Does natural vitamin C differ from artificial vitamin C chemically?

[SF]

I keep hearing people praise "natural" products even beyond the limits of the laws of physics!
For example, a friend of mine who studies medicine said that natural vitamin C has different effects than artificial different C (the artificial one has some side effects) even though they have the same chemical structure.
And he's going to be a freaking doctor! I'm sorry I can't remember what the specific difference was.

If there is any truth to these claims, then it must relate to the manufacturing process: artificial vitamin C may come together with other by-products that cause the side-effects, while natural vitamin C comes together with other plant stuff that might help the body.

Thoughts on this?

 

[my_wan]

It has nothing to do with being natural or un-natural. It is well known that many artifical vitimin C products are far less absorbant and it is well known why, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esterification" . There are no "side effect" other that less efficiency.

 

[jonmah]

I don't understand exactly what you mean by 'natural' products. Do you mean a comparison like extracted vitamin C tablets as opposed to 'natural' vitamin C from friuts, veggies, etc. or another comparison like organically grown veggies as opposed to chemically-treated crops?

Cause if it were the first example I gave, then it would be obvious that 'natural' is almost always better because the natural produce contains a plethora of other nutrients which complement the vitamin C content in the food.

Lots of examples can be given, but yes, I understand where you're coming from about the heaps of praise people give to 'natural' products. It might be justified, but more often than not it's just blown out of proportion.