pick one fasting study that is different to 10 others. Then I could claim that one study gold.

 

 

 

No the proof is already there but your hung up about fat oxidation rate. I agree 100% with you that vit C increases fat oxidation rate.

 

However even at 1 kg a week the impaired o oxcidation rate is enough. 

 

Do you actually know what oxidation is.. it means how fast they the body can turn fat into energy (burn it)

 

But how much fat you burn is dependent on your caloric deficit. So even at a deficit of 7000cals a week a 1kg a week weight loss the lower oxidation rate can still keep up. Maybe at a far higher caloric deficit it might play a part but NOT in normal 1 kg a week situations. 

[Sparktrader]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

No the proof is already there but your hung up about fat oxidation rate. I agree 100% with you that vit C increases fat oxidation rate.

 

However even at 1 kg a week the impaired o oxcidation rate is enough. 

 

Do you actually know what oxidation is.. it means how fast they the body can turn fat into energy (burn it)

 

But how much fat you burn is dependent on your caloric deficit. So even at a deficit of 7000cals a week a 1kg a week weight loss the lower oxidation rate can still keep up. Maybe at a far higher caloric deficit it might play a part but NOT in normal 1 kg a week situations. 

I dont think you want to know. Nutrients add to other factors. Satiety, wellness, sleep, fat burning etc.

 

Simply telling people eat less doesnt work.

 

 

[onthedarkside]

Multiple posts above have been removed or edited, including for links to disallowed social media content, fair use violations, personal flame comments and bickering.

 

Either have a civil discussion on the topic, or this thread will be closed.

 

[eezergood]

This study says that some people (non deficient in Vit C) burned up to 30% more fat WHEN compared to those with a Vic C deficiency - when ALL OTHER THINGS are equal and in line WHEN doing exercise. 

 

Focussing on one micro nutrient is not helpful for 99.9999% of the population, as most will latch onto this one tidbit, fix that issue and expect miracles. Any one can take a few Vit C tablets & correct a deficiency. 

[robblok]

On 4/28/2022 at 3:00 PM, eezergood said:

This study says that some people (non deficient in Vit C) burned up to 30% more fat WHEN compared to those with a Vic C deficiency - when ALL OTHER THINGS are equal and in line WHEN doing exercise. 

 

Focussing on one micro nutrient is not helpful for 99.9999% of the population, as most will latch onto this one tidbit, fix that issue and expect miracles. Any one can take a few Vit C tablets & correct a deficiency. 

Burning more fat, is useful. However they are talking about the fat burning rate.

 

My point is that if you have 500 cal deficit, then it does not matter how fast you burn it (unless  of course you cant burn those 500 cals of fat at the normal rate). However the studies don't see the lower rate as a problem because its still fast enough to burn off 500 cals a day.

 

Maybe if the rate was not fast enough to burn 500 cals on a day then it would help, but that is not the case. 

 

Its just one of those clickbait things that have no real value unless your on a deficit and that deficit is huge and your deficient and your body just cant burn fat fast enough. Its just not a situation that really happens.

[eezergood]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

Burning more fat, is useful. However they are talking about the fat burning rate.

 

My point is that if you have 500 cal deficit, then it does not matter how fast you burn it (unless  of course you cant burn those 500 cals of fat at the normal rate). However the studies don't see the lower rate as a problem because its still fast enough to burn off 500 cals a day.

 

Maybe if the rate was not fast enough to burn 500 cals on a day then it would help, but that is not the case. 

 

Its just one of those clickbait things that have no real value unless your on a deficit and that deficit is huge and your deficient and your body just cant burn fat fast enough. Its just not a situation that really happens.

exactly - focussing on the "it can do" but not the reality of the situation.