The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
what's driving the variation in these findings it's likely multiple confounding factors such as the dose and duration of vitamin C supplementation or whether vitamin C is taken alone or with other antioxidants like vitamin E on the other hand the study's participants physical fitness and baseline vitamin C levels could also contribute to the varying results
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the differences in these findings of these two studies might be due to the dose and duration of vitamin C and vitamin E supplementation in relation to exercise
but some studies using lower doses between 200 milligrams and 1 gram per day suggest that vitamin C has no effect on physical adaptations to exercise
furthermore supplementation of vitamin C might affect exercise induced oxidative stress and training adaptations differently depending on an individual's baseline vitamin C levels
again there seems to be a fine line between exercise intensity duration and frequency vitamin C dose and whether other antioxidants were taken
The other thing to pay attention to here is when we say adaptation uh attenuation, it's not blocking. It doesn't mean you're getting zero. It's you're getting 5% less, 10% less, like some amount that matters. But it's not zero.