15 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

Jarrow has its own formula of silicic acid called JarroSil which the company claims is even more bioavailable than their previous formula product which was also called biosil. They seem to contain the same active ingredient orthosilicic acid. But the jarrow formula is a bit cheaper in most places than the current Biosil product. Are we dealing with essentially the same thing or should we apply caveat emptor to the jarrow formula?


Edit: If you can please move this to the vendor area. Unless it's okay here. Thanks.

Edited by cnorwood, 23 July 2009 - 05:18 PM.
Corrected spelling in title at thread starter's request

[niner]

Jarrow has its own formula of silicic acid called JarroSil which the company claims is even more bioavailable than their previous formula product which was also called biosil. They seem to contain the same active ingredient orthosilicic acid. But the jarrow formula is a bit cheaper in most places than the current Biosil product. Are we dealing with essentially the same thing or should we apply caveat emptor to the jarrow formula?

JarroSil uses PEG and a boron compound to stabilize the ortho silicic acid, instead of the choline used by BioSil. Supposedly JarroSil tastes better, but I never really had a problem with BioSil taste, at least as long as it's fresh. I did notice the last bottle starting to get a little funky, so I've started keeping it in the refrigerator and making sure it's well capped. JarroSil is a lot less money, so it looks like a good choice if it's really better. The question is, what's the evidence that it's better? BioSil has clinical trials with meaningful endpoints behind it; what's JarroSil got? Jarrow is a respectable company, so I don't expect any of their products to be bad. I think it's probably an equivalent product for a lot less money, but I would feel better about it if I at least saw a pharmacokinetic study.

Since this question is Jarrow vs. Jarrow, I don't see any reason to move it to the vendor area.

[Gerald W. Gaston]

Since this question is Jarrow vs. Jarrow, I don't see any reason to move it to the vendor area.

Actually BioSil is made by Bio Minerals in Belgium. Jarrow used to license this product from them. Jarrow no longer has the licensing rights, and Natrol is the licensee now. I received this reply from Jarrow over a year ago:

"Thank you for your e-mail inquiry to Jarrow Formulas. We ended our contract with the biosil supplier in Belgium. We are currently working on our own version of bioavailable silicon. I am told it will be ready in three to four months. It will not be called biosil however. One of our competitors now has the 'biosil' contract."

[niner]

Actually BioSil is made by Bio Minerals in Belgium. Jarrow used to license this product from them. Jarrow no longer has the licensing rights, and Natrol is the licensee now. I received this reply from Jarrow over a year ago:

"Thank you for your e-mail inquiry to Jarrow Formulas. We ended our contract with the biosil supplier in Belgium. We are currently working on our own version of bioavailable silicon. I am told it will be ready in three to four months. It will not be called biosil however. One of our competitors now has the 'biosil' contract."

Oh, I didn't realize they'd lost that. Maybe they decided they could do a better version on their own, sell it for less, and make more money. Or not.. If they were making a generic copy of a prescription drug, they would have to prove that it was bioequivalent. That would be good, but it would preclude them from making something better. At this point, they might have something better, but we don't really know. I think I'll send some email to Jarrow...

[sdxl]

Keep in mind that JarroSil has 2.5 times less silicon than BioSil.

[Gerald W. Gaston]

I haven't even looked at JarroSil yet. I bought up so much Jarrow branded BioSil last year that I'm still nowhere near ready for another order.

[TheFountain]

I think it's probably an equivalent product for a lot less money, but I would feel better about it if I at least saw a pharmacokinetic study.

It's my understanding that the study that the natrol company refers to with regard to their biosil is a generic study on orthosilicic acid, the active ingredient in both biosil and jarrowsil, not necessarily on 'biosil' the product name.

[TheFountain]

Keep in mind that JarroSil has 2.5 times less silicon than BioSil.

According to the labels jarrowsil has one milligram less of silicon than biosil. One could simply add 2 more drops per serving to even it out. It's still almost half as expensive as biosil on Iherb.

[sdxl]

According to the labels jarrowsil has one milligram less of silicon than biosil. One could simply add 2 more drops per serving to even it out. It's still almost half as expensive as biosil on Iherb.

You would need 4 drops of BioSil to provide 4 mg of Si, JarroSil requires 10 drops. Each 30 ml bottle of BioSil has 600 mg Si, one 30 ml bottle of JarroSil has 240 mg. JarroSil is more expensive per mg of Si, unless you go for the 60 ml bottle. Since I haven't seen any studies on the Jarrow product, I prefer BioSil.

[TheFountain]

You would need 4 drops of BioSil to provide 4 mg of Si, JarroSil requires 10 drops. Each 30 ml bottle of BioSil has 600 mg Si, one 30 ml bottle of JarroSil has 240 mg. JarroSil is more expensive per mg of Si, unless you go for the 60 ml bottle. Since I haven't seen any studies on the Jarrow product, I prefer BioSil.

I think the label I was looking at before was the jarrow version of biosil before they ended their license with the belgium group. I guess in the long term Natrol Biosil might be better in liquid form, but if you're on a month to month regimen the cheaper jarrow formula might work better in the short term. And technically there aren't any studies on the 'biosil' product, only a generic study on orthosilicic acid, the active contained in both as far as I know.

This Study doesn't say the word 'biosil' once in it.

Nor does this abstract.

Edited by TheFountain, 23 July 2009 - 08:31 AM.

[sdxl]

And technically there aren't any studies on the 'biosil' product, only a generic study on orthosilicic acid, the active contained in both as far as I know.

There are! BioSil has ch-OSA aka choline stabilized orthosilicic acid. PubMed shows 4 results.

[Athanasios]

Instead, I am just buying more beer:

Br J Nutr. 2004 Mar;91(3):403-9. Links
The silicon content of beer and its bioavailability in healthy volunteers.

Sripanyakorn S, Jugdaohsingh R, Elliott H, Walker C, Mehta P, Shoukru S, Thompson RP, Powell JJ.
Gastrointestinal Laboratory, The Rayne Institute, St Thomas' Hospital, London SE1 7EH, UK.
Dietary Si, as soluble orthosilicic acid (OSA), may be important for the growth and development of bone and connective tissue. Beer appears to be a major contributor to Si intake, although the Si content of beer and its bioavailability in human subjects have not been well established. Here we investigated the Si content of different beers and then estimated Si absorption from beer in healthy volunteers. The Si content of seventy-six different beers was estimated using inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry and one of the beers, used in the ingestion study, was ultrafiltered to determine OSA content. Next, following the ingestion of 0.6 litres beer (22.5 mg Si; 4.6 % (v/v) ethanol), serum and urinary Si levels were measured in nine healthy volunteers over a 6 h period. A solution of OSA was similarly investigated as a positive control and water and 4.6 % ethanol as negative controls. The mean Si level of beer was 19.2 (sd 6.6) mg/l; the median Si level was 18.0 mg/l. There was no significant difference in the Si levels of the different beers by geographical origin or type of beer. Serum and urinary Si levels increased considerably following the ingestion of beer or a solution of OSA but not with the ingestion of either 4.6 % ethanol or water. The ultrafilterability of Si from beer (about 80 %) and its absorption in volunteers (about 55 %) was comparable with that of a solution of OSA suggesting that Si in beer is present chiefly in a monomeric form and is readily bioavailable.
PMID: 15005826 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

If you don't like beer, try oats. They have about 4g/kg, in dry weight [Bowen HJM and Peggs A, 1984. Determination of the silicon content of food. J. Sci. Food Agric. 35, 1225-1229. ]

Does choline stabilization do much vs. OSA? I am skeptical since it is excreted as OSA and most the forms seem to disassociate to this within the gut. In the link to PDF at the bottom of this post they claim

The petitioner provided data to prove that incubated dilutions of ch-OSA in water contain primarily silicon in the orthosilicic acid form (Vanden Berghe, 2000).

Regardless, dietary silicon has shown to have effect:

1: J Bone Miner Res. 2004 Feb;19(2):297-307. Epub 2003 Dec 16.
Dietary silicon intake is positively associated with bone mineral density in men and premenopausal women of the Framingham Offspring cohort.

Jugdaohsingh R, Tucker KL, Qiao N, Cupples LA, Kiel DP, Powell JJ.
Gastrointestinal Laboratory, The Rayne Institute, St Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom. ravin.jugdaohsingh@kcl.ac.uk
The role of dietary silicon in bone health in humans is not known. In a cross-sectional, population-based study (2847 participants), associations between dietary silicon intake and BMD were investigated. Dietary silicon correlated positively and significantly with BMD at all hip sites in men and premenopausal women, but not in postmenopausal women, suggesting that increased silicon intake is associated with increased cortical BMD in these populations. INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis is a burgeoning health and economic issue. Agents that promote bone formation are widely sought. Animal and cellular data suggest that the orthosilicate anion (i.e., dietary silicon) is involved in bone formation. The intake of silicon (Si, approximately 30 mg/day) is among the highest for trace elements in humans, but its contribution to bone health is not known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional, population-based study, we examined the association between silicon intake and bone mineral density (BMD) in 1251 men and 1596 pre- and postmenopausal women in the Framingham Offspring cohort (age, 30-87 years) at four hip sites and lumbar spine, adjusting for all potential confounding factors known to influence BMD and nutrient intake. RESULTS: Silicon intake correlated positively with adjusted BMD at four hip sites in men and premenopausal women, but not in postmenopausal women. No significant association was observed at the lumbar spine in any group. Categorical analysis by Si intake, or energy-adjusted Si intake, supported these findings, and showed large differences in BMD (up to 10%) between the highest (> 40 mg Si/day) and lowest (< 14 mg Si/day) quintiles of silicon intake. A significant association at the lumbar spine in men was also observed. Further analyses indicated that some of the effects seen for moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages on BMD might be attributed to Si intake. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that higher dietary silicon intake in men and younger women may have salutary effects on skeletal health, especially cortical bone health, that has not been previously recognized. Confirmation of these results is being sought in a longitudinal study and by assessment of the influence of silicon intake on bone markers in this cohort.

Also, I wonder how much the average supplement user gets in their other pills as filler.

As a side note, this site linked to a bunch of interesting abstracts:
http://www.eidon.com...icaresearch.php

and a write-up by the EFSA in PDF:
http://www.efsa.euro...f?ssbinary=true

Edited by cnorwood, 23 July 2009 - 08:10 PM.

[TheFountain]

There are! BioSil has ch-OSA aka choline stabilized orthosilicic acid. PubMed shows 4 results.

How do we know boron stabilized orthosilicic acid isn't as good? I never said I was shifting over to jarrosil just yet but there ARE studies indicating that any form of bioavailable silicon is definitely effective. And it's obvious jarrosil is at least more effective than any pill form of silica.

Edited by TheFountain, 23 July 2009 - 10:30 PM.

[Athanasios]

I just wanted to update this thread. I am still getting my Si from beer, oats, and green beans. Here are some recent studies that confirm, to me, that dietary sources are the cheap and effective way of getting your Si.

In this study, choline-stabilised OSA did rather poorly:

Br J Nutr. 2009 Sep;102(6):825-34. Epub 2009 Apr 9.
The comparative absorption of silicon from different foods and food supplements.
Sripanyakorn S, Jugdaohsingh R, Dissayabutr W, Anderson SH, Thompson RP, Powell JJ.

Gastrointestinal Laboratory, The Rayne Institute (King's College London), St Thomas' Hospital, London SE1 7EH, UK.

Dietary Si (orthosilicic acid; OSA) appears important in connective tissue health, and although the sources and intakes of Si are well established, its absorption is not. Si absorption was measured from eight high-Si-containing sources: alcohol-free beer; OSA solution (positive control); bananas; green beans; supplemental choline-stabilised OSA (ChOSA); supplemental monomethyl silanetriol (MMST); supplemental colloidal silica (CS); magnesium trisilicate British Pharmacopoeia antacid (MTBP). Two of the supplements and the antacid were pre-selected following an in vitro dissolution assay. Fasting, healthy subjects (CS, n 3; others, n > or = 5) each ingested two of the sources separated by a 1-week wash-out period. Blood and urine were collected and measured for total Si concentrations by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry. Absorption, based on urinary Si excretion, was highest for MMST and alcohol-free beer (64% of dose), followed by green beans (44%), OSA (43%), ChOSA (17%), bananas and MTBP (4%) and CS (1%). Peak serum concentrations occurred by 0.5 h for MMST and green beans, 1.5 h for OSA and alcohol-free beer, 2 h for ChOSA and CS, and 4 h for MTBP. Area under the serum curves correlated positively with urinary Si output (r 0.82; P < 0.0001). Absorption of Si from supplements and antacids was consistent with their known chemical speciation and kinetics of dissolution under simulated gastrointestinal conditions. Monomeric silicates were readily absorbed, while particulate silicates were decreasingly well absorbed with increasing polymerisation. The present results highlight the need to allow for relative absorption of Si from different foods or supplements in subsequent epidemiological and intervention studies.

PMID: 19356271 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]PMCID: PMC2744664Free PMC Article

Here is another beer study:

J Sci Food Agric. 2010 Apr 15;90(5):784-8.
Silicon in beer and brewing.
Casey TR, Bamforth CW.

Department of Food Science & Technology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8598, USA.

BACKGROUND: It has been claimed that beer is one of the richest sources of silicon in the diet; however, little is known of the relationship between silicon content and beer style and the manner in which beer is produced. The purpose of this study was to measure silicon in a diversity of beers and ascertain the grist selection and brewing factors that impact the level of silicon obtained in beer. RESULTS: Commercial beers ranged from 6.4 to 56.5 mg L(-1) in silicon. Products derived from a grist of barley tended to contain more silicon than did those from a wheat-based grist, likely because of the high levels of silica in the retained husk layer of barley. Hops contain substantially more silicon than does grain, but quantitatively hops make a much smaller contribution than malt to the production of beer and therefore relatively less silicon in beer derives from them. During brewing the vast majority of the silicon remains with the spent grains; however, aggressive treatment during wort production in the brewhouse leads to increased extraction of silicon into wort and much of this survives into beer. CONCLUSION: It is confirmed that beer is a very rich source of silicon. © 2010 Society of Chemical Industry.

PMID: 20355113 [PubMed - in process]

[chrisp2]

Also, I wonder how much the average supplement user gets in their other pills as filler.

Precisely - I'm making my annual purchase of supplements (Any LEF products, now is the time to buy)...

And I have used BioSil in the past, thinking about adding it back.

It's rather expensive though - about $1 / day (for the capsules). I am not sure it is worth it with all the silica I get from all the fillers in other supplements.

[tea76]

I have been using the Anton Hubner variant (Silicea, containing silicon dioxide). I have been using it for my hair in six months but havn't really noticed any difference. However, it seems like my nails are growing a bit faster.

I'm unsure about the bioavailability of the Hubner brand, and I'm therefore wondering if you guys have had more success with another brand, such as BioSil? (Granted that you have tried both brands, or more).

Edited by ecglsd, 24 January 2013 - 02:56 PM.