33 replies to this topic

[osris]

Megadosing Vitamin C: A Case for Simplicity Over Micromanagement

 

By

 

ChatGPT

 

 

Vitamin C megadosing has long had its proponents—those who swear by high doses to fend off illness, boost immune resilience, or simply maintain vitality. Stories abound of people taking anywhere from a few grams to 100 grams per day during acute illness, with claims of fewer colds, faster recovery, and long-term health benefits.

 

But with high-dose vitamin C comes the inevitable conversation about regulation—how much is too much, and how do you know? Some suggest watching your urine color: if it turns bright yellow or fluorescent, your body is likely excreting the excess. Others recommend dialing back your dose if you notice diarrhea, burning sensations while urinating, or general digestive upset.

 

This introduces a kind of micromanagement that, for many, defeats the purpose of a simple daily health practice. Having to observe your urine, interpret the results, and adjust accordingly adds an unnecessary layer of complication to what should be an easy, straightforward routine.

 

The reality is: vitamin C is water-soluble. The body uses what it needs and discards the rest. Unless you’re taking truly massive doses—think 20+ grams daily over long periods—the risk of harm is minimal for most healthy individuals. And if your body tolerates your chosen dose (say, 5 grams a day) without unpleasant side effects, there’s little need to monitor things obsessively.

 

Moreover, urine color isn’t a reliable indicator of vitamin C levels. Hydration, B vitamins, medications, and even certain foods can alter its appearance. Relying on this as a feedback mechanism for dosing is not only imprecise—it can be misleading.

 

Of course, those with kidney conditions, a history of oxalate stones, or other specific health concerns may need to be more cautious. But for the average person, a steady, well-tolerated dose of vitamin C—taken daily without obsessing over it—is a reasonable, low-maintenance way to support general health.

 

In the end, the goal of supplementation should be to enhance life, not complicate it. If your routine requires constant surveillance and adjustment, it stops being a health aid and starts becoming a chore. For most people, a consistent dose that feels right, causes no discomfort, and fits seamlessly into their day is the most practical—and sustainable—approach.

 

[pamojja]

Please provide its sources, whenever providing suggestions of AI. Otherwise, you're just spreading merry tales with it.

 

Some suggest watching your urine color: if it turns bright yellow or fluorescent, your body is likely excreting the excess. Others recommend dialing back your dose if you notice diarrhea, burning sensations while urinating, or general digestive upset.

 

The common method, to find the sweet spot for high-dose ascorbic acid intake, is indeed titrating to bowel-tolerance only. The urine turns bright yellow for unrelated reasons (like high riboflavin intake). It turns watery with high ascorbic acid intake, since that necessitates many glasses of water to mix with and to drink. In many years, I found not one author, who recommended monitoring urine color for ascorbic acid intake. It's hallucinating.

 

The reality is: vitamin C is water-soluble. The body uses what it needs and discards the rest. Unless you’re taking truly massive doses—think 20+ grams daily over long periods—the risk of harm is minimal for most healthy individuals.

 

Some sensitive individuals have very low, much lower, bowel-tolerance, than 20 grams. Whether the individual bowel tolerance is at 2 g/d only, or at 200 g/d makes no difference. The sole harm is always the same: A watery diarrhea, which quits immediately once lowering the next dose again. Further symptom during approaching those highest dose might be flatulence. There is no more serious harm.

 

In the 16 years of my 25 g/d ascorbic acid intake, I experimentally explored my highest possible intake once, only. Because of my rhinitis, it is already without any other co-condition very high above 50 g/d.

 

And if your body tolerates your chosen dose (say, 5 grams a day) without unpleasant side effects, there’s little need to monitor things obsessively.

 

Beside titrating to bowel-tolerance - mentioning a watery stool with too high doses taken frequently - there is really no reliable obsessive monitoring of vitamin C intake. Most blood test are too unreliable. So this whole ChatGPT article is about a completely non-existent issue. There simply is no obsessive method to monitor vitamin C intake. Period.

 

Here ascorbic acid also is different to other nutrients, which do have clear co-factor nutrients at high enough doses, one should take care to take equally. Like Vitamin D3 with enough Mg. Also, the reason anyone would take 20-30 g/d of ascorbic acid, is mostly serious comorbid conditions. And those one better monitors with or without ascorbic acid intake anyway.

 

"Just take 20 g/d and don't obsess about it", is maybe well-meant. But practically no one would take the effort this takes, without serious life-threatening conditions. It's just too much effort in and of itself. Hallucinated is of course always easiest.

Edited by pamojja, 18 April 2025 - 11:57 AM.

[osris]

Thanks for rude the reply, pamojja, after I had complemented a post you made in another thread. There's gratitude for you!

I’m aware you prefer a very specific framework when it comes to ascorbic acid use, and I respect that you've clearly invested years into fine-tuning your approach.

 

That said, the post I shared wasn’t intended as a clinical directive or deep-dive into orthomolecular protocols. It was a general commentary aimed at the average supplement user—people who are curious about high-dose vitamin C but not necessarily managing serious pathology or aiming for bowel-tolerance-level intakes.

 

On the urine color point: It wasn't presented as a scientific marker for C saturation, nor as a dosing guide—and only noted it as something “some suggest,” and went on to say clearly that it’s imprecise and potentially misleading. That context matters.

 

Regarding bowel tolerance, sure—many high-dose C users use it as a guide. But it’s not the only viable method for everyone. Plenty of people find a steady, well-tolerated dose (5g/day, for instance) and stick with it for general wellness, without the need to titrate up or micromanage every signal from the body.

 

Your response reaffirms your stance, which is fine. But dismissing an alternative perspective as “hallucinated” because it doesn’t match yours misses the point. Not everyone is navigating this at the level of pathology or in pursuit of therapeutic extremes. Sometimes, people just want a practical, low-friction routine—and that’s what this post was about.

[pamojja]

Sorry, my rudeness stems from you using resource hungry AI for non-issues. It's different, after you add your perspective to it. I'm rude to the useless AI article, with no relevance to real life. Hallucinated. To you only in the context, of posting such garbage, without second thought or sources.

 

But please, when ever putting such an AI piece without relation to anything in real, do mark it already in the title as AI fantasy. I can't force you to it, but I can come across rude with such resources destroying non-issues.

 

Your response reaffirms your stance, which is fine. But dismissing an alternative perspective as “hallucinated” because it doesn’t match yours misses the point. Not everyone is navigating this at the level of pathology or in pursuit of therapeutic extremes.

 

Would you ignore dehydration or diarrhea? - the only 2 possible micromanagements AI mentioned. Here, in relation to ascorbic acid?

 

Watching urine color or consistency of excretion is basic self-care. Which everyone with a little health consciousness would apply. I stand steadfast, other than basic self-care, there is simply no-one doing 'micromanaging' ascorbic acid intake. It's not existing.

 

Monitoring multiple comorbidities with lab-testing is a completely different arena. In which one could speak of 'micromanaging', but in this completely other case, most likely for one's own recovery.

 

Regarding bowel tolerance, sure—many high-dose C users use it as a guide. But it’s not the only viable method for everyone.

 

Bowel tolerance limits are explored to determine the probably ideal daily intake at about 1/3 less than that. That is usually a one-day exploration only. With no further managing. If one is an overly sensitive or a very healthy person, already 1-2 g could cause a watery stool accidentally.

 

Other viable methods? - Mention just one.

 

Plenty of people find a steady, well-tolerated dose (5g/day, for instance) and stick with it for general wellness, without the need to titrate up or micromanage every signal from the body.

 

Then they are just lucky not accidentally reaching their bowel-tolerance. Which again, isn't micromanaging, but a natural physiologic response to too high doses, for one's own biochemical individuality. There is really no micromanaging 'of every signal from the body' in respect to ascorbic acid intake.

 

This whole AI article is fantasizing about micromanaging of ascorbic acid, and suggests simplicity instead. Which, with basic physiologic knowledge, simplicity always would have been there to begin with. A non-existing issue.

 

And I'm of course angry at people posting such garbage, without questioning its assumptions, and sources with critical thinking. But instead, probably weaving in such premature assumptions already with inaccurate prompting.

 

There is no ascorbic acid user micromanaging. Beside basic self-care for dehydration or avoiding diarrhea. It's always simple.

 

No need to make it a case, unless you want to convince yourself to finally start with something so simple, and actually take ascorbic acid. Just do it, or leave it. Without making it appear less simple, as it is, to others.

 

Edited by pamojja, 19 April 2025 - 10:47 AM.

[pamojja]

.. suggests simplicity instead. Which, with basic physiologic knowledge, simplicity always would have been there to begin with.

 

Maybe it's my mistake to take basic physiologic knowledge a given?

 

Ok, without, it is dauntingly complex, let's outline what should at least be known before starting to supplement ascorbic acid ;-)

 

Don't take ascorbic acid in multiple gram doses as capsules or tablets, but use pure ascorbic acid powder instead - to avoid too many of not that healthy binders and fillers in caps or tabs. The advantage: 100g powder bottles of ascorbic acid is the cheapest bulk vitamin available, even in supermarkets.

 

If one doesn't tolerate the acidity of ascorbic acid mixed with water, one can add up to 1/2 the weight of ascorbic acid or less as sodium bicarbonate. At the maximal mixture it reacts completely to sodium ascorbate, and perfectly pH neutrality. Though, one can use other mineral bicarbonates, at multi-gram doses one would get too much of, for example, the calcium caption. Which can turn unhealthy very fast. Therefore with other mineral bicarbonates, do the calculation.

 

Liposomal can't replace multiple gram ascorbic acid easily, since according to a study its intercellular absorption is only 150% of the area under the curve, compared with equal grams of sodium ascorbate.

 

Always be prepared for an always allergic reaction to a new substance. Therefore, always start with as small doses as possible of a new substance, to keep always possible allergic reaction at a minimum. Since with health-fluctuation also bowel-tolerance can rapidly change, though rare, one might experience suddenly a watery diarrhea also on formerly tolerated ascorbic acid doses. Simply reduce the dose again.

 

Don't follow advice given blindly, always verify for yourself (actually an old advice by Linus Pauling).

Edited by pamojja, 19 April 2025 - 11:33 AM.

[osris]

Sorry, my rudeness stems from you using resource hungry AI for non-issues. It's different, after you add your perspective to it. I'm rude to the useless AI article, with no relevance to real life. Hallucinated. To you only in the context, of posting such garbage, without second thought or sources.

 

But please, when ever putting such an AI piece without relation to anything in real, do mark it already in the title as AI fantasy. I can't force you to it, but I can come across rude with such resources destroying non-issues.

 

 

Would you ignore dehydration or diarrhea? - the only 2 possible micromanagements AI mentioned. Here, in relation to ascorbic acid?

 

Watching urine color or consistency of excretion is basic self-care. Which everyone with a little health consciousness would apply. I stand steadfast, other than basic self-care, there is simply no-one doing 'micromanaging' ascorbic acid intake. It's not existing.

 

Monitoring multiple comorbidities with lab-testing is a completely different arena. In which one could speak of 'micromanaging', but in this completely other case, most likely for one's own recovery.

 

 

Bowel tolerance limits are explored to determine the probably ideal daily intake at about 1/3 less than that. That is usually a one-day exploration only. With no further managing. If one is an overly sensitive or a very healthy person, already 1-2 g could cause a watery stool accidentally.

 

Other viable methods? - Mention just one.

 

 

Then they are just lucky not accidentally reaching their bowel-tolerance. Which again, isn't micromanaging, but a natural physiologic response to too high doses, for one's own biochemical individuality. There is really no micromanaging 'of every signal from the body' in respect to ascorbic acid intake.

 

This whole AI article is fantasizing about micromanaging of ascorbic acid, and suggests simplicity instead. Which, with basic physiologic knowledge, simplicity always would have been there to begin with. A non-existing issue.

 

And I'm of course angry at people posting such garbage, without questioning its assumptions, and sources with critical thinking. But instead, probably weaving in such premature assumptions already with inaccurate prompting.

 

There is no ascorbic acid user micromanaging. Beside basic self-care for dehydration or avoiding diarrhea. It's always simple.

 

No need to make it a case, unless you want to convince yourself to finally start with something so simple, and actually take ascorbic acid. Just do it, or leave it. Without making it appear less simple, as it is, to others.

 

 

I understand that you're passionate about this topic, but you're still misrepresenting both the content and intent of the original post.

 

First off, labeling something as “AI garbage” because it doesn’t mirror your preferred narrative is not critical thinking—it’s gatekeeping. The article was a general reflection, not a deep orthomolecular treatise. You’re treating it like it claimed to be the new Bible of vitamin C dosing, when in fact it acknowledged your very method (bowel tolerance), and simply said "some people" prefer a more straightforward approach if they’ve found a well-tolerated dose.

 

The micromanagement reference was not about avoiding diarrhea or staying hydrated—those are obvious. It was about the obsessive loop some fall into when they try to fine-tune based on every minor change in urination or digestion, rather than sticking to what works for their body and letting it be. If that doesn’t apply to you, then good—it’s not aimed at you.

 

You ask for "other viable methods." Well, here’s one: choosing a dose based on long-term tolerance and maintaining it without hitting bowel tolerance. That’s what many people do—some for years—because it’s effective for them and doesn't interfere with their day-to-day life. That is a viable, real-world method, whether or not it fits into your specific protocol.

 

Your repeated claims that this is a “non-issue” are based entirely on your framing. The article is for people trying to simplify their health routines, not for those navigating extreme therapeutic regimes or aiming for gram-level precision based on titration. Different use cases. Different audience.

 

Finally, your insistence on marking posts as “AI fantasy” is just unnecessary and, frankly, a little paranoid. If you don’t like AI-generated content, that’s your prerogative—but other members can judge a post on its own merits. You’re not the arbiter of what gets shared.

 

I’m not trying to convert anyone or rewrite orthomolecular science. Just offering an accessible perspective for those who want one. If that’s offensive to you, so be it.

Edited by osris, 19 April 2025 - 12:35 PM.

[osris]

Maybe it's my mistake to take basic physiologic knowledge a given?

 

Ok, without, it is dauntingly complex, let's outline what should at least be known before starting to supplement ascorbic acid ;-)

 

Don't take ascorbic acid in multiple gram doses as capsules or tablets, but use pure ascorbic acid powder instead - to avoid too many of not that healthy binders and fillers in caps or tabs. The advantage: 100g powder bottles of ascorbic acid is the cheapest bulk vitamin available, even in supermarkets.

 

If one doesn't tolerate the acidity of ascorbic acid mixed with water, one can add up to 1/2 the weight of ascorbic acid or less as sodium bicarbonate. At the maximal mixture it reacts completely to sodium ascorbate, and perfectly pH neutrality. Though, one can use other mineral bicarbonates, at multi-gram doses one would get too much of, for example, the calcium caption. Which can turn unhealthy very fast. Therefore with other mineral bicarbonates, do the calculation.

 

Liposomal can't replace multiple gram ascorbic acid easily, since according to a study its intercellular absorption is only 150% of the area under the curve, compared with equal grams of sodium ascorbate.

 

Always be prepared for an always allergic reaction to a new substance. Therefore, always start with as small doses as possible of a new substance, to keep always possible allergic reaction at a minimum. Since with health-fluctuation also bowel-tolerance can rapidly change, though rare, one might experience suddenly a watery diarrhea also on formerly tolerated ascorbic acid doses. Simply reduce the dose again.

 

Don't follow advice given blindly, always verify for yourself (actually an old advice by Linus Pauling).
 

 

 

Much of what you’ve said here—about powder form, buffering with sodium bicarbonate, and individual tolerance—is sensible and echoes advice many have found useful.

 

But this further underscores the point I was making: the spectrum of supplementation approaches is broader than one fixed method. Some people go deep with calculations and optimizations. Others simply find a consistent, moderate dose that works for them and don’t need or want to dig further. Both approaches can coexist without one being labeled "hallucinated" or "garbage."

 

Not everyone enters supplementation with "basic physiological knowledge" baked in, and not everyone is looking to achieve therapeutic doses. Sometimes, they’re just aiming for general wellness without complication. That was the spirit of the article, and the reason it resonated with some readers.

 

As for verification—that’s exactly what dialogue like this is for.

 

Edited by osris, 19 April 2025 - 12:13 PM.

[osris]

 

pamojja, I understand that you're passionate about this topic, but you're still misrepresenting both the content and intent of the original post.

 

First off, labeling something as “AI garbage” because it doesn’t mirror your preferred narrative is not critical thinking—it’s gatekeeping. The article was a general reflection, not a deep orthomolecular treatise. You’re treating it like it claimed to be the new Bible of vitamin C dosing, when in fact it acknowledged your very method (bowel tolerance), and simply said "some people" prefer a more straightforward approach if they’ve found a well-tolerated dose.

 

The micromanagement reference was not about avoiding diarrhea or staying hydrated—those are obvious. It was about the obsessive loop some fall into when they try to fine-tune based on every minor change in urination or digestion, rather than sticking to what works for their body and letting it be. If that doesn’t apply to you, then good—it’s not aimed at you.

 

You ask for "other viable methods." Well, here’s one: choosing a dose based on long-term tolerance and maintaining it without hitting bowel tolerance. That’s what many people do—some for years—because it’s effective for them and doesn't interfere with their day-to-day life. That is a viable, real-world method, whether or not it fits into your specific protocol.

 

Your repeated claims that this is a “non-issue” are based entirely on your framing. The article is for people trying to simplify their health routines, not for those navigating extreme therapeutic regimes or aiming for gram-level precision based on titration. Different use cases. Different audience.

 

Finally, your insistence on marking posts as “AI fantasy” is just unnecessary and, frankly, a little paranoid. If you don’t like AI-generated content, that’s your prerogative—but other members can judge a post on its own merits. You’re not the arbiter of what gets shared.

 

I’m not trying to convert anyone or rewrite orthomolecular science. Just offering an accessible perspective for those who want one. If that’s offensive to you, so be it.

 

 

 

pamojja, I understand that you're passionate about this topic, but you're still misrepresenting both the content and intent of the original post.

 

First off, labeling something as “AI garbage” because it doesn’t mirror your preferred narrative is not critical thinking—it’s gatekeeping. The article was a general reflection, not a deep orthomolecular treatise. You’re treating it like it claimed to be the new Bible of vitamin C dosing, when in fact it acknowledged your very method (bowel tolerance), and simply said "some people" prefer a more straightforward approach if they’ve found a well-tolerated dose.

 

The micromanagement reference was not about avoiding diarrhea or staying hydrated—those are obvious. It was about the obsessive loop some fall into when they try to fine-tune based on every minor change in urination or digestion, rather than sticking to what works for their body and letting it be. If that doesn’t apply to you, then good—it’s not aimed at you.

 

You ask for "other viable methods." Well, here’s one: choosing a dose based on long-term tolerance and maintaining it without hitting bowel tolerance. That’s what many people do—some for years—because it’s effective for them and doesn't interfere with their day-to-day life. That is a viable, real-world method, whether or not it fits into your specific protocol.

 

Your repeated claims that this is a “non-issue” are based entirely on your framing. The article is for people trying to simplify their health routines, not for those navigating extreme therapeutic regimes or aiming for gram-level precision based on titration. Different use cases. Different audience.

 

Finally, your insistence on marking posts as “AI fantasy” is just unnecessary and, frankly, a little paranoid. If you don’t like AI-generated content, that’s your prerogative—but other members can judge a post on its own merits. You’re not the arbiter of what gets shared.

 

I’m not trying to convert anyone or rewrite orthomolecular science. Just offering an accessible perspective for those who want one. If that’s offensive to you, so be it.

 

 

[pamojja]

You ask for "other viable methods." Well, here’s one: choosing a dose based on long-term tolerance and maintaining it without hitting bowel tolerance. That’s what many people do—some for years—because it’s effective for them and doesn't interfere with their day-to-day life. That is a viable, real-world method, whether or not it fits into your specific protocol.

 

Again, titrating to bowel-tolerance was never intended for everyone, but to explore a potentially most beneficial dose in disease states. Some may advise it in such a case for optimization, but it was never intended for regular supplementation, even in multi-gram doses. Knowing of the possible side effect of diarrhea with too high doses, is of course a beneficial knowledge, with high enough doses. But all this still isn't micromanaging in any way. (different objectives, no continuous managing at all)

 

Linus Pauling for example framed it this way:

 

How to Live Longer and Feel Better

• Take vitamin C every day, 6 grams to 18 g (6000 to 18,000 milligrams), or more. Do not miss a single day.
• Take vitamin E every day, 400 IU, 800 IU, or 1600 IU.
• Take one or two Super-B tablets every day, to provide good amounts of the B-vitamins.
• Take 25,000 IU vitamin A tablet every day.
• Take a mineral supplement every day, such as one tablet of the Bronson vitamin-mineral formula, which provides 100 mg of calcium, 18 mg of iron, 0.15 mg of iodine, 1 mg of copper, 25 mg of magnesium, 3 mg of manganese, 15 mg of zinc, 0.015 mg of molybdenum, 0.015 mg of chromium, and 0.015 mg of selenium.
• Keep your intake of ordinary sugar (sucrose, raw sugar, brown sugar, honey) to 50 pounds per year, which is half the present U.S. average. Do not add sugar to tea or coffee. Do not eat high-sugar foods. Avoid sweet desserts. Do not drink soft drink.
• Except for avoiding sugar, eat what you like - but not too much of any one food. Eggs and meat are good foods. Also you should eat some vegetables and fruits. Do not eat so much food as to become obese.
• Drink plenty of water every day.
• Keep active; take some exercise. Do not at any time exert yourself physically to an extent far beyond what you are accustomed to.
• Drink alcoholic beverages only in moderation.
• Do not smoke cigarettes.
• Avoid stress. Work at a job that you like. Be happy with your family.

 

There isn't any micromanaging advise for regular high ascorbic acid intake, even by its most known proponent!

 

That’s what many people do—some for years—because it’s effective for them and doesn't interfere with their day-to-day life.

 

Just as it was meant. Nobody is micromanaging because of multi-gram intake. Titrating to bowel-tolerance, with a completely different objective, is impossible to be classified as 'micromanaging'. Basic health consciousness of excretions, neither. A non-existing issue. Garbage. It has always been that simple.

 

 Your repeated claims that this is a “non-issue” are based entirely on your framing. The article is for people trying to simplify their health routines, not for those navigating extreme therapeutic regimes or aiming for gram-level precision based on titration

 

It's based on knowledge. There is nobody micromanaging without special health objectives (unless with an obsessive personality disorder, who won't be remedied by your article anyway). The people you wanted to address are not existing.

 

This isn't about religion. Either something exists, or it doesn't. Micromanaging of high dose ascorbic acid intake without diseases doesn't exist in anyone alive or death. Or otherwise, name me just one such individual you wanted to address.

Edited by pamojja, 19 April 2025 - 12:44 PM.

[osris]

Your unwavering certainty is noted, but once again you’re mistaking your own narrow interpretation as the only valid reality. You insist that “micromanagement doesn’t exist” because you’ve defined it so rigidly that no real-world nuance is allowed to enter. That’s a philosophical error, not a physiological insight.

 

The original article—and my comments—were never claiming people are conducting lab-level analytics on their daily vitamin C use. “Micromanagement,” in this context, refers to the excessive concern some individuals may feel over minor variations in response—things like stressing about urine color, stool consistency, or whether they’ve optimized every last milligram. That kind of behaviour does exist in the health world, particularly among newcomers, the anxious, or the overly self-monitoring. Whether you think that’s valid is irrelevant to the fact that it happens.

 

You ask for an example of someone like that. Ironically, your presence on this thread—with your relentless insistence that everyone must agree on your exact semantics, or else they’re spreading “garbage”—pretty much answers your own question.

 

You cite Pauling as if his advice closes the case. But his guidelines were meant for people exploring longevity and wellness, not religious dogma. The fact he didn’t mention “micromanagement” doesn’t mean people won’t overthink their approach anyway—especially in today’s environment of conflicting advice and high information exposure.

 

You’re not obliged to like AI-generated material. But your repeated attempts to invalidate perspectives that don’t align with yours come off more like ideological policing than dialogue.

 

[pamojja]

The problem is: Out of your personal anxiety issue, you just created and magnified the next never ceasing vitamin C internet myth. And I will stand firm in countering those without any evidence, other than misconceptions. Just as with the kidney stone etc. myths.

 

 

“Micromanagement,” in this context, refers to the excessive concern some individuals may feel over minor variations in response—things like stressing about urine color, stool consistency, or whether they’ve optimized every last milligram. That kind of behaviour does exist in the health world, particularly among newcomers, the anxious, or the overly self-monitoring.

 

I know of one patient group, where such basic self-care usually fails. It's acutely intoxicated long term alcoholics, which wet or soil their pants without self-defense. It's a necessary, basic self-care response in our society. If one has anxiety or stresses out about something with intact self-defense, then there simply isn't any causal relationship from ascorbic acid. There is however the high risk of self-medicating anxiety with alcohol.

 

In itself, it is a totally valid obsessive behavior. Just doesn't have anything to do with vitamin C. And it's a lie in respect to high-dose ascorbic acid users, who for the largest part don't fear, obsess, or stress about it. Simply because they have experienced years of nothing bad happening with high dose ascorbic acid. But the opposite. Any AI, producing so much nuclear waste, should know better. Otherwise, it's just garbage. Nuclear waste for thousands of years.

 

Don't try to self-treat your anxiety with AI chatbots, either. As it can be clearly seen here, it just mirrored your belief bubble, and couldn't discern your misconceptions, nor your real anxiety issue. And in reality only gave a solution not working against your or anyone else's anxiety issues. Placebo.

 

Ever heard of project lavender? If humans don't turn on their brain in respect to AI, then it soon will be history. That is basic self-defense against a real threat. Use AI to get more discerning instead, if you still can.

 

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 19 April 2025 - 06:05 PM.

[osris]

You’ve now crossed into personal attacks and baseless psychoanalysis, which does nothing to elevate the conversation. Attributing someone’s perspective to “an anxiety issue” and equating their reasoning with substance abuse is not only wildly inappropriate but also deeply offensive. Speculating about someone's mental health or coping strategies based on a forum post is presumptuous at best and hostile at worst. 

 

Your example of alcoholics who “wet or soil their pants” as the only group failing basic self-care is a strange, dehumanizing tangent that has no relevance to the actual topic. The original point was that some health-conscious individuals—especially newcomers—can become preoccupied with benign bodily signals, like changes in urine color or digestion. That’s not about losing control of basic hygiene; it’s about overinterpreting minor feedback in the early stages of health experimentation. It happens across many supplements and health practices, not just vitamin C, and pretending otherwise ignores reality.

 

You continue to mischaracterize the original piece as an attack on vitamin C or its users. It’s not. It’s an observation of behavioural tendencies some people fall into—particularly those new to high-dose regimes or prone to over-monitoring. If that doesn't apply to you or the seasoned crowd you're referencing, great. That doesn’t mean it “doesn’t exist.”

 

If you want to continue this discussion, drop the personal diagnoses and keep it grounded in science.

 

[pamojja]

Sorry, no personal diagnoses, but your own words:

 

“Micromanagement,” in this context, refers to the excessive concern some individuals may feel over minor variations in response—things like stressing about urine color, stool consistency, or whether they’ve optimized every last milligram. That kind of behaviour does exist in the health world, particularly among newcomers, the anxious, or the overly self-monitoring.

 

No need for additional inappropriate diagnosis from me. All these cases have to do with anxiety, and with absolutely no causal relation to high dose vitamin C intake.

 

Your example of alcoholics who “wet or soil their pants” as the only group failing basic self-care is a strange, dehumanizing tangent

 

Depends on the context. It was the only example that came to mind, about failing self-care and self-defense. The reason is, I work in a nighttime homeless shelter. I am the one who cleans, with all human dignity I can muster. And I don't regret once, because not seldom those are the ones who pass away too soon.

 

You continue to mischaracterize the original piece as an attack on vitamin C or its users. It’s not.

 

You do create a further myth not based in evidence about vitamin C, which surely in the future again will be used, intentionally or otherwise, against vitamin C and its users.

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 19 April 2025 - 06:50 PM.

[osris]

You say "Sorry, no personal diagnoses..." but you said earlier "The problem is: Out of your personal anxiety issue...". So obviously you were making a personal diagnosis.

 

That said, the analogy you used still doesn’t track in this discussion. There’s a difference between the tragic collapse of basic self-care in extreme cases of addiction, and the subtle but real over-monitoring tendencies that can arise among the health-conscious. The former is not a useful or relevant comparison for the latter.

 

Also, yes—those behaviors are associated with anxiety. That doesn't make every person who tracks bodily responses anxious, (you do it yourself and happily report your results ad nauseum on this forum) nor does it mean vitamin C itself causes anxiety. Nowhere did I suggest that. What I did say is that in health spaces, especially among newcomers, anxious or obsessive behavior around optimizing supplement regimens can occur. That is observable, and acknowledging it is not creating a myth. It’s a basic behavioral observation, not an attack on vitamin C or its users.

 

I don't deny the value of ascorbic acid. And I haven't discouraged anyone from using it. Indeed, I started a thread a few days ago about how megadosing it was a good thing.

I am simply aiming to help people simplify their approach where they want to. That is not anti-vitamin C. Framing it that way only reinforces the idea that any nuance is somehow betrayal.

 

Edited by osris, 20 April 2025 - 09:59 AM.

[osris]

 

 

 

Don't try to self-treat your anxiety with AI chatbots, either. As it can be clearly seen here, it just mirrored your belief bubble

 

 

That's a mischaracterization. I'm not using AI to “self-treat” anything. I’ve used it the same way anyone might use a tool—for clarification, reflection, and feedback. That doesn't make it a surrogate therapist or a symptom of some imagined anxiety disorder.

 

Your broader implication—that AI can’t offer useful input because it only reflects the user's bias—is simplistic. AI can reinforce bias if the user only seeks confirmation or deliberately filters prompts to get specific outcomes. That’s not how I’ve used it. In fact, I’ve asked it to challenge assumptions and test logic. 

 

Trying to discredit someone’s argument by claiming the tool they used must be flawed because you don’t like the tool is just another deflection. Argue the ideas, not the medium.

[pamojja]

You say "Sorry, no personal diagnoses..." but you said earlier "The problem is: Out of your personal anxiety issue...". So obviously you were making a personal diagnosis.

 

I said that, after you extensively clarified, what you actually meant with 'micromanagement'. Which is actually the most crucial point in this discussion, because it turned out something completely different as appearing in the OP (titrating and urine monitoring), Therefore I was repeating your own assessment only. 

 

In no way an inappropriate diagnosis beyond what you before admitted yourself.

 

You now had this extensive post deleted (yesterday by 4:01 PM). But precautionary, I did quote an excerpt from your deleted post above.

 

 Screenshot 2025-04-20 125223.png   26.75KB   0 downloads

 

Instead of informing me in advance about this deletion, you now make it appear I would have mentioned, without you admitting it voluntarily before! - How silly such dishonest maneuvering can get, if a discussion serves only to boost one's self-image?

 

That said, the analogy you used still doesn’t track in this discussion. There’s a difference between the tragic collapse of basic self-care in extreme cases of addiction, and the subtle but real over-monitoring tendencies that can arise among the health-conscious. The former is not a useful or relevant comparison for the latter.

 

I brought up the difference between necessary self-care, its complete collapse, and the unnecessary worrying, exactly to show this difference. You're not really reading carefully.
 

Also, yes—those behaviors are associated with anxiety. That doesn't make every person who tracks bodily responses anxious, (you do it yourself and happily report your results ad nauseum on this forum) nor does it mean vitamin C itself causes anxiety. Nowhere did I suggest that. What I did say is that in health spaces, especially among newcomers, anxious or obsessive behavior around optimizing supplement regimens can occur. That is observable, and acknowledging it is not creating a myth. It’s a basic behavioral observation, not an attack on vitamin C or its users.

 

You wrongly mingle differentiated context whenever it seems opportune to you. Which is what caused the confusion in your OP in the first place.

 

There is obsessive inquiry by a scientist. For finding something not known before.

There is obsessive inquiry by a patient. For finding the mechanisms which support recovery.

There isn't obsessive inquiry by a high dose vitamin C user per se. Unless a patient or scientist oneself.

 

Then there is in your own, but now deleted words:

 

“Micromanagement,” in this context, refers to the excessive concern some individuals may feel over minor variations in response—things like stressing about urine color, stool consistency, or whether they’ve optimized every last milligram. That kind of behaviour does exist in the health world, particularly among newcomers, the anxious, or the overly self-monitoring.

 

Such individuals suffering such a high level of anxiety never proceed to become persistent multi-gram ascorbate users.

 

I pointed out already much earlier: an obsessive anxiety issue can't be corrected by such misapprehending logic, as in the OP, and throughout your posts.
 

There is nobody micromanaging without special health objectives (unless with an obsessive personality disorder, who won't be remedied by your article anyway).

 

 

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 20 April 2025 - 12:02 PM.

[osris]

You’re doubling down on a bad faith reading while also misrepresenting the timeline. I haven’t deleted any posts. If you believe I did, produce a mod note or archived proof — otherwise, retract the accusation. It’s false and unnecessary. Here is the post you say I deleted. If I deleted it, how come it is still in this thread:

https://www.longecit...nt/#entry934786

 

You also continue to twist a neutral observation about behavioral patterns into some personal pathology. Quoting a sentence I wrote to describe common tendencies among health newcomers and saying that “I admitted to a personal anxiety issue” is not honest engagement. It’s rhetorical sleight of hand. You’re conflating the general with the personal again and again.

 

Your comparison to alcoholics was and remains an unhelpful analogy. It was jarring and didn’t land. Your explanation — about working in a shelter — is appreciated for the human context it provides, but it doesn’t suddenly make the original point logically relevant. The analogy still fails.

 

You say things like “no obsessive person would persist with multi-gram ascorbate intake,” but that’s not only speculative, it’s demonstrably untrue if you spend time in broader health spaces. People do obsess over supplements, including vitamin C, and some do persist with it for years — precisely because of that obsession. That doesn’t invalidate C’s efficacy. It just shows the psychology of health optimization has a spectrum of behavior. This is a known phenomenon, not some anti-vitamin-C “myth.”

 

Lastly, stop suggesting this discussion is about “boosting one’s self-image.” That’s projection. I’m engaging ideas. You keep steering it into character assessment.

 

Stick to the topic. Drop the distortions.

Edited by osris, 20 April 2025 - 03:39 PM.

[pamojja]

 It’s false and unnecessary. Here is the post you say I deleted. If I deleted it, how come it is still in this thread:

https://www.longecit...nt/#entry934786

 

 

See the timestamp of the post you linked to now: Posted Yesterday, 03:01 PM

 

Compare to the timestamp of your deleted post: "osris, on 19 Apr 2025 - 4:01 PM, said:" - another, an hour later posted, today deleted.

 

 Screenshot 2025-04-20 125223.png   26.75KB   0 downloads

 

If you're still unsure, jump to my post #13 above, where I quoted an excerpt of your deleted post: https://www.longecit...ndpost&p=934793

 

Then to the right of its different timestamp, click on its arrow, which should jump to the quoted post. It doesn't, but jumps instead to the top of the thread, because obviously this post of you quoted there, has been deleted.

 

I didn't say you deleted, which you can't. But I'm sure a moderator would delete any post with too personal information accidentally added for you, if asked for.

 

You did a bad job in hiding the trails to your cheat.

 

 

You could have just asked me, to also delete my post, with confidential information quoted. Instead you chose to disparage me, without regard for your own confidential quote. Your acts here throughout lack coherence.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 20 April 2025 - 04:20 PM.

[osris]

 

See the timestamp of the post you linked to now: Posted Yesterday, 03:01 PM

 

Compare to the timestamp of your deleted post: "osris, on 19 Apr 2025 - 4:01 PM, said:" - another, an hour later posted, today deleted.

 

Screenshot 2025-04-20 125223.png

 

If you're still unsure, jump to my post #13 above, where I quoted an excerpt of your deleted post: https://www.longecit...ndpost&p=934793

 

Then to the right of its different timestamp, click on its arrow, which should jump to the quoted post. It doesn't, but jumps instead to the top of the thread, because obviously this post of you quoted there, has been deleted.

 

I didn't say you deleted, which you can't. But I'm sure a moderator would delete any post with too personal information accidentally added for you, if asked for.

 

You did a bad job in hiding the trails to your cheat.

 

 

You could have just asked me, to also delete my post, with confidential information quoted. Instead you chose to disparage me, without regard for your own confidential quote. Your acts here throughout lack coherence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice try.
 

See attachment of a screenshot showing that you said I had deleted it. Now you say I haven't and that it is still there but the time stamp has changed. Did you photoshop that too, I wonder.

Just for the record, here is a list of the poor arguments and lack of debating skills you have displayed in this thread so far:
 

Here’s a list of the logical errors, flawed reasoning, and other questionable tactics you've employed in this thread so far. 

 

 

1. Personalization of Argument (Ad Hominem / Psychologizing)

 

Claim: “Out of your personal anxiety issue...”

Problem: An attempt to pathologize my viewpoint instead of addressing its content. Classic ad hominem circumstantial — discrediting the message by smearing the messenger.

 

2. Moving the Goalposts

 

Initial Argument: You focused on disputing the idea of “micromanagement” or “over-monitoring” in high-dose C users.

Shifted Argument: You reframed my clarification as an admission of anxiety and used it as a foundation to build further attacks.

  

3. Strawman Argument

 

Example: You repeatedly argued as if I claimed vitamin C causes anxiety or that all C users are obsessive.

Problem: You misrepresented my argument to make it easier to refute. I never made those claims.

 

4. False Analogy

 

Example: You compared anxious health optimization to alcoholics soiling themselves.

Problem: These are not remotely comparable scenarios. One is extreme collapse of basic function, the other is nuanced over-monitoring in health-conscious people. The analogy is designed to ridicule rather than clarify.

 

5. Projection

 

Example: You accused me of dishonesty and post deletion (which didn’t occur), while making false claims and misrepresentations yourself.

Problem: This redirects scrutiny away from your own tactics by attributing them to me.

 

6. Gaslighting / Revisionist Framing

 

Example: “I was only repeating your own assessment...” after clearly issuing an unsolicited diagnosis.

Problem: This attempts to reframe prior statements to appear blameless after being called out, while denying previous intent.

 

7. Slippery Slope

 

Example: You suggest my clarification might be “used in future” to attack vitamin C and its users.

Problem: This invents hypothetical harms and uses them to justify suppressing discussion — logical exaggeration.

 

8. No True Scotsman Fallacy

 

Example: “Such individuals suffering a high level of anxiety never proceed to become persistent multi-gram ascorbate users.”

Problem: This is an unfalsifiable purity test to dismiss real-world nuance. If someone does both, you redefine them out of the group.

 

9. Circular Reasoning

 

Example: “There is no obsessive behavior among high dose users, because those who are obsessive don’t persist as high dose users.”

Problem: This assumes the conclusion within the premise, bypassing evidence.

 

10. Argument from Authority (without transparency)

 

Example: “I work in a shelter, I clean up after people who soil themselves.”

Problem: You use your job as a moral high ground to justify a grotesque analogy, without establishing its relevance to my point.

 

11. Appeal to Consequences

 

Example: “Your clarification creates another myth that will be used to attack vitamin C in future.”

Problem: This dismisses a legitimate observation because it might have inconvenient outcomes — not because it’s incorrect.

 

12. Tone Policing

 

Example: You accused me of “dishonest maneuvering” and “boosting self-image.”

Problem: You avoid engaging with my  reasoning by policing my tone or presumed motive.

 

13. Double Standards

 

Example: You insist on absolute evidence for behavioral claims I made, while offering sweeping generalizations about vitamin C users with no evidence yourself.

Problem: You apply scrutiny only when it benefits your position.

Attached Files

•  Capture.JPG   45.29KB   0 downloads

[pamojja]

See attachment of a screenshot showing that you said I had deleted it. Now you say I haven't and that it is still there but the time stamp has changed. Did you photoshop that too, I wonder.

 

??? - A screenshot just from my post #16 above? What you wanted to show with it? When I ever said 'you' deleted, I meant by the help of a moderator (as already explained). No simple forum member can delete or edit one's posts after a certain short time period, as everyone here probably knows.

 

The time stamps might be different for you, because you live in a different time zone? It remains however consistent in the same time zone.

 

I couldn't possibly have photoshopped my post #13 above in this forum, with the original quote of your deleted post. Nor does your post #10, which you now linked to as the allegedly still there quoted post of you, has the same timestamp. In every timezone.

 

Edited by pamojja, 20 April 2025 - 05:24 PM.

[pamojja]

Here’s a list of the logical errors, flawed reasoning, and other questionable tactics you've employed in this thread so far.

 

You're really a master of deflecting from the original issue in the OP, with the misapprehension of high-dose vitamin users per se allegedly being obsessively monitoring.

 

Since you are so good at it, can you do me the favor - change perspective - and find the exact same fallacies of logical discussions in your own posts in this thread?

 

 

 

 

 

[Fred_CALICO]

####  "天不會塌下來。####

''are more akin to ideological surveillance than to dialogue.'' |-> return #### 

[osris]

You're really a master of deflecting from the original issue in the OP, with the misapprehension of high-dose vitamin users per se allegedly being obsessively monitoring.

 

Since you are so good at it, can you do me the favor - change perspective - and find the exact same fallacies of logical discussions in your own posts in this thread?

 

Bow out now, and save some face. It's getting cringeworthy now. 

[osris]

??? - A screenshot just from my post #16 above? What you wanted to show with it? When I ever said 'you' deleted, I meant by the help of a moderator (as already explained). No simple forum member can delete or edit one's posts after a certain short time period, as everyone here probably knows.

 

The time stamps might be different for you, because you live in a different time zone? It remains however consistent in the same time zone.

 

I couldn't possibly have photoshopped my post #13 above in this forum, with the original quote of your deleted post. Nor does your post #10, which you now linked to as the allegedly still there quoted post of you, has the same timestamp. In every timezone.

 

Lol.

 

You claimed I had deleted a post. That was false. Now you're trying to retroactively insert qualifiers like "by the help of a moderator" — but that wasn’t in your original accusation. Nor was there any "deleted post." You fabricated the claim, got caught, and now you're scrambling to muddy the waters.

 

The timestamp shift you're trying to invoke is irrelevant. The post you claimed was deleted is still there, readable, and accessible by everyone. No moderator was involved. Nothing vanished. Nothing was hidden.

 

You continue to behave as though this thread is a courtroom drama you're trying to win through procedural tricks and rhetorical flourishes. It's not. You're just showing everyone how weak your position really is — and how far you're willing to stretch the truth to preserve it.

[pamojja]

My post #13 is still untouched, since when and where I quoted an excerpt of your now deleted post. The link in that quote doesn't lead to its original post anymore. And that is the by all practical means, we have on a public forum, the evidence for a deleted post.
 

“Micromanagement,” in this context, refers to the excessive concern some individuals may feel over minor variations in response—things like stressing about urine color, stool consistency, or whether they’ve optimized every last milligram. That kind of behaviour does exist in the health world, particularly among newcomers, the anxious, or the overly self-monitoring.

 

All the while, after many more posts by you, you never denied that this quote was originally written by you, now nowhere found. Such ignoring of wrongly being attributed words, would be very unlikely, if you indeed thought it faked. You didn't once.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 20 April 2025 - 08:24 PM.

[pamojja]

I apologize for my mistake. The quoted excerpt indeed still exists, actually in post #10. And I was only confused by the differing timestamps, and the dysfunctional link to it.

 

So sorry, I accused Osris wrongly of having deleted a quoted post. Next time, I will check first with a search for a missed quote.

 

If the Moderator team and Osris deem it necessary to clean up this thread, from my misguided accusations about a deleted post, please feel free to.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 20 April 2025 - 10:59 PM.

[osris]

 

My post #13 is still untouched, since when and where I quoted an excerpt of your now deleted post. The link in that quote doesn't lead to its original post anymore. And that is the by all practical means, we have on a public forum, the evidence for a deleted post.
 

 

All the while, after many more posts by you, you never denied that this quote was originally written by you, now nowhere found. Such ignoring of wrongly being attributed words, would be very unlikely, if you indeed thought it faked. You didn't once.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You’re still repeating the same falsehood despite being corrected.

 

I never deleted any post. The quote you keep recycling is from a publicly viewable and currently accessible post—*my post #10*, which remains intact and timestamped. The idea that it's “nowhere found” is false. Anyone can verify that.

 

You originally said I “now had this extensive post deleted.” That’s a direct claim of deletion, not “edited” or “removed by mod.” You then doubled down by accusing me of hiding it to “cheat.” Now you’re pretending you only ever meant moderator removal, even though your original accusation clearly implies intent and action on my part.

 

Also, let’s be clear: quoting someone’s words and then saying “you never denied them” doesn’t validate your conspiracy theory. I didn’t “ignore” anything — I addressed your tactics directly and transparently. What you’re doing now is revisionist, and transparently so.

 

If this is the best evidence you have, then your case is built on sand. You made a false accusation, got caught, and now you’re scrambling. Not a good look.

[osris]

 

I apologize for my mistake. The quoted excerpt indeed still exists, actually in post #10. And I was only confused by the differing timestamps, and the dysfunctional link to it.

 

So sorry, I accused Osris wrongly of having deleted a quoted post. Next time, I will check first with a search for a missed quote.

 

If the Moderator team and Osris deem it necessary to clean up this thread, from my misguided accusations about a deleted post, please feel free to.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I accept your apology. Let's not take this further. It's going nowhere.

[pamojja]

I didn’t “ignore” anything — I addressed your tactics directly and transparently. What you’re doing now is revisionist, and transparently so.

 

If this is the best evidence you have, then your case is built on sand. You made a false accusation, got caught, and now you’re scrambling. Not a good look.

 

Well, I did find my mistake, of my repeated wrong accusation of a deleted post, by doing a browser site search for the respective quote yesterday evening after post #26. Discovering my mistake, I immediately, still within the editing-period, deleted its other content, and instead apologized for it right there.

 

Before that, still mistaken, I even asked moderators to verify, if a post could have vanished by a tech-glitch or deletion.
 

Yes, my mistake was build on sand. Once found out myself by a simple search, I apologized. But no, I'm not scrambling, but am still upright in honesty.

 

 

You’re still repeating the same falsehood despite being corrected.

 

I didn't repeat any mistake, once found it to be a mistake as described above, but defined it, and apologized for.

 

 

Also, let’s be clear: quoting someone’s words and then saying “you never denied them” doesn’t validate your conspiracy theory. I didn’t “ignore” anything — I addressed your tactics directly and transparently. What you’re doing now is revisionist, and transparently so.

 

To further accuse an already apologized for mistake, in my perceptions and further boosting speculations - of a 'conspiracy theory', or as a 'revisionist' - is now an equal mistake in your perception and further speculations. Where you too are now free (if you recognize and regret), to apologize for.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 21 April 2025 - 10:02 AM.

[pamojja]

You say things like “no obsessive person would persist with multi-gram ascorbate intake,” but that’s not only speculative, it’s demonstrably untrue if you spend time in broader health spaces.

 

My long time experience in broader health spaces since my diagnosis of PAD in 2009 is, what let me read about innumerable individual cases. Was a frequent poster on the forums of Longecity here, TrackYourPlaque, HeartLifeTalk, PhoenixRising, and of course the now defunct VitaminCFountation - where I met with far the most multi-gram vitamin C users. On each of those forums participating with about 2000 posts in average.

 

The most unlikely individual, allergic to dietary C - having to avoid even Citrus fruits - was met here on LongeCity years ago. So I very well remember, especially the rarest or possible experiences, even with dietary vitamin C.
 

During all those years, of course, I heard lots about the plight of overly anxious people too. But not once in one taking persistently multi-gram vitamin C.

 

All that is of course observational only, not really demonstrable, but still far from 'only speculative'.

 

 

This is the very reason why I was triggered so much by Osris' ChatGPT article, which - in comparison - is speculative only throughout (unless giving the source reverence to at least one such individual). In defining unlikely clients, and suggesting a solution to them. Which in itself, is demonstrably the course of action of every persistent multi-gram user today anyway.

 

The real reason why there are no overly-anxious using multi-gram vitamin C persistently, might solely be caused by the nature of such cases: too many additional worries don't allow proceeding for any period of time.

However, I would be open to be convinced by just one case. Therefore, do provide, if anyone is able to. If such a case, and against my extensive encounters with users, do indeed exist. Then it would be most interesting to find out, how the detrimental anxiety was overcome, to be able to proceed successfully in multi-gram dosing.

 

Despite my own mistakes, extensively demonstrated in this thread, I still strongly doubt for given reasons, anyone would overcome anxiety by such speculative (ie. without a single case) reasoning, as presented in the article of this thread.