4.7 Article

Marginal Ascorbate Status (Hypovitaminosis C) Results in an Attenuated Response to Vitamin C Supplementation

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu8060341

关键词

hypovitaminosis C; vitamin C supplementation; human intervention study; recommended dietary intake; body weight

资金

  1. Zespri International Ltd, Mount Maunganui, New Zealand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inadequate dietary intake of vitamin C results in hypovitaminosis C, defined as a plasma ascorbate concentration <= 23 mu mol/L. Our objective was to carry out a retrospective analysis of two vitamin C supplementation studies to determine whether supplementation with 50 mg/day vitamin C is sufficient to restore adequate ascorbate status (>= 50 mu mol/L) in individuals with hypovitaminosis C. Plasma ascorbate data from 70 young adult males, supplemented with 50 or 200 mg/day vitamin C for up to six weeks, was analyzed. Hypovitaminosis C status was identified based on plasma ascorbate being <= 23 mu mol/L and the response of these individuals to vitamin C supplementation was examined. Of the participants consuming 50 mg/day vitamin C for up to six weeks, those with hypovitaminosis C at baseline achieved plasma concentrations of only similar to 30 mu mol/L, whereas the remainder reached similar to 50 mu mol/L. Participants who consumed 200 mg/day vitamin C typically reached saturating concentrations (>65 mu mol/L) within one week, while those with hypovitaminosis C required two weeks to reach saturation. Regression modelling indicated that the participants' initial ascorbate status and body weight explained similar to 30% of the variability in the final ascorbate concentration. Overall, our analysis revealed that supplementation with 50 mg/day vitamin C, which resulted in a total dietary vitamin C intake of 75 mg/day, was insufficient to achieve adequate plasma ascorbate concentrations in individuals with hypovitaminosis C. Furthermore, increased body weight had a negative impact on ascorbate status.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据