their effects can differ based on factors such as food matrix (composition, structure, etc.), dosage, and interactions with other food compounds affecting bioavailability.
That sentence literally says that there is no difference in the origin of the vitamin C and that the differences they’re seeing are due to the food it is in (and potential interactions of Vitamin C with those foods). That has zero to do with whether the Vit. C is “natural” or not.
The shit article probably took her quotes out of context and/or misunderstood them.
Then riddle me this - how do two identical things have different effects?
You can read that in the paper. I really don’t see why this is such a difficult concept for you.
You had a nice null hypothesis based on your assumptions. Then new evidence comes along that shows it’s all not that black and white. The scientific way is to reject your null hypothesis and adjust your hypothesis based on the findings. Not the other way around like you’re doing. And especially not going: “riddle me this” like a MAGA / TPUSA bad faith debater.
The fact that you can’t figure it out also doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Nobody said that if you manage to extract the vitamin C in an orange and replaced it with manufactured vitamin C there would be a chemical difference. There is however, a difference in effect on the human body, as clearly stated in my initial comment as in the study.
You can read that in the paper. I really don’t see why this is such a difficult concept for you.
Because it would undermine a tenet of chemistry that the behavior of a molecule depends on its composition rather than “how” that molecule was created?
Like - if I said “H20 behaves differently when it’s created naturally vs when it’s created in a lab” you’d say I’m nuts right?
That’s because your way of thinking is too simplistic.
Yes a chemical can behave differently in one environment – i.e. with a certain set of molecules surrounding it – than it does in another, even H2O.
Now put a molecule with two different environments into the most complex chemical factory known to man – i.e. a mammalian body – toss things like bioavailability, the gut microbiome and the first-pass effect into the mix and results can be very different indeed, as shown by the paper.
Then there are all kinds of other effects going on in the human body, like osmotic pressure that moves H2O across cell membranes, that can cause brain cells to swell (cerebral edema), which causes mechanical compression of the brain stem to the skull base, which can cause the simple H2O in your example to kill someone if they drink too much of it in a short amount of time.
That sentence literally says that there is no difference in the origin of the vitamin C and that the differences they’re seeing are due to the food it is in (and potential interactions of Vitamin C with those foods). That has zero to do with whether the Vit. C is “natural” or not.
The shit article probably took her quotes out of context and/or misunderstood them.
It definitely says there’s a difference in origin. They say there’s no difference in chemical composition.
I also never said there was a chemical difference between the two, I just talked about the effects. Just like the manuscript.
I worded that poorly - I meant “due to origin”.
Then riddle me this - how do two identical things have different effects?
The paper says it’s not due to the origin of the chemical but due to interactions with other things in the food to which it was introduced.
It does not matter if the Vit. C was created in a lab, in a fruit, or divinely produced by God.
You can read that in the paper. I really don’t see why this is such a difficult concept for you.
You had a nice null hypothesis based on your assumptions. Then new evidence comes along that shows it’s all not that black and white. The scientific way is to reject your null hypothesis and adjust your hypothesis based on the findings. Not the other way around like you’re doing. And especially not going: “riddle me this” like a MAGA / TPUSA bad faith debater.
The fact that you can’t figure it out also doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Nobody said that if you manage to extract the vitamin C in an orange and replaced it with manufactured vitamin C there would be a chemical difference. There is however, a difference in effect on the human body, as clearly stated in my initial comment as in the study.
Because it would undermine a tenet of chemistry that the behavior of a molecule depends on its composition rather than “how” that molecule was created?
Like - if I said “H20 behaves differently when it’s created naturally vs when it’s created in a lab” you’d say I’m nuts right?
That’s because your way of thinking is too simplistic.
Yes a chemical can behave differently in one environment – i.e. with a certain set of molecules surrounding it – than it does in another, even H2O.
Now put a molecule with two different environments into the most complex chemical factory known to man – i.e. a mammalian body – toss things like bioavailability, the gut microbiome and the first-pass effect into the mix and results can be very different indeed, as shown by the paper.
Then there are all kinds of other effects going on in the human body, like osmotic pressure that moves H2O across cell membranes, that can cause brain cells to swell (cerebral edema), which causes mechanical compression of the brain stem to the skull base, which can cause the simple H2O in your example to kill someone if they drink too much of it in a short amount of time.