Bioavailability of Vitamin C

[ofonorow]

After some encouraging feedback from Dr. Hickey (who also offered to help edit the paper ) we wanted to repeat the calibration hoping there would be less error working with a liter (rather than a deciliter).

We also wanted to verify that we can indeed read vitamin C in liposomes (before I deprive myself of coffee waiting 2 to 3 hours for the results). Answer: We can measure liposomal vitamin C (Emek Blair's reasoning can be found: (See Post #12 http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11219 )

Method

Increased water from 100 grams to 1000 grams
Increased salt (as NACL) from 320 mg to 3.2 grams
Increased Dextrose from 90 mg to 900 mg
First measured at room temperature then all measurements at body temperature

Code: Select all

          Room Temp           Body Temp

Meter   A   112                  51
Meter   B   34                   89
Meter   C   43                   110
Meter   D   *                    49

Not sure why the wide variation. Decided to add a 4th meter D, (but the water had already been warmed so no room temp reading.) If you look at body temperature, and throw out the high and low readings - not too bad.

I added 5 ML China-Free True-lipsomal Vitamin C to the mixture (according to label, this is one serving with 1000 mg or 1 gram vitamin C). Stirred and let the mixture sit for 5 minutes.

Code: Select all

90 mg/dl dextrose + 1000 mg liposomale vitamin C   (Same as adding 100 mg/dl vitamin C)

Meter A  232     (difference from body temp  181)
Meter B  228     ( ''                   139)
Meter C  228     ( "                   118)
Meter D  272     ( "                   223)


It appears that we can mesaure liposomal vitamin C.

We were curious what would happen if we replaced the liposomal with ultrafine ascorbic acid. So we started over.

1000 grams of water
3.20 grams of NACL
900 mg of dextrose
Heated to body temperature.

Code: Select all

Baselines.

Meter A   45
Meter B   60
Meter C   37
Meter D   51

Consistent low readings makes us think we made an error, perhaps adding glucose, but we can still examine the difference between the baselines and lipo or aa.

Code: Select all

90 mg/dl dextrose + 1000 mg ultrafine ascorbic acid vitamin C powder   (Same as adding 100 mg/dl vitamin C)

Meter A   215   (difference 170)
Meter B   227   (difference  167)
Meter C   226   (difference  189)
Meter D   224   (difference  173)

What have we learned? We have again demonstrated that adding vitamin C, either as ascorbic acid or liposomal to simulated blood (320 mg salt, 90 mg/dl glucose) the readings increase proportionately to the relatively small amount of vitamin C added.

So one of the next two experiments will be 10 grams of liposomal vitamin C over two to three hours in vivo.

As far as the calibrations, I think the meters and test strips (as well as the measurements off the finger) are subject to such error, that there isn't much benefit from going to liter versus the deciliter.

[ofonorow]

New Data - 40 minutes after ingesting 10 grams of Dextrose (glucose).

Code: Select all

Baselines

D   108
A   107
B   106
C   108

Code: Select all

Meter       Time       Readings
A              1            110
  B            2                108
     C         3                      110
A              4            108
  B            5                 115
    C          6                     116
A              7            119
   B           8                 114
     C         9                      111
A            10             112
   B         11                 115
     C       12                      117
A            13             116
   B         14                 124
     C       15                     119
A            16             125
  B          17                 125
     C       18                     122
A            19              126
  B          20                 123
    C        21                     116      ** new/different test strips
A            22              117
  B          23                 124
   C         24                     122
A            25              115
  B          26                 116
    C        27                     121
A            28              117
  B          29                 125
    C        30                     122
A            31              121
  B          32                 117
    C        33                     122
A            34              128
  B          35                 124
    C        36                     117
A            37               128
  B          38                  131
    C        39                     132
A            40               132
 


  B          45                127

    C       50                       126

A           55             142

Started to get interesting about 1 hour but couldn't wait any longer for my coffee.

Compared to ascorbic acid, very dull, not even as exciting as sodium ascorbate (and glucose is what the meter is supposed to measure

First impression is that some glucose apparently made it to the blood stream in about 5 minutes, but only raised the blood sugar about 5 mg/dl. And then again, around minute 15, there was another 5 to 10 mg/dl. Then some more elevation around minute 40 and finally a spike may have started about 1 hour.

We can say that the digestion/absorption patterns for glucose and ascorbic acid are (apparently) very different.

Why? Especially if water absorption is the answer for why Ascorbic Acid reaches the blood so quickly? What are the differences?

Glucose (C6H12O6 180 g/mol) is a larger molecule than ascorbic acid (C6H8O6) 176 G/mol). But can 4 hydrogen atoms make the difference?

So it would appear that glucose (and sodium ascorbate) digestion/absorption follows the well studied path through the stomach into the small intestine.. But for some reason - all ascorbic acid (we can say this because of the IV/C baseline measurement) is dumped into the blood stream, at least the first 4000 mg.

Perhaps it is acidity of ascorbic acid, as first pointed out by Hickey/Roberts in RIDICULOUS DIETARY ALLOWANCE? They were trying to understand Cathcart's mammoth dosages, and it just might actually be the key difference. (I wonder if the meter would register citric acid... hmmmmm)

We still have the cunundrum why so much ascorbic acid reaches the blood so quickly.

This experiment probably obviates the need to measure just a glass of water over 40 minutes. (If a glass of water with dextrose doesn't spike, water by itself surely won't.)

For the record, the protocol this a.m. was slightly different. I woke up, drank 19 oz of water, and then waited 45 minutes (my new protocol) and then took the baselines. Note: I began this "water on an empty stomach" protocol 2 days ago. Before this, my morning fasting blood sugar which was constant and has been slowly increasing to above 130 for months/weeks. Since the water, fasting blood sugar dropped yesterday (118) and today (108) in just two days on the water protocol! (My guess is that "not drinking"for 2 hours after a major meals has that effect.)

Finally, I have ALL these measurements on my meters. If anyone knows how to dump the meters, let me know, otherwise I'll ask my diabetes doctors if they can provide me with the dump.

[Johnwen]

Looking at these charts it appears that you have a higher affinity for sugar then V-C. Let's take a look at what appears to be going on here.
Understand that what we're looking at is the levels in the blood of the two products. Ie; What's not being taken into the cells of the body! Or you could say 'Residuals!' that are floating around waiting to go somewhere.

When you took the V-C it made it into the blood but was not consumed or taken out of circulation! It then lingered in the blood and looking at the times for lowering these levels were taken in by the kidney's for storage or removal.

However when you took the sugar it was transported directly from the digestive system and directly was transported into the cells for immediate use and didn't hang around in the blood the way the V-C did.

Some of the reasons for this would be insulin levels at the time of consumption. Judging by your baseline which are close to 30 points different it would appear that they (insulin) where higher to begin with in the sugar test then the V-C test. You mentioned your water consumption which appears, providing your taking your insulin at the same times, is that by taking a higher amount of water intake upon waking maybe elevating the insulin levels in your blood.
I posted this to you last year about the water loose during the sleep cycle and how it can affect your waking sugar readings. But I guess you didn't put much credence in it till you read it somewhere else, then you tried it and it worked, DUHH ya think!

So knowing that sugar is the second most important, first being water, and enters the blood stream with it's own passages and carriers thusly bypassing normal nutrient intake in the intestines and enters into the blood stream very rapidly and it didn't even elevate the blood levels to any degree! Because it was carried directly into the cells.

It appears then, that from these charts that the sugar is more Bioavailable and more readily taken into the cells then the V-C was!





How to MT The memory!

Take the battery out for about 5 minutes and reinstall takes the meter back to when you first bought it!
BYE BYE ! Memory!!!
Hello New meter!

[ofonorow]

By dump, I meant dump the data to a flash drive, i.e., keep the actual record by getting it off the meter (not erase the meters).

Sorry I missed the implication of the water (way back when I started adding a drink of water during the baselining). I have a new interest in your link now that my morning sugar is down 20 points, and even lower according to the new "TrueTest" meter e.g. 99. The effect is blowing my mind. If you can find the link that would be great. And thanks for the graphs!!!

So your theory, and I appreciate a different interpretation!, is that me, a diabetic who needs insulin, and takes about 45 units of Lantus and perhaps 8-10 units of humalog in the evening, my tissue absorbs glucose so quickly that it doesn't register in the blood after a 10 gram gulp! Interesting. (Is it the water - should I run the glucose test without taking the water??)

In the hyperbaric oxygen chambers, I had to eat something with sugar, because of the drop in blood glucose during the treatment. I remember getting it to over 200 by eating a piece of candy.

It doesn't matter. We still haven't explained how Ascorbic acid reaches the blood so quickly, even if glucose is able to reach the blood as quickly.

In other words, even if the reason that my glucose readings didn't rise is because the glucose was quickly absorbed by my tissues (I didn't take my insulin before the testing), that doesn't change the fact that Ascorbic Acid is measured in the blood stream immediately. The issue that we don't have a good handle on is how AA enters the blood stream immediately. Sodium ascorbate doesn't (or under your theory, it is too quickly absorbed, except that the IV/C was sodium ascorbate directly into the vein).

Off to find your water article...



Added, found this at post #15 of the Crude Measurement topic http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=10603

Question 1. Again, can you explain the purpose of the first glass of plain water? Do you think I should introduce that into the protocol tomorrow?

HYDRATION! After sleeping 6-8 hours the body has expelled any were from 8 to 32oz. of liquids from just evaporation through the skin. More if the enviroment has low humidity. Then the amount of fluids the kidneys have recycled over and over till they finally said this is all junk and starts throwing it into the bladder. Then you have all the other fluids the body needs to produce which require water base. By this time you wake up and mouth is dry eyes are crudy skin feels dry muscles feel a little stiff you head to the bathroom then the coffee pot and you thought it was the caffine well that's part of it but it's more the fluids it craves to get things right and moving.
Yes on the protocol but be consistent on the amount.

On next page found this link (not necessarily water) http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/43067769.php

Normal Post-Meal Blood Sugar Response
But in a normal person that doesn't happen. If a normal person were to check their blood with a portable blood sugar meter every ten minutes throughout the three hours that followed their first bite of that bagel, the highest blood sugar concentration they'd be likely to see would almost certainly be under 140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/L)--and perhaps a lot lower. This blood sugar peak would probably occur about half an hour after they ate the bagel. By an hour after they'd eaten their bagel their blood sugar would probably have dropped to a value near 100 mg/dl (5.6 mmol/L), though it might even have sunk back even lower, to their fasting value of 85 mg/dl. In any case, two hours after they'd eaten, the whole 60 grams of carbohydrate present in the bagel--an amount that could have raised their blood sugar some 300 mg/dl if they did not produce insulin--would have been hustled off into their cells without making a significant change in their blood sugar concentration. That's what insulin can do.

If the next graph of insulin response is correct in your link johnwen, then it takes at least 15 minutes for insulin to respond and lower blood sugar. In a non diabetic. Still not sure if that is the "water" link you mentioned.

Uncle - I cannot find the article on water and insulin you mentioned johnwen..

[OxC]

Throughout my life I have occasionally experienced what some people call 'heart palpitations' or 'fluttering.' Infrequent, short episodes are apparently quite common and not any serious concern, so I've never worried about it. Most often in me it lasts only 10 or 20 seconds, and it is often many months between episodes. A long time ago I found that if I held my breath while forcefully trying to exhale, the palpitations would stop immediately, so that's what I've always done. It was many years later that I learned I had been practicing the 'Valsalva Maneuver,' a well-known medical technique that is used in many ways, mostly diagnostic rather than therapeutic. The physiological effects of this maneuver include a rapid increase in blood pressure and a release of catecholamines to the bloodstream (an 'adrenaline rush,''if you will). Although it doesn't appear to have been studied much, it seems reasonable that a change in plasma glucose occurs, since this is a well-known effect of catecholamines.

Another medical diagnostic technique is the 'cold pressor test' wherein a patient dunks his hand into ice water, again resulting in a rapid (within 1-2 minutes) increase in blood pressure and a catecholamine release. One source says, 'increasingly painful cold stress causes massive discharge of the sympathetic nervous system and release of norepinephrine.' We can see that it doesn't take much of a stimulus to evoke a remarkable physiologic response.

Interestingly, simply gulping a cup of water can also cause a rapid change in blood pressure, and a catecholamine release; changes in blood glucose have been reported. This phenomenon hasn't been studied much either, but differences in the temperature, volume and the composition of the fluid that is gulped have been reported to have different effects. For example, when different fluids were infused into the stomachs of dogs, distilled water was shown to cause a 2-fold greater increase in blood pressure than normal saline. It is easy to postulate that a solution of ascorbate might have a much different effect than just water, or a solution of glucose. (And that an acidic solution, say of ascorbic acid, might have a much different response than a neutral solution, say of sodium ascorbate).

The plasma glucose responses to the different doses and forms of ascorbate that are reported in this thread are extremely interesting because of the magnitude of the responses. In particular, the experiment where Owen gulped a shot of AA solution every minute for 40 minutes is astounding. Plasma glucose values ranging from normal to extremely high were very erratic and changed minute-to-minute! I think he has reported something here that may be of great clinical significance when it has been more thoroughly studied. Perhaps there is a new diagnostic test in all of this. Maybe a sip of AA solution is wonderful therapy for halting an episode of cardiac arrhythmia. Who knows?

Here are a few pertinent links:
The Pressor Response to Water Drinking in Humans
Cold stress and the cold pressor test
Cardiovascular Responses to Gastric Hypo-Osmolar Stimulation in Anesthetized Dogs
Plasma free fatty acid and blood glucose responses to analogues of norepinephrine in man
Acute effects of moderate alcohol consumption on blood pressure and plasma catecholamines

[ofonorow]

Very interesting OxC. Thank you. One bone to pick, you say my changes in "glucose", while I believe what is being measured is really change in blood ascorbate concentration. And this next experiment, unexpectedly, seems to support that conclusion.

New Data (below)

The idea behind this experiment was to kill two birds with one stone, err prick. First, I wanted to see if the Ascorbate spike is still present after my new morning water protocol, i.e. after drinking 19 oz. of water, waiting 45 minutes, and then starting the measurements as was done with the last glucose measurement (rather than 5 minutes after a glass of water, per all previous measurements) . The following data, is actually 2 hours after waking, and also after I had a cup of coffee and my Lantus (all-day) insulin shot. No food. And since the conditions were so different, only 15 minutes.

I also fully intended to validate that a new glucose meter (TrueResult or TR) could also see the changes and read ascorbate. Wrong. The meter was brought to our attention in this forum post http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12062. This person's blood sugar is a constant 83 mg/dl - which was perhaps a clue that the meter is very accurate - no variation. Then after restarting Pauling's high vitamin C and lysine therapy, his "glucose" reading jumped up. This seemed to indicate that the meter was able to read vitamin C as glucose (as the Abbott Labs FreeStyle Lite does).

The protocol lasted for 15 minutes. TrueResult (TR) was used every minute (and requires more blood than the Abbott meter) and then the remaining (same) blood was used as I rotated the Abbott meters. As you will see, TrueResult is apparently very true for glucose!


Waking up

Code: Select all

TR            99
Abbott    108


2 Hours later (after 19 oz water, then 1 cup of coffee (and lantus just before the test). No food)

Baseline (4 different pricks)

Code: Select all

Meter   Reading
TR       132 mg/dl
A         132
B         132
C         133

Gulped 10 grams of UltraFINE ascorbic acid. Took two readings every minute, same blood - different meters.

Code: Select all

Meter              Time                  Reading
TR                    1                       121
A                      1                             121

TR                    2                       122
 B                     2                             131

TR                   3                        124
C                     3                              151

TR                   4                        127
A                     4                              153

TR                   5                        127
B                     5                              151

TR                   6                        127
C                     6                              159

TR                   7                         118
A                     7                               129

TR                   8                          123
B                     8                                err (bad test strip?)

TR                   9                           133
C                     9                                298  (dubious - and perhaps another bad test strip)

TR                 10                           117
A                   10                                 133

TR                 11                            124
B                   11                                  142

TR                 12                            121 
C                   12                                   159

TR                 13                            116
A                   13                                    140

TR                 14                            126
B                   14                                     161

TR                 15                             119
C                   15                                     143

Comments.

All the meters lined up nicely for the 2 hour baseline.

Why the 10 point DROP after the first minute?

Note that the TrueResult (TR) reading is fairly constant over the course of the 15 minutes. If this is a true glucose reading, then it helps establish that whatever is causing the Abbott reader to rise is not due to glucose being produced by the liver.

Also note that the readings every minute used the same blood draw, and yet the readings diverge significantly as we have seen before.

The coffee and the Lantus changed the ball game, so it isn't fair to compare with other graphs. There are mixed emotions about the TR meter. If they have somehow restricted it to glucose - that tells us something about what is going on. On the other hand, we were hoping to have another LOW COST meter/strips to do vitamin C testing.

Apparently the problem with the person's calibration who brought the TR meter to our attention, is that he put 1 gram in 1 liter, or 100 mg/dl. The normal concentration of vitamin C is 1.5 mg/dl.

[Johnwen]

Owen;
Pick up a Reli-On Prime meter from wally <$20. Comes with a case and some tests strips! Etc. No poker or pokers! (Lance+Lancets)
It worked for me in just testing V-C in various amounts of water!
Actually it was giving me almost the same amounts that I had in the water!
One of these days when I get some time I'll try it in my blood!

Best part!!! 50 test strips are $9.00 or 18 cents a test!

[OxC]

Every liquid solution of vitamin C contains at least a little tiny bit of oxidized Vitamin C.

One bone to pick, you say my changes in "glucose", while I believe what is being measured is really change in blood ascorbate concentration. And this next experiment, unexpectedly, seems to support that conclusion.

Admitting I have been wrong, your latest experiment indicates that SOMETHING is being measured by the Abbott meter that is NOT being measured by the other meter. The substance contributing to higher readings on the Abbott meter is unknown, but what we know is that the substance GIVEN to the subject was Vitamin C. Keeping in mind that both AA and DHAA are Vitamin C, your data is now strongly suggestive that the Abbott meter is responding to DHAA.

A clinical trial comparing the differences of these two meters could answer the question, "How is vitamin C getting into the bloodstream so fast." There are lots of studies showing extremely fast rates of DHAA absorption. Usually they say that DHAA is converted into AA in the intestine, and so AA is what gets into the bloodstream.
But it is possible that even a very small increase DHAA in the bloodstream leads to a huge reading on the Abbott meter. If this were true, it would offer satisfactory explanations of the results in all of your experiments.

You have previously challenged me to compare the results of these tests with orally ingested DHAA. I was not interested so long as I was convinced that your meter readings were exclusively glucose. But I now realize that one of your two types of meters is responding to some substance that is either Vitamin C or induced by swallowing Vitamin C, but is apparently not glucose. I hypothesize that the substance is DHAA. And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, and I'm now very interested in the results of this comparison. Very briefly, I propose that I supply the AA and DHAA solutions, and you swallow and do the tests. In addition, I will pay for the test strips for both of the two types of instruments. (By the way, I'm proposing an experiment involving eating only 1 gram total Vitamin C each day, so I hope any concern about eating a gigantic amount of DHAA is alleviated).

I'll be in the mountains on vacation until Monday, so I will not see any response from you until then. However, I hope you'll give some thought to the interesting knowledge that can be gained from a very simple experiment.

[Johnwen]

I didn't include those ??? Ones!
Looks like that new one isn't reading V-C the way the others do????

What OxyC said makes sense since DHAA is transported by the GLUT's and AA By the SVCT's.

[OxC]

OxC - before I would entertain the idea of repeating the experiment with DHAA, you sir would need to run the calibration experiments to make sure the reader can read DHAA.

Since you already own the meters, and have conducted a lot experiments demonstrating their response under various conditions, it was my hope to perform the tests with the same meters, and on the same subject (you), in the interest of not introducing more variables.

But your desire to see some type of 'calibration' results before entertaining the idea of tests that involve a lot of finger pokes is perfectly reasonable. So let me propose an experiment that might satisfy both of our desires. Let's do a calibration of your meters in a manner that is as close as possible to the same process you previously used. In other words, let's test solutions containing varying amounts of AA and DHAA, at a total vitamin C concentration of 100 mg/dL, in the solution of 'simulated blood' comprised of 320 mg/dL of sodium chloride and 90 mg/dL of glucose that you previously used. There will be a difference, in that the solutions will also contain 2% glycerin (this is necessary in order for me to provide stabilized DHAA). So we need to test the simulated blood by itself, and the simulated blood plus glycerin, as well as the vitamin C solutions. I propose five vitamin C solutions containing varying amounts of AA and DHAA, so in total there will be seven solutions tested. I propose testing each in duplicate with one of your Abbott FreeStyle meters, as well as in duplicate with your TrueResult meter; so each of the seven tests will require 4 test strips, or a total of 28 test strips. I will prepare all of the solutions, ship them to you, and include in the box $40 cash to cover the cost of the test strips. I'm not completely familiar with the speed at which the meters produce results, but I suspect the entire process would take you less than an hour. No finger pokes, you don't have to swallow anything, and no cost except a bit of your time. What do you think?

Here are the concentrations of the 5 vitamin C solutions I propose:

Code: Select all

Solution DHAA (mg/dL) AA (mg/dL) Total Vitamin C (mg/dL) A 2 98 100 B 5 95 100 C 10 90 100 D 25 75 100 E 50 50 100

And while you might be right, that somehow, the AA I drink is being turned into DHAA and then absorbed, to me, that seems more far-fetched. There needs to be some explanation for the "breakdown" of AA to DHAA in the GITract.

Some oxidation of ascorbate occurs just mixing it with water. Some oxidation in the gut has been suggested by several scientific studies that I have in my files.

Furthermore, DHAA has a very short life span in the blood stream. Unlike AA which is either absorbed or eliminated by the kidney, there are enzymes (like catalyze) that literally break down DHAA.

Actually, the substrate for catalase is hydrogen peroxide, and catalase participates in oxidizing AA to create DHAA rather than breaking it down. But rather than speculating about whether or not measurable DHAA may be found in the bloodstream after ingesting it, what say we just test it if the calibration results indicate that the Abbott meter can measure it?

I admit that DHAA theory might help explain the rapid absorption, however if this was really the answer - then consider, you merely have to take AA to get DHAA.

It's already known that you merely have to take AA to get DHAA in at least a small amount. As I stated above, every liquid solution of vitamin C contains at least a little tiny bit of oxidized Vitamin C.

[ofonorow]

Glad we are back on the bioavailability track ( I have correspondence with Dr. Hickey that I have been meaning to post).

OxC - the one problem I have with your offer is that it is known (from the 1976 book by Sherry Lewin Vitamin C: Its Biology and Medical Potential) that AsA breaks down by 50% in solution (in water) in 4 hours. So what ever gets to me would be "stale". (This does give me an idea - I can calibrate a solution - let it sit for a day - and run the same tests to see whether the vitamin C measured is the same! I am not a chemist, but I think I know that DHAA is not the only substance in the ascorbate breakdown ... See: http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/slewin.html Scroll to figure 1.4 , page 12).

And if you are willing to contribute $40 - that would pay for either the Abbott Labs (or the johnwen suggested ReliOn -- which I have on order and will test soon). With the meter, you can at least run a preliminary test for yourself. I started doing these calibrations in the beginning using a drop of the water solution on a knife after stirring, however after I started getting a lot of errors trying to take the reading on the knife (and wasting the test strips) I changed to using my finger. I now stir the solution with a knife, but then I then dip my finger in the solution, and take the reading from the finger that way. (Finger must be cleaned well between these insertions.)

Catalyse was given as an example, because the name of the enzyme that breaks down DHAA has slipped my mind!
For whatever reasons, DHAA does not survive long (again per Sherry Lewin), and that was my only point.

[OxC]

OxC - the one problem I have with your offer is that it is known (from the 1976 book by Sherry Lewin Vitamin C: Its Biology and Medical Potential) that AsA breaks down by 50% in solution (in water) in 4 hours. So what ever gets to me would be "stale"....For whatever reasons, DHAA does not survive long (again per Sherry Lewin), and that was my only point.

The vitamin C samples would have been pre-measured aliquots in 100% glycerin, in which DHAA is remarkably stable. I intended to provide the 'synthetic blood' solution in separate, pre-measured vials such that you would have simply poured one into the other and mixed to create fresh dilutions. The half-life of DHAA in these dilutions at room temperature is about 36 hours, so there is plenty of time to work with them with confidence as to their DHAA content. I've been making and measuring DHAA solutions of all kinds and concentrations for many years, so I'm quite familiar with its stability characteristics.

There is a lot of confusion about DHAA 'stability' out there, even in reliable publications. For example, many people believe that the reason blood plasma has very low concentrations of DHAA is because it decomposes in the blood. But that is not the reason. It is mostly because the red blood cells rapidly absorb it from the plasma and reduce it to AA. This is one of the major recycling mechanisms in humans and other animals that can't synthesize vitamin C. Blood DHAA concentrations are also low because all of the other cells that are exposed to the blood also rapidly absorb DHAA, and this includes the immune cells in the blood, as well as the endothelial cells that line the blood vessels (and yes, that includes the coronary arteries).

I emphasize the word 'rapidly' because it is quite different than the word 'instantly.' When DHAA is injected into the bloodstream, it is clearly not all taken up 'instantly' by these cells I've mentioned. Some of it is clearly available to the cells in other tissues. As in the experiments that have previously been posted in another discussion on this forum, a full 4% of an IV bolus was absorbed into the brain within 3 minutes, and it significantly increased the total concentration of vitamin C in the brain. Pretty remarkable for a substance that is being grabbed by every cell that it comes into contact with along the way.

It has long been thought (I've said it myself) that all of the DHAA absorbed from an oral dose is reduced to AA by the intestinal enterocytes before it is released into the bloodstream. But if even a small portion of it actually enters the blood in the form of DHAA, this has exciting implications. It would suggest that it may not be necessary to inject it IV in order to accomplish very significant increases in certain tissues, such as the immune cells, the brain, and the coronary arteries.

Thus the results of your blood glucose tests so far are extremely interesting. If the Abbott meter is actually responding to DHAA, it is clearly very sensitive to this substance. The wildly fluctuating values in your blood plasma results are consistent with the concept that small amounts of DHAA are entering the blood and then being rapidly absorbed by the tissues. Of course, this is only a hypothesis, but the experiments I've proposed can at least provide some evidence to support or contradict it.

I of course can purchase my own meters. I don't think I can acquire both brands plus test strips for 40 bucks, so it would have been worth the money and trouble to me to see some preliminary results to help decide whether to pursue a larger investment. And, as I said before, I felt it would be valuable to conduct at least one test using the same meters in order to directly compare results without introducing more variables. So I've tried to make it simple, but this appears to be moot, as you seem reluctant to try to answer these questions for reasons that are apparently unrelated to the difficulty of conducting the experiment.

Thanks for considering my proposals, though. And thanks for performing and sharing all the experiments you've done so far. There is something to be learned here, but I haven't seen evidence of a reasonable explanation yet. DHAA may not be the answer. You described it as 'far-fetched.' But your conclusion that 4 grams of a 10 gram oral dose of AA is absorbed in 15 minutes'well, I'm afraid that is even more far-fetched.

[OxC]

Owen,
Just wanted to add that the offer remains open.
--Doug

[ofonorow]

Thanks OxC - I disagree with your assumption that we are measuring DHAA (and my concern was the knowledge that AA breaks down by 50% in 4 hours.) I may take you up on the offer after I do more work to verify the existing calibration methods.

Johnwen - I did purchase the ReliOn - it is NOT the Abbott Free Style lite!! (Pictures looked similar).

I have been taking random measurements with all 3 meters. ReliON is by far the highest, especially when blood sugars approach 200 mg/dl (ReLion is about 40 points higher!) My sugars have been rising lately so today I am using all three meters to check my blood every hour. At lower readings (around 100 mg/dl) the Abbot and TrueTest are close, but the ReliON is still high.. (I am not totally giving up ReliOn, in case it can read vitamin C

I am also able to see how the blood sample affects the reading. To avoid unnecessary pricks, I have been trying to use the same prick blood for all three meters. Since the Abbott requires the least blood, I leave that for last and now I notice that my blood does clot fast!! I got a much lower 3rd reading on the Abbott, repricked, and the second reading matched the other two meters (rose from 149 to 171).

I want to try the calibration/simulated blood experiment with all three meters, but the ReliOn is so far away from the other two, I don't know what value that has, and may fork out the money for the "spectragraph" meter Bernstein says is as reliable as a lab measurement.

Added - bit the bullet and bought the $400 hemecue.. Ridiculous with these three meters.. So will do the recalibrations
when I have it.

Latest sugar readings

Code: Select all

            Abbott Freestyle     TrueResult            ReliON
1 p.m.     116                      107                  130

[ofonorow]

Reading the Bernstein book looking for information on how fast glucose reaches the blood stream Around page 234, discussing exercise, he mentions the time frame for glucose to enter the blood stream for the standardized Dex4 glucose tablets. Vely interesting..

If you weigh 150 lbs, 1/2 Dex4 will raise your blood sugar about 10 mg/dl. Since these glucose tablets start raising blood sugar in about 3 minutes and finish in about 40 minutes, they're ideal for relatively brief exercise periods.

This is in the section that discusses glucose during anerobic (body building) exercise from page 235 in the Bernstein book..

"Anerobic exercise deprives the muscles of oxygen; it tires them quickly and requires 19 (nineteen) times as much glucose to do the same work as aerobic exercise."

Bernstein doesn't like bread or sweets before exercise because they can be a mixture of fast acting and slow acting sugars, which can have an effect for hours.

However note that these glucose tablets he recommends raise blood sugar from minute 3 to minute 40 , or exactly like we see in the vitamin C experiments!

Still don't understand how it reaches the blood stream that fast, but this is based on at least 40 years of clinical experience of a Type 1 diabetic.
.