So, here goes
Synethetic vitamins and Natural vitamins are different in form= They point to Vitamin E, which appears to have different isomers when manufactured synethetically.
The human body uses only the d- form. The l- form, when present, does not confer any known health benefit and is normally excreted by the body. So, in essence, when consuming the dl- form of vitamin E, you obtain an effective dose of about half the vitamin E dosage reported on the label.
Another article claims that due to the different refraction of light of these two substances, it proves conclusively that they are vitally different and the biological activity is thus different.
Is this true? From what I understand from basic chemistry, as long as the active group remains the same and bonding strength is the same, there should be no difference in activity. Furthermore, the use of the light refraction examples suggest that its merely a difference in orientation and should have no effects on the biochemical status.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
Many of today's vitamin and mineral supplements are made synthetically through chemical processes, rather than derived directly from plants or other materials. Some manufacturers do make supplements directly from natural sources, and claim that these vitamins are superior in quality to their synthetic cousins.
Are natural vitamins better than synthetic ones?
The distinction between "synthetic" and "natural" vitamins can be confusing. A better question is whether the resulting molecular structure is the same as the corresponding structure found in nature.
When the synthetic molecule is identical to the form derived from natural sources, both forms will be indistinguishable from each other in all aspects -- including their function and effects in the human body.
In addition, the same natural vitamin derived from different natural sources or raw materials will be the same (provided that no other substances unique to that particular source are included).
Vitamin C
For example, vitamin C found and isolated from oranges is identical to vitamin C derived from other plant sources, largely because plants containing vitamin C biosynthesized the substance in the same manner.
Vitamin E
On the other hand, the d- form of vitamin E derived from vegetable oils and other natural sources is different from the dl- form (which is often called the synthetic form). The dl- tocopherols are actually a mixture: the d-form and the l-form (usually a 1:1 mixture). The human body uses only the d- form. The l- form, when present, does not confer any known health benefit and is normally excreted by the body. So, in essence, when consuming the dl- form of vitamin E, you obtain an effective dose of about half the vitamin E dosage reported on the label.
Other nutrients
Aside from this precaution, most synthetically made vitamins and many other nutrients are either identical to their "wild-type" counterparts (extracted from natural sources), or easily convert to the wild-type in the human body. Also, most synthetic vitamins and nutrients are both cheaper and purer, with less potential for contamination.
Quality in vitamins and nutrients is extremely hard to quantify. One should not rely on claims of "better quality" unless some definition of that term is given, together with some measurement data.
The list of ingredients and their amounts is the most important aspect of comparative analysis. If that list is approximately equivalent, then price should be your guide, unless you are given some clear and objective information about why the "natural" one is better.
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
PainRack wrote:
Another article claims that due to the different refraction of light of these two substances, it proves conclusively that they are vitally different and the biological activity is thus different.
If they have a diferent refraction then they are either different or have a differing ratio of right and left handed molecules ie Chirality.
Is this true? From what I understand from basic chemistry, as long as the active group remains the same and bonding strength is the same, there should be no difference in activity. Furthermore, the use of the light refraction examples suggest that its merely a difference in orientation and should have no effects on the biochemical status.
Orientation matters, a lot. If the active group is subject to steric hindrance (think the windmill in minigolf)then it won't react as much as if it was uncluttered. Or if it's "offhanded" then it might be inert or be toxic. A lot of medicine is 50% inert because of how hard it is to make a reaction that is 100% chiral or Achiral, and they can't be separated because they have the damn near same densities, melting point and boiling points.
I can't comment on vitamin E in particular, since I don't have the time to look much up on it. But as stated, the source of two identical chemicals matters not. The only thing that could possibly influence the difference in efficacy between a lab produced vs extracted from plant vitamin sample (I effing hate this 'synthetic' vs 'natural' thing - they're both synthetic and they're both natural) is the what sorts of isomeric ratios and side products you get in either case.
lance wrote:Is this true? From what I understand from basic chemistry, as long as the active group remains the same and bonding strength is the same, there should be no difference in activity. Furthermore, the use of the light refraction examples suggest that its merely a difference in orientation and should have no effects on the biochemical status.
Orientation matters, a lot. If the active group is subject to steric hindrance (think the windmill in minigolf)then it won't react as much as if it was uncluttered. Or if it's "offhanded" then it might be inert or be toxic. A lot of medicine is 50% inert because of how hard it is to make a reaction that is 100% chiral or Achiral, and they can't be separated because they have the damn near same densities, melting point and boiling points.[/quote]
For a great example look at the chemical thalidomide. It has two relevant stereoisomers. One is a fairly harmless and fast-acting analgesic. The other is one of the more severe teratogens out there and is responsible for the so-called thalidomide babies. So yeah, orientation matters a lot.
"Hey, gang, we're all part of the spleen!"
-PZ Meyers
"Natural" is a fancy way of saying "more expensive and targeted at gullible rubes". If they were drastically different in form they wouldn't be the same vitamins anymore, so unless they have double-blind testing studies that demonstrate it's a radical improvement be skeptical of any claims saying otherwise.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
PainRack wrote:
Is this true? From what I understand from basic chemistry, as long as the active group remains the same and bonding strength is the same, there should be no difference in activity. Furthermore, the use of the light refraction examples suggest that its merely a difference in orientation and should have no effects on the biochemical status.
No, when you're dealing with biochemistry you'll see that enzymes are (or at least acn be) isomer specific.
Another example would be trans fatty acids in foods (which are industrially synthesised by hydrogentation). They have the same bonds as the cis-form but much more unhealthy
lance wrote:they can't be separated because they have the damn near same densities, melting point and boiling points.
I'm not sure about industrial scale and if it can be done for all compounds but you can do that by chiral column chromatography.
From my understanding in order to use some of them like thalidomide they have to go to lengths to make sure the isomer that they get is the one they want. Which involves adding steps to the reaction to make the compound piecemeal. But I'm not sure on the chiral column chromatography as I've never heard of it.
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Vitalism is serious folly. Ignore at will.
Only for the young:D
My mum old enough that she should start taking B12 supplements.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
@ PainRack and phongn: Valdemar was referring to vitalism, which is very much folly that should be ignored. It's a set of positions that maintain there's some vital element above and aside from biochemical factors that is what gives life its life-iness.
@lance: Chiral column chromatography is a variant of CC that uses a chiral stationary phase in order to get differing analytes to elute at differing times, since they have differing interactions based on their stereochemistry. It's neat, but I've never heard of it being used on an industrial scale. Very useful for analytic purposes, though.
"Hey, gang, we're all part of the spleen!"
-PZ Meyers
Eris wrote:@ PainRack and phongn: Valdemar was referring to vitalism, which is very much folly that should be ignored. It's a set of positions that maintain there's some vital element above and aside from biochemical factors that is what gives life its life-iness.
Oh, I know, I was just referring to the issue where "natural" vitamins may be of a particular stereoisomer and the stuff on the vitamin shelf may not be.
