Why We Don't Include Vitamin C

Why not Vitamin C?

There is no question about efficacy at this point. We have a plethora of high quality evidence summarized by the Cochrane Systematic Review, stating that prophylactic Vitamin C supplementation does not decrease pneumonia or viral illness in the general population.

“Thirty trials involving 11,350 participants suggest that regular ingestion of vitamin C has no effect on common cold incidence in the ordinary population. It reduced the duration and severity of common cold symptoms slightly, although the magnitude of the effect was so small its clinical usefulness is doubtful.”

“Trials of high doses of vitamin C administered therapeutically (starting after the onset of symptoms), showed no consistent effect on either duration or severity of symptoms.”

So where did the “Vitamin C for illness” dogma come from?

It’s interesting, there are a lot of times in research where the findings of one study gets propagated for decades. It often requires multiple, large, well-done randomized controlled trials to even begin to challenge the “traditional thinking” that was based on that initial study.

Lets take a look at this 1971 study by Pauling, which summarizes Ritzel's work on Vitamin C from 1961… the study that started it all for Vitamin C:

In 1961, in a small city in Switzerland, Ritzel carried out his study at a ski resort with 279 skiers during two periods of 5-7 days. 

The investigation was double-blind, meaning neither the participants nor the physicians had any knowledge about the distribution of the ascorbic-acid tablets (1g) and the placebo tablets. The tablets were distributed every morning and taken by the subjects under observation, “so that the possibility of interchange of tablets was eliminated.” The subjects were examined daily for symptoms of colds and other infections. The records were largely on the basis of subjective symptoms, partially supported by objective observations (measurement of body temperature, inspection of the respiratory organs, auscultation of the lungs).

The number of colds was 31 for the placebo group of 140 subjects and 17 for the ascorbic-acid group of 139 subjects. Although the number of colds was not given explicitly in the paper, you can deduce the numbers by looking at other published data in the paper.

For example: the number of days of illness for each of the two groups was given (80 and 31), and the average number of days of illness per cold (2.6 and 1.8). The only integral values for the number of colds allowed by these numbers are 31 for the placebo group and 17 for the ascorbic-acid group.

I guess if you were going to ignore most of the large Randomized controlled trials that have followed in the next 5 decades, the most you could really say based on this study is: In a population that has exposure to cold, and skis as a form of physical activity, prophylactic Vitamin C, (instead of placebo), may have a small reduction in cold symptoms. 

When considering whether or not to include Vitamin C in our product, this is the type of process we are going through to make decisions. Again, you may not always agree with what we have chosen to include (or not include), but our hope is to provide a rationale for our decision making that puts your health first!

Although in this one specific population, there may be some small benefit in terms of reduction in cold symptoms, the body of literature since this 1961 study, supports the idea that “regular ingestion of vitamin C has no effect on common cold incidence in the ordinary population”