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” 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.
Yet the paper specifically mentions:
Vs
And can you stop talking about “evil-lab chemicals” like I’m some sort of paleo diet moron.
You’re trying to argue that I said there’s a chemical difference. You can try to quote me on that if you want.
I specifically and only talked about the chemically made and naturally occurring types and its effects on the human body.
Exactly like the paper does.