I've also noticed that most Liposomal C formulations recommend AA. It's interesting to note that Sodium Ascorbate is often intended when the abbreviation AA is used, especially in Klenner's notes, which in times past have caused practitioners to actually use ascrobic acid for IV infusions. Interestingly enough I've found NIH studies using IVC refer to the cocktail as AA as well - enough so that the conspiracy theorist in me feels my ears tingle.

I suspect that is why the practice of using ascorbic acid has evolved, and become the mainstream practice when making your own. In fact this is what Brooks Bradley recommended, which I think has been where most homeade liposomal preparations have based their recipes. I've made efforts to encourage people to use sodium ascorbate in various forums, and those who've tried it testify that it tastes TONS better, but still the use of ascorbic acid is the more prevalent practice.

How do you abbreviate sodium ascorbate? SA seems too common ... perhaps NaAsc (which I've done in the past)? Or perhaps BAA (buffered AA). I really think that between the various orthomolecular and vitamin C organizations this needs to be standardized, if for no other reason than to prevent new IVC practitioners from making the gross mistake of using the acidic form.

It also seems to me that we need to insist that dehydroascorbic acid always be referred as DHA and come down hard on those who pretend it's the same as AA or call it vitamin C (since nearly all vitamin C is not DHA, and in fact the pharmacokinetics is vastly different). Robert Heaney, for example, pretended they were the same in his low-dose DHA vs. cancer study, which false pretense was very damaging to the vitamin C community, not to mention cancer patients everywhere as MD's everywhere took his report hook line and sinker.

We need to be much more militant on how these things are abbreviated and come down hard on those who use the wrong abbreviation.

I am sure this has probably been covered but if your megadosing as much as some of us megadose I would think taking in to much sodium would be detrimental to your health

Dr. Klenner covered this topic. He measured a number of sodium sensitive biometric data before, during, and after 100g intravenous infusions of sodium ascorbate and found no affect whatsoever. With big pharma's extreme prejudice against the practice you can be sure if there was an association that it would be widely published and used to discourage the practice and blackball IV ascorbates in general.

As it turns out it's not sodium that is the killer, but sodium in combination with chloride (as in table salt).

"As it turns out it's not sodium that is the killer, but sodium in combination with chloride (as in table salt)."
Also BS.

Some fraction of the population is "salt sensitive".' their blood pressure decreases slightly when salt is reduced. Better reductions are usually the result if potassium is increased, and even Pharm-Med agrees that the average potassium intake is around half of what even they say is required. (2 to 2.5gm/day vs 4.7gm/day). Not to mention many other blood pressure lowering factors, including magnesium and calcium and vitamin C and fish oil and iodine. The stupid FDA restriction on potassium is, I believe, a direct effort to keep people from dealing with their own blood pressure as Pharm-Med SELLS BP DRUGS AND SERVICES.
This restriction has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality.

"...the chloride in Sodium Chloride which should be managed."
See preceding.
AND: chloride is absolutely essential to absorption of many nutrients, including potassium and magnesium and calcium. And protein, and complex carbohydrates.
The party line is that "we" get enough chloride in the salt we eat. That would be the same salt they are trying to get you to not eat.
I have spent many hours searching the "official" view re chloride, and it is barely mentioned, as they go off about evil sodium. And SELLING ANTACIDS.

Further, iodized salt is the only reliable source of iodine for most people who do not supplement. This is relevant because virtually every operation in the body is under thyroid control or influence, and that requires iodine. Among these are the regulation of stomach acid from chloride, and the entire cardiovascular and renal systems, which deal with sodium.

Nearly as many people show a decrease in blood pressure, when salt is increased.
It is well established that people worldwide automatically adjust salt intake to a specific range, and that the US is like most places exactly in the center of that range. The new recommendations are at or below the bottom of the range.
"Americans consume about 3,500 mg/day of sodium; men more, women less. The very large percentage of the population consumes 1,150- 5,750 mg/day which is termed the "hygienic safety range" of sodium intake by renowned Swedish hypertension expert Dr. Björn Folkow. "

Bottom lines is that with the possible exception of obese middle aged men, there is NO EVIDENCE that salt restriction has any positive effects on blood pressure, and a lot to show that it has very many negative effects on morbidity and mortality.
I have far too many documents to link them all, but this is a good start:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/5/1013.full

FRM

I read your reply but can not figure out what part of my comment above you think is "BS". Is it that table salt is a killer? If so, then I agree that it can be a killer for those who are "sodium sensitive", which are in the minority ... I never said it was a killer for everyone. It's still a killer.

Or are you saying that chloride has nothing to do with it? I didn't get anything out of what followed your "Also BS" comment to justify that if that's what you meant. I admit that I could be misinformed as I tend not to memorize sources when the info I get seems to come from a reliable source ... but I thought that one was fairly reliable. I'm happy to be corrected.

And what about the "Also" part ... what else is "BS"?

Dave-
There is an initial statement, to the effect that "...sodium...is the killer".
You correctly cite Klenner as having shown this is nonsense, as do many other sources.
Hence the initial statement is BS;

You then state "(the killer is)...sodium in combination with chloride (as in table salt)."
There is no evidence for this in most people without kidney failure, and in those sensitive people it is a minor blood pressure regulating factor only. "killer" is a ridiculous appellation for something that might cause a few mm increase in BP in a small percentage of the population. All the more when the same salt causes a reduction in BP in nearly as many people
"With higher or lower sodium intakes, blood pressures were reported to decrease, increase, and remain stable in participants within the same studies (13, 23, 24"
"They found that ≈18% of 163 participants with a high salt intake had blood pressure increases >5 mm Hg, whereas ≈15% had blood pressure decreases >5 mm Hg, with changes of <5 mm Hg in 66% of participants. "
"On average, systolic blood pressure in normotensive populations was lowered by ≈1 mm Hg when salt intake was reduced from 30% to 50%, depending on the trial."
Hence, "also BS"

Owen then states: "it is not the sodium which is dangerous per se ...it is the chloride in Sodium Chloride which should be managed."
Again, no evidence and plenty in the other direction.
Hence "See preceding." "Also BS"

Note:
It is most confusing when reading about this to find that "sodium restriction" and "salt restriction" are used interchangeably in most discussions. However since restriction of any or all of sodium, chloride, and/or the common compound of these called "salt" have minor positive to no to less minor negative effect, all of these statements are useless to worse,
hence "ALL BS".

Quotes from the paper I linked (as are all others not contained in the thread):
"Laboratories worldwide attempted to reproduce hypertension related to salt intake, but found that only an extreme manipulation of vertebrate physiology and nutrition would predictably produce elevated arterial pressure. In all of these investigative efforts, sodium chloride intakes were increased to amounts 10–20 times greater than those recommended for rodents, renal (excretory) mass was reduced to less than half, and mineralocorticoid hormones were administered in pharmacologic doses (13). Although these laboratory conditions do not reflect the circumstances extant in the human population, the reported effect of sodium on blood pressure in animal studies accomplished by dramatic physiologic manipulations was generally accepted and presumed to carry over to human blood pressure."
"Considering the battle that has long raged around this hypothesis, despite the deluge of data it has spawned over the past 50 y, it would seem that it is not science that is motivating the controversy but rather the entrenched opinions of the scientists who are involved in it (1)."
"Thus, although questions of the safety of low-sodium diets may be unresolved, there are now ≥6 studies, involving tens of thousands of high-risk individuals followed for many years, that failed to show any long-term cardiovascular benefit of a lower-sodium diet."

Hence ALL BS, of the stupidest kind, the dissemination of which I consider to be criminally stupid activity.

See "SEEKING CONSENSUS", in the linked paper.
The establishment consensus of all the "interested parties" who are STILL shoveling the anti salt BS is as follows:
"...that the results of the randomized, controlled trials of sodium reduction show only a minimal effect on blood pressure in the general population; and that only a minority of the US population is sensitive to the hypertensive effects of sodium. Independent statistics experts reported that the Intersalt analyses are inappropriate for arguing that a reduction in salt intake would reduce the rate of increase in blood pressure with age—the argument consistently used by the advocates of sodium chloride restriction. Furthermore, it was pointed out that mineral deficiency likely accounts for much of the sensitivity to sodium, and that a nutrient-complete diet, ie, the DASH diet, can produce far greater blood pressure improvements than can be achieved with sodium restriction. Finally, it was acknowledged that there may be adverse effects associated with reduced sodium intake and that there is little evidence that lowering sodium intake will improve cardiovascular outcomes. "

Note that mineral absorption is dependent on stomach acid, which is dependent on chloride, which you get from SALT.

Bottom line: Don't mess with your salt intake!

FRM

Perhaps liposomal vitamin C should be made from from Ascorbyl Palmitate so it can get into the fatty tissue of the body???

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... ool=pubmed

Re: dont mess with salt . . . (eg. lots of bum info out there)

In a similar vein, check out "The cholesterol delusion" by Dr Earnest Curtis

can you give us a a brief summary of the book?

Lots of reviews, interviews etc by google.
This is an article (two parts) by author Dr Ernest Curtis:
http://www.spacedoc.com/cholesterol_delusion

It is the same account I've read a hundred times by many authors, and could write myself.
No idea what else may be in the book.

Bottom line: If your cholesterol is way above realistic normals, you are sick but it ain't because you are eating too much cholesterol or lacking statins. Fix whatever is wrong, but Don't mess with your cholesterol!

FRM

Gofanu/johnwen. Been studying my plethora of blood test results since last July. (Every new doc wants his/her own tests.)

These tests consistently report "Low" (just under low normal) sodium and chloride. Low red blood count at times, otherwise all parameters within normal range.

I don't know what it means. Interested in thoughts.

These three combined would indicate adrenal insuffiency. Usually high and low periods of urine passage. However the use of NSAID's and or too much Sodium Bicarb can do the same.
Next time you do a blood test hold off on your supplements for a least 4 hours prior to the test and see if that brings things back in range. Not a big real concern but worth watching.