Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41424103›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of nutrition2026

Are the UK's vitamin C recommendations evidence-based? A critical comment.

Harri Hemilä, Elizabeth Chalker

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Harri HemiläDepartment of Public Health, University of Helsinkihttps://ror.org/040af2s02, POB 20, FI-00014Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4710-307X
Elizabeth ChalkerNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT2601, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is substantial international variation in recommended vitamin C intake levels. In the USA, the recommendation is 90 mg/d for men and 75 mg/d for women, while in the UK, the current recommendation – established in 1991 – is only 40 mg/d for adults. This UK level was based on the 1953 Sheffield study, which found that 10 mg/d prevents scurvy, with 40 mg/d chosen as the recommended level for yielding somewhat higher plasma levels. In this commentary, we argue that the UK recommendation overlooked key evidence available at the time. Specifically, at least six controlled trials published before 1991 reported benefits from vitamin C supplementation in participants whose baseline vitamin C intake was already 40 mg/d or higher. One randomised controlled trial, published in 1993, found benefits from vitamin C supplementation even at a baseline intake of about 500 mg/d; however, this trial involved ultramarathon runners, and the findings should not be broadly generalised. Nonetheless, such results challenge the assumption that 40 mg/d is universally adequate to maintain full health. We also highlight that the UK recommendations were narrowly focused on preventing dermatological symptoms of scurvy, despite strong evidence – even at the time – that vitamin C deficiency can also cause cardiac dysfunction and greater morbidity due to respiratory infections. We conclude that the current UK vitamin C recommendation should be re-evaluated in light of controlled trial evidence and broader clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Ascorbic AcidEvidence-Based MedicineNutrition PolicyRecommended Dietary AllowancesAdultAscorbic Acid DeficiencyDietary SupplementsFemaleHumansMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicScurvyUnited KingdomAscorbic AcidCommon coldCVDDeficiency diseasesNutrition policyRecommended dietary allowancesRespiratory infectionsScurvy

Identifiers

PMID41424103
PMCPMC12929015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.