Well yes, but the manufactered kind. This doesn’t mean naturally occurring vitamin C in fruits has the same effects. Vitamin C is an important nutrient and antioxidant when consumed in its natural form.
While antioxidants such as citric and ascorbic acid are found naturally in foods such as fruits, they are “not exactly natural” when used as preservatives, senior author Mathilde Touvier said in an email. Touvier is the principal investigator of the NutriNet-Santé study used to conduct the research.
Yeah I’m gonna go with the senior author here. But hang in there sport!
PapstJL4U@lemmy.world
on 25 May 12:47
nextcollapse
Despite food additive ascorbic acid and alpha-tocopherol having identical structures to their naturally occurring forms,[3]() their effects can differ based on factors such as food matrix (composition, structure, etc.), dosage, and interactions with other food compounds affecting bioavailability.[52]()
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
on 25 May 13:03
collapse
Cooking isn’t “natural” either by his definition. Next MAHA craze: No more cooking food? Just eat everything raw?
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
on 25 May 11:35
collapse
They’re the same. If I gave you two molecules of C6H8O6 there is no way you could tell me how they were made and if one was “natural”. Your body certainly wouldn’t care either way.
I understand, but the article and paper clearly state that may not be the case.
Despite food additive ascorbic acid and alpha-tocopherol having identical structures to their naturally occurring forms,[3]() their effects can differ based on factors such as food matrix (composition, structure, etc.), dosage, and interactions with other food compounds affecting bioavailability.[52]()
BenevolentOne@infosec.pub
on 25 May 13:51
nextcollapse
There is also a question of yield in various processes. One process could readily yield 99% ascorbic acid with 1% rapid and unmitigable death.
You have a lot of patience Photonic, to be willing to fight team science on scientifocity, especially since we all know it’s really tiny elves which make some foods good to eat and others poisonous, and not, say, the effect of preservatives on gut microbiome.
I feel more like I’m fighting team “I read a thing once and am now going to bash someone just trying to make a small side note while not having read the article or paper” and not team “science”.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
on 25 May 14:10
nextcollapse
“Team science” does not say “natural vitamin C is better than chemically created vitamin C”. 🤣
That’s the shit you get from pop science in a book sold on daytime television.
You’re just doubling down and dying on a hill here lol.
I’m still going to go with the scientist who wrote the paper and not some random commenter on an internet forum. Thanks!
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
on 25 May 15:53
collapse
And yet the paper supports my argument. That the article is shit.
Despite food additive ascorbic acid and alpha-tocopherol having identical structures to their naturally occurring forms,their effects can differ based on factors such as food matrix (composition, structure, etc.), dosage, and interactions with other food compounds affecting bioavailability.
There’s nothing about the ascorbic acid’s “naturalness” in how it came to be that is in question. It’s in how it interacts with other things in the foods to which it is added.
It’s not “natural” vs. “evil lab-created” vitamin C.
Team science of Lemmy is team, “I vaguely remember grade 11 chemistry”.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
on 25 May 14:08
collapse
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 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.
I believe in this situation, the molecules are not identical.
The synthetic is slightly different.
Sort of how sugar from fruits and refined sugar are both sugar but the difference between them is enough to cause health problems with the refined one.
Like it is processed by the body slightly differently. Or binds to other things in the body differently?
Idk. I’m not a bio chemist.
I’m also pretty sure the reason refined sugar is more bad for you than fruit sugar is also the sheer quantity.
An apple isnt 1/4 sugar. But a can of soda is.
So humans aren’t really designed to gorge on that much sugar in such short periods of time.
Again. Not a biologist nor chemist nor medical doctor. So I may have some info wrong but that’s my basic understanding.
What I do know though from a pharmacology class I took many years ago is that technically everything is poison.
Even water can kill you if you drink too much in a given time period.
It’s all about quantity.
Too much of anything is gonna cause you some problems.
That’s why you always have to look at the quantities in these types of studies. Because are they giving people average consumption amounts or 200 or 500% more?
Specifically synthetic vitamin C, not naturally occuring.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
on 25 May 11:44
nextcollapse
“Naturally occurring ascorbic acid and added ascorbic acid — which may be chemically manufactured — may have different impacts on health,”
This article reeks of MAHA “naturalistic” bullshit.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
on 25 May 12:53
collapse
Go right to the actual scientific article. It doesn’t seem to include this sort of nonsense. It’s a seemingly well put together but herculean effort to try to study this. They do a nice job controlling for known covariables, but it’s very possible they are missing a linked factor. Using this as a basis for a randomized study with these chemicals would be truly interesting.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
on 25 May 15:54
collapse
Aye - the article is hot garbage. Science reporting is a complete mess.
Abstract
Background and
Aims
Experimental studies suggest that some preservative food additives may exert adverse cardiovascular effects, yet
human data are lacking. The associations between exposure to these compounds and incidence of hypertension
and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) were investigated in the NutriNet-Santé cohort (France, 2009–2024).
.....................................................................................................................................................................
Methods Dietary intakes were assessed using repeated 24-h dietary records (up to 96), including commercial brands.
Exposure to food additives was evaluated through multiple composition databases and ad hoc laboratory assays
in food matrices. Associations between cumulative time-dependent exposures to preservative food additives
during follow-up and outcomes were characterized using multi-adjusted Cox models.
.....................................................................................................................................................................
Results Overall, 112 395 participants were included (78.7% women, mean age 42.8 ± 14.7 years) with a median follow-
up of 7.9 years. The sum of total preservatives encompassed 58 substances consumed by at least one participant.
Total non-antioxidant preservatives were positively associated with higher incidences of hypertension
[n = 5544; hazard ratio (HR) higher vs. lower consumers: 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20–1.39] and
CVD (n = 2450; HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04–1.29), while total antioxidant preservatives were associated with higher
incidence of hypertension (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13–1.31). Out of the 17 individual preservative food additives
consumed by at least 10% of the study population, eight were associated with higher incidence of hypertension
and one with higher incidence of CVD, after multiple test correction.
.....................................................................................................................................................................
Conclusions Multiple associations between exposure to preservative food additives widely used in industrial foods and higher
incidence of hypertension or CVD were observed in this large prospective cohort. Experimental research is
needed to gain insight into underlying mechanisms. If confirmed, these new data call for the re-evaluation of
regulations governing the use of these additives to improve consumer protection.
.....................................................................................................................................................................
Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03335644.
threaded - newest
Vitamin C
Saved a click
Vitamin C is a preservative?
Ohhh yes.
It enables everyone to put ‘now with vitamins!’ on labels.
Doea it have electrolytes though?
It is acidic, which is a common preservation method as it reduces the amount of bacteria that can find the citrified food as hospitable.
Isn’t basically all the food we eat acidic, because it lasts longer. I feel like this is a pattern that has compunded for a while.
It is an antioxidant. And oxidation is one of the way food goes stale.
Yep. As are salt, vinegar, alcohol and other common foods.
You ever squirt lemon juice on an avocado to keep it from browning for a bit?
People love to use the phrase “preservative” to mean something bad. But it’s just anything that helps to keep food from spoiling.
That’s citric acid.
Yes - it’s a preservative.
I haven’t clicked the article, but it’s probably ascorbic acid. Very common preserver, as it acidifies the food and kills bacteria
Well yes, but the manufactered kind. This doesn’t mean naturally occurring vitamin C in fruits has the same effects. Vitamin C is an important nutrient and antioxidant when consumed in its natural form.
Ahh yes, natural ascorbic acid. Not to be confused with artifical ascorbic acid with the same exact molecular structure.
Yeah I’m gonna go with the senior author here. But hang in there sport!
This does not describe them as acting different.
Cooking isn’t “natural” either by his definition. Next MAHA craze: No more cooking food? Just eat everything raw?
lol nice raw man argument, but that is not what’s going on here. I can’t help the fact that you can’t read a simple news article or scientific paper.
that’s not the point. Food origin ascorbate is delivered at a longer slower dose than popping a pill. Dosage matters.
Ahhh yes, enantiomers
They’re the same. If I gave you two molecules of C6H8O6 there is no way you could tell me how they were made and if one was “natural”. Your body certainly wouldn’t care either way.
I understand, but the article and paper clearly state that may not be the case.
There is also a question of yield in various processes. One process could readily yield 99% ascorbic acid with 1% rapid and unmitigable death.
You have a lot of patience Photonic, to be willing to fight team science on scientifocity, especially since we all know it’s really tiny elves which make some foods good to eat and others poisonous, and not, say, the effect of preservatives on gut microbiome.
I feel more like I’m fighting team “I read a thing once and am now going to bash someone just trying to make a small side note while not having read the article or paper” and not team “science”.
“Team science” does not say “natural vitamin C is better than chemically created vitamin C”. 🤣
That’s the shit you get from pop science in a book sold on daytime television.
Can’t help it if you can’t read…
You’re just doubling down and dying on a hill here lol.
I’m still going to go with the scientist who wrote the paper and not some random commenter on an internet forum. Thanks!
And yet the paper supports my argument. That the article is shit.
There’s nothing about the ascorbic acid’s “naturalness” in how it came to be that is in question. It’s in how it interacts with other things in the foods to which it is added.
It’s not “natural” vs. “evil lab-created” vitamin C.
Team science of Lemmy is team, “I vaguely remember grade 11 chemistry”.
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 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.
Your understanding of pharmacology is sophomoric. Maybe a little less confidence and a little more education would benefit you.
Enlighten me then sensei. What is the difference between two chemically identical molecules created through different processes?
I believe in this situation, the molecules are not identical. The synthetic is slightly different.
Sort of how sugar from fruits and refined sugar are both sugar but the difference between them is enough to cause health problems with the refined one.
Like it is processed by the body slightly differently. Or binds to other things in the body differently?
Idk. I’m not a bio chemist.
I’m also pretty sure the reason refined sugar is more bad for you than fruit sugar is also the sheer quantity.
An apple isnt 1/4 sugar. But a can of soda is.
So humans aren’t really designed to gorge on that much sugar in such short periods of time.
Again. Not a biologist nor chemist nor medical doctor. So I may have some info wrong but that’s my basic understanding.
What I do know though from a pharmacology class I took many years ago is that technically everything is poison.
Even water can kill you if you drink too much in a given time period.
It’s all about quantity.
Too much of anything is gonna cause you some problems.
That’s why you always have to look at the quantities in these types of studies. Because are they giving people average consumption amounts or 200 or 500% more?
Specifically synthetic vitamin C, not naturally occuring.
This article reeks of MAHA “naturalistic” bullshit.
Go right to the actual scientific article. It doesn’t seem to include this sort of nonsense. It’s a seemingly well put together but herculean effort to try to study this. They do a nice job controlling for known covariables, but it’s very possible they are missing a linked factor. Using this as a basis for a randomized study with these chemicals would be truly interesting.
Aye - the article is hot garbage. Science reporting is a complete mess.
Preservative food additives, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases: the NutriNet-Santé study
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehag308/8679203?login=false
Abstract
Background and
Aims
Experimental studies suggest that some preservative food additives may exert adverse cardiovascular effects, yet
human data are lacking. The associations between exposure to these compounds and incidence of hypertension
and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) were investigated in the NutriNet-Santé cohort (France, 2009–2024).
.....................................................................................................................................................................
Methods Dietary intakes were assessed using repeated 24-h dietary records (up to 96), including commercial brands.
Exposure to food additives was evaluated through multiple composition databases and ad hoc laboratory assays
in food matrices. Associations between cumulative time-dependent exposures to preservative food additives
during follow-up and outcomes were characterized using multi-adjusted Cox models.
.....................................................................................................................................................................
Results Overall, 112 395 participants were included (78.7% women, mean age 42.8 ± 14.7 years) with a median follow-
up of 7.9 years. The sum of total preservatives encompassed 58 substances consumed by at least one participant.
Total non-antioxidant preservatives were positively associated with higher incidences of hypertension
[n = 5544; hazard ratio (HR) higher vs. lower consumers: 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20–1.39] and
CVD (n = 2450; HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04–1.29), while total antioxidant preservatives were associated with higher
incidence of hypertension (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13–1.31). Out of the 17 individual preservative food additives
consumed by at least 10% of the study population, eight were associated with higher incidence of hypertension
and one with higher incidence of CVD, after multiple test correction.
.....................................................................................................................................................................
Conclusions Multiple associations between exposure to preservative food additives widely used in industrial foods and higher
incidence of hypertension or CVD were observed in this large prospective cohort. Experimental research is
needed to gain insight into underlying mechanisms. If confirmed, these new data call for the re-evaluation of
regulations governing the use of these additives to improve consumer protection.
.....................................................................................................................................................................
Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03335644.