Log me on automatically each visit
It is currently Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:48 am
Post a new topic Post a reply  [ 1 post ]   
Author Message
 Post subject: DIY Lipo C
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2020 4:08 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 10:20 am
Posts: 498
From Palyne Gaenir post on Quora answering, Is there any demonstrative evidence that liposomal vitamin c is more efficiently absorbed than regular vitamin c? I have found one study that shows that it is actually not absorbed any better.

Yes there is. Aside from human experience you can easily test yourself. Even home-made micro-emulsified ascorbic (which is partially liposomal, though much of the liposomal size is likely larger than in the LivOn Labs commercial liposomal preparation) works better in this regard.

It is difficult to get decent funding let alone publication related to substances that cannot be patented and therefore have no profit margin to make investing in them economically worthy for most funding sources, and worse, are often in direct competition with the profit of those which are, so that’s always a consideration in substances like this. But anyway:

Liposomal encapsulations do have some research. Here’s one brief ref specific to regular vs. liposomal C (plus some other elements in the study). The graph compares just the two former:

lipo c.png

The Levels of Ascorbic Acid in Blood and Mononuclear Blood Cells After Oral Liposome-Encapsulated and Oral Non-Encapsulated Vitamin C Supplementation, Taken Without and with IV Hydrocortisone

Here is another study specific to a liposomal format for a pharmaceutical, not ascorbic. From the abstract:

Liposomes with 25% TEL could improve the oral bioavailability of octreotide 4.1-fold and one formulation with a cationic TEL derivative 4.6-fold. TEL-liposomes probably act by protecting the peptide in the gastro-intestinal tract.

Oral peptide delivery by tetraether lipid liposomes.

So the problem with ascorbic is that we were designed to create it endogenously; primates/humans and a few rare other creatures have a gene defect that wrecks the process at the last stage alas. Exogenous intake is minimal, and is via food which further buffers the osmotic effect it has in the bowel. So decent doses taken orally, to get even a decent fraction of what we’d get if we were creating it like we should (comparative to everything else in the animal kingdom), only barely absorb (~16% - 24% depending on a few factors plus whether it’s buffered). There is a caveat to this:

Ascorbic taken orally (even non-liposomal) can be used during its process through the upper intestine. If you have a serious illness, you can often take very large doses and none remains even get to the larger bowel to notice. But if you don’t have major immediate issues helping absorb it, it will continue into the bowel (lower intestine), where the osmotic effect of that molecule (similar to how magnesium works) will pull in water and will flush (you get the runs). The half-life of ascorbic is fairly short in the body though. If we created it endogenously like we should, we could be creating it constantly, and in quantity sufficient to respond to body’s need. (For example goats, under body duress, can make 15 grams in response.) So if you are taking ascorbic to deal with a serious bodily illness, it should be taken every 2–4 hours waking to sleeping.

Dr. Robert Cathcart did experiments with thousands of patients over nearly a decade, with bowel-tolerance titrating, to evaluate how much peoples' bodies would take before reaching bowel-tolerance when they had a given condition, from 'ordinary seemingly healthy' to 'viral pneumonia.' One of the things he discovered is that the cessation of primary symptoms -- in other words, the point where the ascorbic appeared to reach "critical mass" to outweigh the assault it was fighting -- happened just before bowel tolerance. So for the bloodstream, bowel-tolerance is the point where the ascorbic cannot fight off whatever-else is going on any faster; more ascorbic than that, taken orally, is just going to flush. (This may however be different for isolated areas of tissues.) It also provides some 'average' idea of how much daily ascorbic is going to be necessary to take care of various conditions, and how much one is going to have to take before any sign of improvement is likely to show. Here’s a summary pic of the paper, link is below.

2 lipo c.png


Now, the whole point of “liposomal encapsulation” whether pharmaceutical drug or natural element, is to bypass the otherwise ordinary forms of digestion, which may

1/ damage or reduce a substance, or

2/ rely on various transport processes which may work poorly if at all in some individuals or simply have quantitative limits for ‘how much/how fast’ they can work, or

3/ avoid the issue of the body’s lack of appropriate absorption mechanisms for the substance in quantity (which is a real issue with ascorbic, as noted well above).

It is IDEAL and is MADE FOR “water-soluble substances.” That is the entire point. That the water-soluble form of something is simply not making it to the absorption in tissues desired. Liposomal shifts the digestive process for the substance into the fats absorption instead.

In this case, the content is protected during digestion, and then is absorbed as fats via the peyer’s patches in the upper intestines, and sent to the liver.

The liver, well last I read anyway it’s been awhile, normally “unboxes” fats and then works with their components as necessary, sending them out to the body as needed. But if the size of the fat molecule is <200 nanometers, it is believed to simply “forward” it as-is rather than bothering to unbox it.

So there are theories — all probably correct and happening — about how the contents inside the liposomes are reaching absorption for assistance to the body:

1/ the liposomes if <200 nanometers are sent to tissues, and those tissues “unpack” the phospholipids to use them as building blocks, and when doing this, the contents “inside” that sphere “dump out into those local tissues”

2/ the liposomes if >200 nanometers are unboxed at the liver, and the materials dump into the liver instead. The liver benefits from this, but may also use it to send out to areas of the body which need it.

3/ in pharmaceuticals, sometimes the liposomes can have what is called a “seeker molecule” attached. This is something the body recognizes as “belonging to sector-X of the body” and the bloodstream automatically routes it there, and then (1) occurs.


I make a homemade “micro-emulsified” version of C. This uses sunflower lecithin powder, ascorbic acid powder, a blender, and a sonicator.

This was a process come up with by Dr. Brooks Bradley, who was a regional manager for Eli Lilly in the pharmaceutical industry for decades before retirement. Dr. Thomas Levy of LivOn Labs, which made the first liposomally-encapsulated ascorbic, had been showing Bradley what his company was doing. It required some specialty ingredients and process though. Bradley was noting the cost and wondering if it was possible to get an inferior — yet still vastly better than ordinary plain ascorbic — version of this made in a home setting. He was working in a lab that did a variety of experimentation and people had such good results that they had a third party lab try it and the encapsulation of their own formula was about 79%. (Note that says nothing about the size of the liposomes however.) This is a much lower % of “encapsulation” than the commercial LivOn variety. It also has majority of that encapsulation in most-likely-larger liposomes.

Later, the popularity of this in the alt-health areas of the internet was causing LivOn some distress. People won’t buy their product at $1/g if they can make it for 15–30% of that and in quantity at home after all. And more importantly, in their defense one should only use their pro formula in research as anything else is inferior and they didn’t want to see this DIY form indirectly contribute to a century long history of bias toward ascorbic in research, by seeing someone use something else to undermine C. They had their own 3rd party review and concluded it had 0% (zero) encapsulation. Funny because liposomes work like they do by nature — you would get a lot more than that dumping them into a mud puddle on a warm day and then testing it at night — so a lot of people (starting with me) didn’t believe it and felt the protocol — likely relating to temperature (which is how liposomes open/close) — was intentionally skewed to find this result. Anyway that remains rather controversial. Back to where I was going with this, though:

I am familiar with what my body will absorb at one time, when relatively healthy, prior to “exceeding bowel tolerance” (the flush or ‘runs’ effect), as I took C regularly. Usually, even 1g will slightly flush me 1.5g all at once nearly always will. If I take more than 3g within a day, I’ll flush. But so far I have been able to take up to 3g at once or 9g in a day (I haven’t tried more to know if the limit is higher) via the micro-emulsified format at once with no flush at all. So it is very obvious that my body absorbs it vastly better in this format than in either plain ascorbic, or buffered ascorbate, oral versions. I might add that before I spent the money and effort to try that, I read innumerable accounts from others saying the same thing. There would be no point to the bother and greater expense of doing this if it were not legitimately better absorbing and in a really big way. It is.

Lecithin (I use non-gmo sunflower version) has an inordinately long list of positive results on human health (lots of research on this). When I began taking this in quantity I had astoundingly good results in some areas that ascorbic allegedly is not related to and I didn’t understand, until I did more reading and realized those were related to the lecithin portion of the formula. So at this point, even if I could afford LivOn’s version (which I dislike because it’s in tiny 1g packages and includes alcohol) I would not use it, because I prefer to get the larger lecithin quantity in my supp. Which I must tell you tastes absolutely vile to me (ugh!). But is well worth it.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

OfflineProfileReply with quote
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topic Post a reply  [ 1 post ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to: