351 replies to this topic

[normalizing]

greg, does mitoq have anything to do with dopamine?

[pone11]

Also an interesting paper ... it seems we now have a marker for mitochondrial functions which is fantastic progress. 

 

http://www.clinsci.o...7/cs1270367.htm

 

 

Is there any vendor selling this test or something similar to it?

 

I have been looking for any vendor in the US who can sell a profile of mitochondrial antioxidant levels (SOD, catalase, glutathione, lipoic acid, coQ10, etc), but so far I am not having luck.   

 

Having a test that could profile the plasma, cytoplasm, and mitochondrial membrane/matrix levels of each of these would be fantastic, as it would give you a way to trace effects of supplementation over time.   And it would show I am sure that a lot of supplements we are taking are only altering plasma or cytoplasm, and almost none of them are affecting mitochondrial levels, which is where we actually need them.

[pone11]

 

Some forms of antioxidants have had negative effects on the body, particularly in regards to hormetic adaptations (i.e., exercise & weight lifting).

 

Have there been any studies in regards to CoQ10 or MitoQ, and a reduction in hormesis? I'm particularly concerned for two cases:

 

1. I don't want to risk reduced gains from exercise; I am in very good shape and competitive, and don't want to lose that edge.

 

2. Some theorize that too many antioxidants can prevent our bodies' natural oxidation systems from being able to kill off cancerous cells.

 

Would CoQ10, MitoQ or Ubiquinol/PQQ/Shilajit blends run the risk for either scenario 1 or 2? Would cycling be beneficial?

 

Final question: would MitoQ theoretically be capable of offsetting some of the oxidative damage caused by occasional Adderall usage, as a study aid?

 

Hi,

 

Good questions.

 

MitoQ is a selective antioxidant and allows free radical signalling to continue similar to what we see with CoQ10 therefore it avoids the reduction in hormesis seen with other antioxidant compounds.

 

 

Which antioxidants most affect hormesis?

[pone11]

Smart thinking

 

10mg is best but 5mg will be fine at 30. Consider upping to 10mg when you hit 40 or sooner if your funding situation improves. 

 

I think, feel your way on the CoQ10/PQQ/Silajit front.  Try alternating vs regular MitoQ and see if you notice a difference. 

 

I have tried PQQ with MitoQ and didn't experience the increased benefit I was expecting so went back to just MitoQ.  

 

No need to take CoQ10 if you are on MitoQ unless you are on a Statin and then you should take a small dose (to cover the loss of non-mitochondrial CoQ10 activity). 

 

Doesn't regular CoQ10 address areas outside the membrane?   Or are you taking the position that we should only care about CoQ10 on the inner mitochondrial membrane because that is where it is used on the electron transport chain?  

 

All of that CoQ10 we have been taking has been getting about 5% absorbed in the mitochondria?  Or do your studies show regular ubiquinone has even lower absorption to the mitochondrial inner membrane?

[pone11]

I can talk about this one based on my personal experience. I do have a primary mitochondrial dysfunction (mitochondrial myopathy) and my experience with both CoQ10 and mitoQ is, in both cases, very positive. If we take "vitality" as a proxy for ATP production, then these compounds increase ATP production without doubt.

 

Nowadays, I am alternating 300mg Ubiquinol and 10mg mitoq every during weekdays; nothing during weekends.

 

 

What is your theory behind alternating them on alternate days, versus taking them together?

 

What systems are you supporting with regular ubiquinol that MitoQ would not cover?

[pone11]

 

No need to take CoQ10 if you are on MitoQ unless you are on a Statin and then you should take a small dose (to cover the loss of non-mitochondrial CoQ10 activity). 

 

Sorry, went to edit my reply on taking regular CoQ10 and the site took away editing.

 

Consider this page, which claims that MitoQ might be 800 times more bioactive than ubiquinol:

http://www.science20...heard_of-136215

 

So, using real numbers, if I took 600 mg of Ubiquinol, I might expect 5%, or 30 mg of that, to be absorbed into the mitochondrial matrix?   The 5% is quoted in the article above.

 

To contrast, with MitoQ, the article above claims there is 800 times the absorption, but that would imply you multiply a 10 mg dose by 40 (.05 * 800) to arrive at about 400 mg that would be absorped into the membrane?   But that cannot be since if you take in 10 mg you cannot absorb more than 100% of the dose?   So it's hard to see where the 800 times referred to in this article comes from.    

 

What is the right way to model the actual amounts likely absorbed into mitochondrial membrane for regular CoQ10 versus MitoQ?

 

Once absorbed into mitchondrial membrane, there is no difference between the two forms?

Edited by pone11, 05 January 2015 - 09:14 AM.

[gregmacpherson]

 

 

Some forms of antioxidants have had negative effects on the body, particularly in regards to hormetic adaptations (i.e., exercise & weight lifting).

 

Have there been any studies in regards to CoQ10 or MitoQ, and a reduction in hormesis? I'm particularly concerned for two cases:

 

1. I don't want to risk reduced gains from exercise; I am in very good shape and competitive, and don't want to lose that edge.

 

2. Some theorize that too many antioxidants can prevent our bodies' natural oxidation systems from being able to kill off cancerous cells.

 

Would CoQ10, MitoQ or Ubiquinol/PQQ/Shilajit blends run the risk for either scenario 1 or 2? Would cycling be beneficial?

 

Final question: would MitoQ theoretically be capable of offsetting some of the oxidative damage caused by occasional Adderall usage, as a study aid?

 

Hi,

 

Good questions.

 

MitoQ is a selective antioxidant and allows free radical signalling to continue similar to what we see with CoQ10 therefore it avoids the reduction in hormesis seen with other antioxidant compounds.

 

 

Which antioxidants most affect hormesis?

 

 

I am not sure of the answer to that question. Can anyone else answer?

[niner]

 

Which antioxidants most affect hormesis?

 

I am not sure of the answer to that question. Can anyone else answer?

 

How would you even measure that?

[gregmacpherson]

 

 

No need to take CoQ10 if you are on MitoQ unless you are on a Statin and then you should take a small dose (to cover the loss of non-mitochondrial CoQ10 activity). 

 

Sorry, went to edit my reply on taking regular CoQ10 and the site took away editing.

 

Consider this page, which claims that MitoQ might be 800 times more bioactive than ubiquinol:

http://www.science20...heard_of-136215

 

So, using real numbers, if I took 600 mg of Ubiquinol, I might expect 5%, or 30 mg of that, to be absorbed into the mitochondrial matrix?   The 5% is quoted in the article above.

 

To contrast, with MitoQ, the article above claims there is 800 times the absorption, but that would imply you multiply a 10 mg dose by 40 (.05 * 800) to arrive at about 400 mg that would be absorped into the membrane?   But that cannot be since if you take in 10 mg you cannot absorb more than 100% of the dose?   So it's hard to see where the 800 times referred to in this article comes from.    

 

What is the right way to model the actual amounts likely absorbed into mitochondrial membrane for regular CoQ10 versus MitoQ?

 

Once absorbed into mitchondrial membrane, there is no difference between the two forms?

 

 

MitoQ has been shown to reach the mitochondria between 800 and 1200 times more than CoQ10.  

 

Which really suggests that regular CoQ10 does not reach the mitochondria in meaningful levels at all. 

 

MitoQ's positive charge causes it to be drawn into the negatively charged mitochondria hence its significantly improved bio-availability or perhaps better stated "mito-availability". 

 

CoQ10 has two functions - involvement in the electron transport chain (ECT) and as an antioxidant.  MitoQ is only acts as an antioxidant in the mitochondria but indirectly supports the ECT by stabilising the mitochondrial membrane. 

[gregmacpherson]

 

Smart thinking

 

10mg is best but 5mg will be fine at 30. Consider upping to 10mg when you hit 40 or sooner if your funding situation improves. 

 

I think, feel your way on the CoQ10/PQQ/Silajit front.  Try alternating vs regular MitoQ and see if you notice a difference. 

 

I have tried PQQ with MitoQ and didn't experience the increased benefit I was expecting so went back to just MitoQ.  

 

No need to take CoQ10 if you are on MitoQ unless you are on a Statin and then you should take a small dose (to cover the loss of non-mitochondrial CoQ10 activity). 

 

Doesn't regular CoQ10 address areas outside the membrane?   Or are you taking the position that we should only care about CoQ10 on the inner mitochondrial membrane because that is where it is used on the electron transport chain?  

 

All of that CoQ10 we have been taking has been getting about 5% absorbed in the mitochondria?  Or do your studies show regular ubiquinone has even lower absorption to the mitochondrial inner membrane?

 

 

From my understanding we get enough CoQ10 in our diet to cover off our cellular requirements but not enough to cover our mitochondrial requirements (in disease and as we age). 

 

CoQ10 is manufactured in the mitochondria because it is very difficult to transport across membranes - which is why most of the CoQ10 supplement that you take will not reach the mitochondria. 

[pone11]

 

 

Which antioxidants most affect hormesis?

 

I am not sure of the answer to that question. Can anyone else answer?

 

How would you even measure that?

 

 

I supposed an indirect measurement might be in exercise physiology, measuring body response and adaptation to exercise.   This assumes that one methodically isolates individual antioxidants in the test.

 

And the really interesting question is can you get the best of both worlds by simply not taking the hormesis-limiting antioxidants before exercise, but then taking it after exercise?   The idea would be to subject the body to peak oxidative stress during exercise, but lower the exposure to oxidative stress during downtime.

 

Seems like this kind of research would not be rocket science to do and would potentially be very useful and easy to apply to every person's life.

[pone11]

 

 

 

No need to take CoQ10 if you are on MitoQ unless you are on a Statin and then you should take a small dose (to cover the loss of non-mitochondrial CoQ10 activity). 

 

Sorry, went to edit my reply on taking regular CoQ10 and the site took away editing.

 

Consider this page, which claims that MitoQ might be 800 times more bioactive than ubiquinol:

http://www.science20...heard_of-136215

 

So, using real numbers, if I took 600 mg of Ubiquinol, I might expect 5%, or 30 mg of that, to be absorbed into the mitochondrial matrix?   The 5% is quoted in the article above.

 

To contrast, with MitoQ, the article above claims there is 800 times the absorption, but that would imply you multiply a 10 mg dose by 40 (.05 * 800) to arrive at about 400 mg that would be absorped into the membrane?   But that cannot be since if you take in 10 mg you cannot absorb more than 100% of the dose?   So it's hard to see where the 800 times referred to in this article comes from.    

 

What is the right way to model the actual amounts likely absorbed into mitochondrial membrane for regular CoQ10 versus MitoQ?

 

Once absorbed into mitchondrial membrane, there is no difference between the two forms?

 

 

MitoQ has been shown to reach the mitochondria between 800 and 1200 times more than CoQ10.  

 

Which really suggests that regular CoQ10 does not reach the mitochondria in meaningful levels at all. 

 

MitoQ's positive charge causes it to be drawn into the negatively charged mitochondria hence its significantly improved bio-availability or perhaps better stated "mito-availability". 

In your studies, what percentage of MitoQ ends up in mitochondrial membranes?

 

Does CoQ10 have a role as an important antioxidant in cytoplasm?   I assume not since it is hydrophobic and is "fatty"?     Does it get used in the cell membrane?

 

Is there a reason to take regular CoQ10 in addition to MitoQ?

 

 

 

CoQ10 has two functions - involvement in the electron transport chain (ECT) and as an antioxidant.  MitoQ is only acts as an antioxidant in the mitochondria but indirectly supports the ECT by stabilising the mitochondrial membrane. 

 

I'm a little confused on this part.   CoQ10 shuttles electrons between complexes in the electron transport chain.   The whole beauty of CoQ10 is that it oxidizes and then reduces, so it has the unique property that it is both an oxidant and an anti-oxidant.   It cannot be the case that MitoQ would only act as an antioxidant, because that would sabotage CoQ10's primary role in the mitochondrial membrane as an oxidant?

[gregmacpherson]

 

 

 

 

No need to take CoQ10 if you are on MitoQ unless you are on a Statin and then you should take a small dose (to cover the loss of non-mitochondrial CoQ10 activity). 

 

Sorry, went to edit my reply on taking regular CoQ10 and the site took away editing.

 

Consider this page, which claims that MitoQ might be 800 times more bioactive than ubiquinol:

http://www.science20...heard_of-136215

 

So, using real numbers, if I took 600 mg of Ubiquinol, I might expect 5%, or 30 mg of that, to be absorbed into the mitochondrial matrix?   The 5% is quoted in the article above.

 

To contrast, with MitoQ, the article above claims there is 800 times the absorption, but that would imply you multiply a 10 mg dose by 40 (.05 * 800) to arrive at about 400 mg that would be absorped into the membrane?   But that cannot be since if you take in 10 mg you cannot absorb more than 100% of the dose?   So it's hard to see where the 800 times referred to in this article comes from.    

 

What is the right way to model the actual amounts likely absorbed into mitochondrial membrane for regular CoQ10 versus MitoQ?

 

Once absorbed into mitchondrial membrane, there is no difference between the two forms?

 

 

MitoQ has been shown to reach the mitochondria between 800 and 1200 times more than CoQ10.  

 

Which really suggests that regular CoQ10 does not reach the mitochondria in meaningful levels at all. 

 

MitoQ's positive charge causes it to be drawn into the negatively charged mitochondria hence its significantly improved bio-availability or perhaps better stated "mito-availability". 

In your studies, what percentage of MitoQ ends up in mitochondrial membranes?

 

Between 10 and 15% of the total dose is absorbed and ends up in the mitochondria.  

 

Does CoQ10 have a role as an important antioxidant in cytoplasm?   I assume not since it is hydrophobic and is "fatty"?     Does it get used in the cell membrane?

 

Yes - see this paper ...  http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11771674

 

Is there a reason to take regular CoQ10 in addition to MitoQ?

 

Not unless you are taking a statin. 

 

 

 

CoQ10 has two functions - involvement in the electron transport chain (ECT) and as an antioxidant.  MitoQ is only acts as an antioxidant in the mitochondria but indirectly supports the ECT by stabilising the mitochondrial membrane. 

 

I'm a little confused on this part.   CoQ10 shuttles electrons between complexes in the electron transport chain.   The whole beauty of CoQ10 is that it oxidizes and then reduces, so it has the unique property that it is both an oxidant and an anti-oxidant.   It cannot be the case that MitoQ would only act as an antioxidant, because that would sabotage CoQ10's primary role in the mitochondrial membrane as an oxidant?

 

Apologies, I didn't explain myself well.  MitoQ works in exactly the same manner as CoQ10 wrt being a cycling antioxidant/oxidant.   

 

Thanks

[pone11]

 

 

 

Between 10 and 15% of the total dose is absorbed and ends up in the mitochondria.  

Does CoQ10 have a role as an important antioxidant in cytoplasm?   I assume not since it is hydrophobic and is "fatty"?     Does it get used in the cell membrane?

 

Yes - see this paper ...  http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11771674

 

Is there a reason to take regular CoQ10 in addition to MitoQ?

 

Not unless you are taking a statin. 

 

 

So this is getting into nitty-gritty, but this is all fantastic information and thanks for sharing.

 

* 10% to 15% of MitoQ is absorbed to mitochondrial membranes.   What is the absorption to the outer cell membrane?

 

* Your studies show very very poor absorption of normal CoQ10 to the mitochondria.  Do you happen to know what percentage of ordinary CoQ10 is absorbed in the outer cell membrane?

 

* There is apparently no need to take regular CoQ10 in addition to MitoQ, but is there any harm in taking both?   Just to cover all possible bases and guarantee maximum overall exposure to different forms, someone might take the two together, and I just want to make sure that regular CoQ10 won't interfere with mitochondrial absorption of MitoQ.   Not sure if you really studied MitoQ absorption when taken together with high dose CoQ10?

[niner]

You probably don't need supplemental ubiquinone in whatever form, but if you're interested in getting a more bioavailable version of it, ubiquinol (the reduced form) would be worth looking at.

[pone11]

You probably don't need supplemental ubiquinone in whatever form, but if you're interested in getting a more bioavailable version of it, ubiquinol (the reduced form) would be worth looking at.

 

The research doesn't show much advantage in taking ubiquinol, and ubiquinone is cheaper.   

 

I'll probably take some ubiquinone with PQQ10, and the PQQ might be the more beneficial part of that.   I just want to make sure that this doesn't sabotage the MitoQ.

[gregmacpherson]

 

 

 

 

Between 10 and 15% of the total dose is absorbed and ends up in the mitochondria.  

Does CoQ10 have a role as an important antioxidant in cytoplasm?   I assume not since it is hydrophobic and is "fatty"?     Does it get used in the cell membrane?

 

Yes - see this paper ...  http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11771674

 

Is there a reason to take regular CoQ10 in addition to MitoQ?

 

Not unless you are taking a statin. 

 

 

So this is getting into nitty-gritty, but this is all fantastic information and thanks for sharing.

 

My pleasure. 

 

* 10% to 15% of MitoQ is absorbed to mitochondrial membranes.   What is the absorption to the outer cell membrane?

 

Pretty much all of the MitoQ that is absorbed by the body ends up in the mitochondria. 

 

* Your studies show very very poor absorption of normal CoQ10 to the mitochondria.  Do you happen to know what percentage of ordinary CoQ10 is absorbed in the outer cell membrane?

 

Not sure on that one sorry. It will be enough to be of benefit. 

 

* There is apparently no need to take regular CoQ10 in addition to MitoQ, but is there any harm in taking both?   Just to cover all possible bases and guarantee maximum overall exposure to different forms, someone might take the two together, and I just want to make sure that regular CoQ10 won't interfere with mitochondrial absorption of MitoQ.   Not sure if you really studied MitoQ absorption when taken together with high dose CoQ10?

 

No harm in taking both.  CoQ10 won't interfere with mitochondrial absorption of MitoQ.  

 

 

 

Thanks

[gregmacpherson]

 

You probably don't need supplemental ubiquinone in whatever form, but if you're interested in getting a more bioavailable version of it, ubiquinol (the reduced form) would be worth looking at.

 

The research doesn't show much advantage in taking ubiquinol, and ubiquinone is cheaper.   

 

I'll probably take some ubiquinone with PQQ10, and the PQQ might be the more beneficial part of that.   I just want to make sure that this doesn't sabotage the MitoQ.

 

 

I am interested in your feedback on a stacking PQQ with MitoQ.  My experience was that I found no benefit in adding PQQ. 

 

My view is that by optimising existing mitochondria function they will up regulate numbers naturally if energy requirements change. 

 

Whether my view is correct is another matter!!  But keen to see if there are people using both and noticing benefit. 

 

Thanks

[niner]

The research doesn't show much advantage in taking ubiquinol, and ubiquinone is cheaper.   
 
I'll probably take some ubiquinone with PQQ10, and the PQQ might be the more beneficial part of that.   I just want to make sure that this doesn't sabotage the MitoQ.

 

I thought that ubiquinol had significantly better absorption that ubiquinone.  They are undoubtedly closer if it's an exotic formulation of ubiquinone, but then the price goes up.  Ubiquinol prices have gotten more reasonable. Here's a paper I found where they saw a functional difference between the two in a mouse model.  Ubiqunol also looked better in a CaCo2 model, but I didn't see a straight-up comparison of PK in humans.
 

Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014 Jul;1842(7):893-901. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2014.02.008. Epub 2014 Feb 24.
Ubiquinol-10 ameliorates mitochondrial encephalopathy associated with CoQ deficiency.
García-Corzo L1, Luna-Sánchez M1, Doerrier C1, Ortiz F1, Escames G1, Acuña-Castroviejo D1, López LC2.

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) deficiency (MIM 607426) causes a mitochondrial syndrome with variability in the clinical presentations. Patients with CoQ10 deficiency show inconsistent responses to oral ubiquinone-10 supplementation, with the highest percentage of unsuccessful results in patients with neurological symptoms (encephalopathy, cerebellar ataxia or multisystemic disease). Failure in the ubiquinone-10 treatment may be the result of its poor absorption and bioavailability, which may be improved by using different pharmacological formulations. In a mouse model (Coq9(X/X)) of mitochondrial encephalopathy due to CoQ deficiency, we have evaluated oral supplementation with water-soluble formulations of reduced (ubiquinol-10) and oxidized (ubiquinone-10) forms of CoQ10. Our results show that CoQ10 was increased in all tissues after supplementation with ubiquinone-10 or ubiquinol-10, with the tissue levels of CoQ10 with ubiquinol-10 being higher than with ubiquinone-10. Moreover, only ubiquinol-10 was able to increase the levels of CoQ10 in mitochondria from cerebrum of Coq9(X/X) mice. Consequently, ubiquinol-10 was more efficient than ubiquinone-10 in increasing the animal body weight and CoQ-dependent respiratory chain complex activities, and reducing the vacuolization, astrogliosis and oxidative damage in diencephalon, septum-striatum and, to a lesser extent, in brainstem. These results suggest that water-soluble formulations of ubiquinol-10 may improve the efficacy of CoQ10 therapy in primary and secondary CoQ10 deficiencies, other mitochondrial diseases and neurodegenerative diseases.

PMID: 24576561

[pone11]

 

The research doesn't show much advantage in taking ubiquinol, and ubiquinone is cheaper.   
 
I'll probably take some ubiquinone with PQQ10, and the PQQ might be the more beneficial part of that.   I just want to make sure that this doesn't sabotage the MitoQ.

 

I thought that ubiquinol had significantly better absorption that ubiquinone.  They are undoubtedly closer if it's an exotic formulation of ubiquinone, but then the price goes up.  Ubiquinol prices have gotten more reasonable. Here's a paper I found where they saw a functional difference between the two in a mouse model.  Ubiqunol also looked better in a CaCo2 model, but I didn't see a straight-up comparison of PK in humans.
 

 

The two forms convert to each other.  I know the common wisdom is that ubiquinol is more useful, but I have had people I respect give me kickback and tell me the research on that is not good.

 

And if you want to believe MitoQ's research, they are both useless.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

 

You probably don't need supplemental ubiquinone in whatever form, but if you're interested in getting a more bioavailable version of it, ubiquinol (the reduced form) would be worth looking at.

 

The research doesn't show much advantage in taking ubiquinol, and ubiquinone is cheaper.   

 

I'll probably take some ubiquinone with PQQ10, and the PQQ might be the more beneficial part of that.   I just want to make sure that this doesn't sabotage the MitoQ.

 

 

I am interested in your feedback on a stacking PQQ with MitoQ.  My experience was that I found no benefit in adding PQQ. 

 

My view is that by optimising existing mitochondria function they will up regulate numbers naturally if energy requirements change. 

 

Whether my view is correct is another matter!!  But keen to see if there are people using both and noticing benefit. 

 

Thanks

 

 

I have stacked PQQ with MitoQ and nicotinamide riboside.  I started NR first, then added MitoQ, than added PQQ.  Subjectively I noticed no difference after adding the PQQ *except* that I thought that the PQQ left me a little "wired".  May be placebo of course.

 

I wish I had a good objective test to measure an effect of these compounds.

 

 

[niner]

 

 

The research doesn't show much advantage in taking ubiquinol, and ubiquinone is cheaper.   
 
I'll probably take some ubiquinone with PQQ10, and the PQQ might be the more beneficial part of that.   I just want to make sure that this doesn't sabotage the MitoQ.

 

I thought that ubiquinol had significantly better absorption that ubiquinone.  They are undoubtedly closer if it's an exotic formulation of ubiquinone, but then the price goes up.  Ubiquinol prices have gotten more reasonable. Here's a paper I found where they saw a functional difference between the two in a mouse model.  Ubiqunol also looked better in a CaCo2 model, but I didn't see a straight-up comparison of PK in humans.
 

 

The two forms convert to each other.  I know the common wisdom is that ubiquinol is more useful, but I have had people I respect give me kickback and tell me the research on that is not good.

 

They interconvert once they're in the mitochondria, but first they have to get through the gut wall, which seems to be where ubiquinone has a problem.  I'd like to see this research that says ubiquinol is not good, because the only things I can find say that it's better than ubiquinone.

[pone11]

They interconvert once they're in the mitochondria, but first they have to get through the gut wall, which seems to be where ubiquinone has a problem.  I'd like to see this research that says ubiquinol is not good, because the only things I can find say that it's better than ubiquinone.

 

 

I'm having problems getting through paywalls on Pubmed, but here is an admittedly biased piece from a manufacturer:

https://www.usana.co...usUbiquinol.pdf

 

I've seen similar things in research.  The ubiquinol is better absorbed, but barely.

[niner]

 

They interconvert once they're in the mitochondria, but first they have to get through the gut wall, which seems to be where ubiquinone has a problem.  I'd like to see this research that says ubiquinol is not good, because the only things I can find say that it's better than ubiquinone.

 

I'm having problems getting through paywalls on Pubmed, but here is an admittedly biased piece from a manufacturer:

https://www.usana.co...usUbiquinol.pdf

 

I've seen similar things in research.  The ubiquinol is better absorbed, but barely.

 

This isn't a comparison of ordinary ubiquinone, it's a proprietary formulation from Usana.  It's also absurdly expensive.  ($3.83/gm for ubiquinol from Swanson, $24.00/gm for Usana formulated ubiquinone at Amazon)  It's possible to substantially improve the bioavailabilty of things like ubiquinone or curcumin through sophisticated formulation (liposomes, etc), but you always pay through the nose for it.  Unformulated ubiquinone is only $0.83/gm at Swanson, so it's reasonable to ask if ubiquinol is 4.6 times as good as unformulated ubiquinone.  Since the Usana formulated version is only almost as good as ubiquinol but over six times the price, it's clearly out of the running.   The best bang for the buck is probably plain old ubiquinone.  Ubiquinol or formulated ubiquinone are both more bioavailable, but probably not enough to justify the expense.  You just have to take a larger dose of ubiquinone.

 

There shouldn't be any paywalls at pubmed- it's free for the abstract and there are starting to be a non-trivial number of full text papers available.  The only paywalls come in when you are diverted to a journal publisher's site for full text.

Edited by niner, 06 January 2015 - 04:56 AM.

[pone11]

 

 

They interconvert once they're in the mitochondria, but first they have to get through the gut wall, which seems to be where ubiquinone has a problem.  I'd like to see this research that says ubiquinol is not good, because the only things I can find say that it's better than ubiquinone.

 

I'm having problems getting through paywalls on Pubmed, but here is an admittedly biased piece from a manufacturer:

https://www.usana.co...usUbiquinol.pdf

 

I've seen similar things in research.  The ubiquinol is better absorbed, but barely.

 

This isn't a comparison of ordinary ubiquinone, it's a proprietary formulation from Usana.  It's also absurdly expensive.  ($3.83/gm for ubiquinol from Swanson, $24.00/gm for Usana formulated ubiquinone at Amazon)  It's possible to substantially improve the bioavailabilty of things like ubiquinone or curcumin through sophisticated formulation (liposomes, etc), but you always pay through the nose for it.  Unformulated ubiquinone is only $0.83/gm at Swanson, so it's reasonable to ask if ubiquinol is 4.6 times as good as unformulated ubiquinone.  Since the Usana formulated version is only almost as good as ubiquinol but over six times the price, it's clearly out of the running.   The best bang for the buck is probably plain old ubiquinone.  Ubiquinol or formulated ubiquinone are both more bioavailable, but probably not enough to justify the expense.  You just have to take a larger dose of ubiquinone.

 

There shouldn't be any paywalls at pubmed- it's free for the abstract and there are starting to be a non-trivial number of full text papers available.  The only paywalls come in when you are diverted to a journal publisher's site for full text.

 

 

I have seen many claims about ubiquinone absorption like this in research studies as well, and today I wasn't able to retrieve them because of paywall issues.  I had one professional researcher I know tell me that it was a waste of money to use ubiquinol because the additional absorption isn't significant enough to warrant the price difference.   

 

I am aware that abstracts are free.   I required the full text to explain the details behind the abstract, for the studies I located on the keywords I used.   The studies I found had abstracts that were just teasers and did not quantify the effects they claimed.

 

I was never arguing for USANA.   I think ubiquinone is the most cost effect choice when comparing ubiquinone to ubiquinol.   To get dose equivalency, take a little more and pay a lot less.

 

By the way, do a title search on pubmed for ubiquinol ubiquinone and the pickings are pretty slim, on either side of the argument.

Edited by pone11, 06 January 2015 - 06:38 AM.

[pone11]

Does anyone have any research studies on the MitoQ skin cream product?   I'm very curious why they chose that product in addition to the MitoQ supplement pill.

[Kalliste]

Does anyone have any research studies on the MitoQ skin cream product?   I'm very curious why they chose that product in addition to the MitoQ supplement pill.

 

3 reasons: There has been some other work on skin creams with Mito-stuff in it like Fullerene-squalene stuff. MitoQ has some pretty good results in vitro too and those conditions are close when you use a topical cream. And they want to get in on the beauty-market where creams are a big deal.

[pone11]

 

Does anyone have any research studies on the MitoQ skin cream product?   I'm very curious why they chose that product in addition to the MitoQ supplement pill.

 

3 reasons: There has been some other work on skin creams with Mito-stuff in it like Fullerene-squalene stuff. MitoQ has some pretty good results in vitro too and those conditions are close when you use a topical cream. And they want to get in on the beauty-market where creams are a big deal.

 

 

MitoQ isn't fullerene.   I don't think that research crosses over.   In any case, do you have links to the skin cell research for MitoQ?

[niner]

 

 

Does anyone have any research studies on the MitoQ skin cream product?   I'm very curious why they chose that product in addition to the MitoQ supplement pill.

 

3 reasons: There has been some other work on skin creams with Mito-stuff in it like Fullerene-squalene stuff. MitoQ has some pretty good results in vitro too and those conditions are close when you use a topical cream. And they want to get in on the beauty-market where creams are a big deal.

 

MitoQ isn't fullerene.   I don't think that research crosses over.   In any case, do you have links to the skin cell research for MitoQ?

 

It's my opinion that MitoQ and at least some fullerene compounds (e.g. c60oo) share the property of being mitochondrial antioxidants.    The beauty market is a nice place to bring out a compound because barriers to entry are low and users are used to paying insane amounts of money for small quantities of cheap chemicals.

[pone11]

 

 

 

Does anyone have any research studies on the MitoQ skin cream product?   I'm very curious why they chose that product in addition to the MitoQ supplement pill.

 

3 reasons: There has been some other work on skin creams with Mito-stuff in it like Fullerene-squalene stuff. MitoQ has some pretty good results in vitro too and those conditions are close when you use a topical cream. And they want to get in on the beauty-market where creams are a big deal.

 

MitoQ isn't fullerene.   I don't think that research crosses over.   In any case, do you have links to the skin cell research for MitoQ?

 

It's my opinion that MitoQ and at least some fullerene compounds (e.g. c60oo) share the property of being mitochondrial antioxidants.    The beauty market is a nice place to bring out a compound because barriers to entry are low and users are used to paying insane amounts of money for small quantities of cheap chemicals.

 

 

Sure, but would you trust a study on skin effects of Vitamin C - another antioxidant - to tell you about the effects of CoQ10?   Antioxidant is too general an umbrella.   Ideally, you would like to see skin research that is specific to CoQ10 or MitoQ.

 

I do understand why the skin market is attractive for the manufacturer.   But - based on underlying science - is the product attractive to the customer?