Quote (Lil_Gueto @ Jun 16 2016 08:44am)
I came across an old word doc I had with some research articles/studies from a couple years back. ISO Balla, lightman etc. Wondering wat your thoughts are pertaining to the following
http://www.healthresearch.com/vitamins.htm -- "Natural vitamins appear to be superior to Synthetic vitamins" -- iirc lightman had an argument that synthetic and natural are exactly the same, say for example vitamin A, each (ntty and synthetic) consist of the molecular formula of C20H30O
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23919405 -- "Based on the magnitude inferences it appears that consuming creatine immediately post-workout is superior to pre-workout vis a vis body composition and strength"
Vitamins are organic compounds that often contain chiral carbons so there are identical versions of some molecules that are mirror images of each other. Like your right and left hands are nearly identical, but mirror opposites. Some of these mirror versions or stereoisomers aren't biologically active, often only one or two stereo isomers out of a set produce effects. Somehow living matter has developed a way to synthesize mostly a specific, useful stereo isomer but based on laws of chance and luck when we synthesize things in lab we tend to produce equal ratios or ratios that are based on the predilection of the chiral carbocations, not always useful to us. While in theory all vitamin isomers of the same stereo chemistry do the same thing regardless of how they were made, not all vitamin supplements have good ratios of the proper isomers and some vitamins need to be bound to ions or ligands to form salts for consumption, some complexes are more bioavailable than others and therefore efficacy changes