为什么USANA偏好锭剂胜过液体形式？

USANA的产品大部分都是一颗颗的，吞起来跟药丸没两样，为什么不做成用喝的呢？

我相信这个问题应该困扰着很多人，其实USANA网站的「询问科学家」里有解答，就让我们一起来了解一下原因吧。（翻译有问题的地方，烦请不吝指正阿。）

在翻译这篇文章的时候，我有找到一篇台北荣民总医院研究员林山阳先生写的「药品生体利用率与临床疗效」的文章，可以交互参考一下咯。

Question:Why does USANA prefer tablets over liquids?为什麽USANA偏好锭剂胜过液体形式？

Answer:Many liquid supplement manufacturers claim that because their product is in a liquid form it is more bioavailable. In fact, some even use phony statements regarding the Physician's Desk Reference to support such claims. The statement they reference about liquid supplements being more bioavailable first appeared in the PDR under a listing for a specific nutritional supplement product. That statement has since been removed because it was false and could not be substantiated.

很多液体补充品的製造商宣称因为他们的产品是液状的所以有较高的生体利用率。事实上，有一些人甚至根据PDR(医生桌上参考手册)上面错误的陈述来支持他们的主张。他们所参考的有关液状补充品具有较高的生体利用率陈述，一开始是出现在PDR手册裡的”特定营养补充品”的项目裡。这个陈述已经被移除，因为它是错误的而且是无法被证实的。

Nutrients are typically absorbed by the small intestine (unless they are taken sublingually or injected). When you ingest a supplement in either a liquid or tablet form, it must first pass through the stomach before reaching the small intestine. If liquids were simply absorbed directly into the bloodstream, as some supplement companies claim, would the same happen when you ate soup?

营养素通常被小肠吸收(除非是採取舌下含片或是注射的方式)，当你摄取补充品不管是以液体或锭剂的形式，它首先必须经过胃才到小肠。如果液体像一些补充品公司所宣称的可以简单地直接吸收到血液裡，那当你喝汤时，是不是也会发生同样的事情？

Bioavailability is defined as the degree and rate at which a substance (as a drug) is absorbed into a living system or is made available at the site of physiological activity. Different vitamins and minerals have different absorption rates regardless of whether they come from a tablet, liquid, powder, or food. Calcium, for example, has a pretty standard absorption rate (around 25-35%) - the form does not generally make a significant difference.

生体利用率的定义是：当一个物质(如药物)被吸收到一个活体的系统或是到达作用部位的速率及量(注1)。不同的维生素和矿物质有不同的吸收率，不管他们来自于锭剂、液体、粉末或是食物。举例来说，钙就有一个相当标准的吸收率(约介于25%-35%之间)-不同的形式来源并不会造成显着的不同。

注1: 1977 年美国 FDA 对于药品的生体利用率做了以下的定义： “Bioavailability means the rate and extent to which the active ingredient or therapeutic moiety is absorbed from a drug product and becomes available at the site of drug action.”

其真正的涵义乃是指到达作用部位的药物主成份的速率及量，但是事实上我们很难直接测量到药物到达作用部位的速率和量，因此都以药物进入体循环中的速率和量来间接的评估药物生物学利用率~林山阳-药品生体利用率与临床疗效。

Bioavailability有人翻译成生物利用率，生物利用度，本篇採「生体利用率」的翻法

A well-made tablet provides a very effective delivery system and is the chosen form of most pharmaceutical medications. This is because tablets have been shown to be a very efficient delivery system for medications. Why would vitamin and mineral supplements be any different? Does anybody doubt that an aspirin tablet is less effective because it comes in a tablet?

一个良好製作的锭剂提供了非常有效的输送系统而且这也是大部分药品製成所选定的一种形式。这是因为锭剂已经被证实是一种非常有效的药物输送系统。为什麽维生素与矿物质补充品要有任何的不同呢？是否有人怀疑阿司匹林锭剂因为锭剂的关係而让它变得不太有效呢？

Tableted products provide the advantage of an increased amount of active ingredient (almost 3x as much as a capsule and much more than a liquid or spray). In general, the stability of tablets is also superior to liquids.

锭剂产品提供了增加活性成分的好处(几乎是胶囊的三倍，并且远远的超过液体与喷剂)。一般来说，锭剂的稳定程度也优于液体。

Additionally, there are many factors that can affect the absorption of vitamins and minerals in the body. Some of these factors are a function of the person taking the nutrient and are dependent on the age of the person, the integrity of their digestive system, the state of their health, the time of day, the person's gender, and if the supplements were taken on a full or empty stomach.

此外，还有很多因素会影响维生素与矿物质的在身体裡的吸收率。其中的一些因素会导致个人服用营养品的吸收率有所不同，如：不同的年龄、消化系统的完整性、健康的状态、一天当中的不同时间、性别、空腹吃还是吃饱了吃，都会有影响。

People whose nutrient needs are greater - such as growing children, pregnant or lactating women, and those who are currently deficient - may have significantly enhanced absorption rates for certain nutrients.

对于一般营养需求量更高的人比方说成长中的儿童、怀孕的妇女、哺乳妇或者那些目前就很缺乏营养的人们，他们对于某些营养素会有很显着的吸收率提高现象产生。

Recently, some individuals and companies have made claims that their products are superior because they are "98% absorbed" or some similar number. This is a misleading statement because there are far too many variables to imply that an individual's absorption is a certain percent of the material consumed. Even absorption of minerals from food sources can vary significantly. Boron, molybdenum, and iodine can be absorbed at over 90 percent, while the average absorption rates of zinc, copper, and selenium can range from 30 to 80 percent depending on the form. It should seem reasonable, then, that stating an absorption rate on a package or in advertising is very misleading.

最近有些个人和公司宣称他们的产品很优秀，因为具有"98%的吸收率"或类似的数据。这是一个误导性的陈述，因为有太多的变数以致于无法说明个人所吃进去的物质吸收率会有一定的百分比。实际上来自于食物的矿物质吸收率都有显着的差别了。硼，钼，碘，的吸收率可达90%以上，而锌，铜，硒的吸收率则根据不同的类型介于30-80%之间。这似乎是合理的，既然如此，在包装盒或广告上说明吸收率就非常令人误解了。

USANA tablets are formulated to meet United States Pharmacopoeia standards, which require full disintegration within 30-45 min. They are also formulated to meet standards for dissolution. Because USANA tablets are formulated to these standards, the vitamins and minerals found in our supplements are properly absorbed into the body.

USANA的锭剂按照美国药典的标准製作出来的，也就是说锭剂需要在30-45分钟内完全崩解。而它们也符合溶解的标准。因为usana的锭剂是依据这些标准製作出来的，我们产品中的维生素和矿物质都可以适当被身体吸收。

Innovative formulations have been developed to optimize nutrient bioavailability. Each lot of USANA tablets is tested against finished product specifications to ensure that it meets standards for identity, target weight, hardness, thickness, disintegration, potency, purity, and microbial counts. USANA provides its vitamins and minerals in amounts and forms so that, in conjunction with a healthy diet, you will receive maximum bioavailability, full effectiveness, and uncompromised safety.

为了优化生体吸收率，创新的配方已被开发出来。每一批的usana锭剂都会依据产品规格来测试，已确保产品符合特性、目标重量、硬度、厚度、崩解速度、效能、纯度和微生物计数的标准。Usana提供它的的维生素和矿物质在数量上和形式上与健康的饮食共同协力，这样你将得到最大的生物吸收率，充分的效能和不打折扣的安全性。

The supplement industry itself originated on account of published studies in formal scientific literature that used tableted forms of vitamins and minerals to establish what we now regard as common nutritional knowledge. With thousands of studies connecting calcium and vitamin D supplements with bone health, it is nearly impossible to dispute that tableted supplements provide an effective delivery system. If tablets weren't bioavailable, why did so many researchers get positive results? If liquid or spray supplements are so much better, why are they rarely, if ever, used in published scientific research?

补充品产业本身是起源于正式发表的科学研究文献，而研究中以锭剂的形式出现的维生素和矿物质，建立了我们现在所认知的一般营养学知识。随着数以千计有关钙与维生素D与骨骼健康的补充研究，以片状的补充形式来提供一个有效的输送系统几乎是不可能有什麽争议的。假如锭剂是不具生体利用度的，为什麽有这麽多的研究人员都获得正面的结果呢？假如液体或喷雾形式的补充是这麽的好，为什麽这麽少被用在已发表的科学研究上呢？

(Keep in mind that we are speaking of multimineral and multivitamin formulations. There may be certain products, such as children's medicine, that are more appropriate in a liquid form. However, these are the exceptions, not the rule.)

(请记住，我们说的是多重矿物质与多重维生素製剂。或许有某些产品，比如儿童的药品，是比较适合做成液体的型态的，这些是例外而不是一般的规则。)

Finally, liquid supplement promoters often contend that liquids are better because they don't contain fillers (excipients used in tablets for disintegration, form, binding, coating, etc). This is perhaps the most ridiculous argument of all, since liquid supplements require even more "other" ingredients, such as emulsifiers, solvents, preservatives, stabilizing agents, coloring, flavoring, etc. Generally speaking, the more vitamin and mineral ingredients there are in a liquid supplement, the more excipients that product will require.

最后，液体补充剂的推动者常争辩说：液体的更好，因为它们不包含填充物(赋形剂用于锭剂的分解、外型、黏合、涂料，等等)。这也许是最荒谬的论点，因为液体补充品需要更多"其他"的成分，如乳化剂，溶剂，防腐剂，稳定剂，着色，调味料等。一般来说，在液体补充品裡有越多的维生素与矿物质成分，该产品需要越多的赋形剂。