2844 replies to this topic

[ailambris]

No one is concerned about gout? And what's wrong with brewer's yeast?

[tintinet]

Agree: gout sucks, brewer's yeast doesn't, AFAIK.

[MrHappy]

Other way around, I'm pretty sure..
If you take a lot of yeast, which is high in RNA, this also means high levels of Purine, which means uric acid, which is what leads to gout, not Uridine specifically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uridine

http://arthritis.abo...oodstoavoid.htm

[rwac]

I believe adenosine and guanosine are purines while uridine and cytidine are pyrimidines.

[MrHappy]

BAC does a bag of 50% alpha-gpc for $25.. (25g yield)
NootraBioLabs does a bag of 50g bulk powder at 99.5% for $50... but's it's a little fiddly to dose.. much easier when you use the scoop that comes with the uridine, though.
..so about the same price, I think, you'll need twice as much powder from BAC.

Cognitex from LEF has 600mg of alpha-gpc, 50mg of uridine, DHA and some other goodies.. seems quite a good price, but not enough uridine/DHA, so separate supplements needed.

Edited by MrHappy, 06 November 2011 - 03:31 AM.

[spider]

I'm wondering why those researchers didn't include PS in the trio. I remember that there is controversy whether or not oral PS arives in the human brain (breakdown, bioavailability, crossing the BBB), maybe this is the reason.

Great topic, by the way.

[tintinet]

Other way around, I'm pretty sure..
If you take a lot of yeast, which is high in RNA, this also means high levels of Purine, which means uric acid, which is what leads to gout, not Uridine specifically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uridine

http://arthritis.abo...oodstoavoid.htm

Gout still sucks, ISTM. Also, the article you've linked states meat, but not plant foods high in purines are associated with gout.

[MrHappy]

Also, the article you've linked states meat, but not plant foods high in purines are associated with gout.

http://www.acumedico.com/purine.htm seems to be a pretty comprehensive list, with weight ratios. Hope that helps!
You could also extrapolate that as a list of high RNA foods and use the purine weight guide to estimate uridine content. Again, gout consideration. Me, I'm sticking to UMP powder and avoiding the issue altogether.

[tintinet]

Also, the article you've linked states meat, but not plant foods high in purines are associated with gout.

http://www.acumedico.com/purine.htm seems to be a pretty comprehensive list, with weight ratios. Hope that helps!
You could also extrapolate that as a list of high RNA foods and use the purine weight guide to estimate uridine content. Again, gout consideration. Me, I'm sticking to UMP powder and avoiding the issue altogether.

I don't disagree with sticking with UMP powder- likely the best option. But I currently have a few other sources of uridine lying about, and I've been feeling pretty good using them. And I've (cross my fingers and toes) never had gout thus far, so I plan on using them up before shelling out for another expensive supplement.

[MrHappy]

Excellent

[sam7777]

I cannot vouch for uridine or GPC, however I can vouch for citicoline.

Somehow the combination of tyrosine, malic acid, and citicoline has such a momumental effect on my brain. I literealy have to say it feels like I have gained a 30 point boost in IQ. I have a lot of psychological/cognitive problems, and I have always felt shackled within my own mind so to speak. Endless desire to learn, novel ideas - no energy or cognitive endurance whatsoever to do so. Suddenly... I CAN with this stuff.

The bad side - It really wears on your endocrine system. It has some effects on Cortisol releasing factor within the brain, and that is contraindicated with people who have adrenal fatigue, diabetes, or anxiety disorders, heart conditions, the like etc, etc.

I also feel like the day after I have used citicoline, that I am coming down from doing a full blown street drug... And I have a near migraine level headache.

I believe it goes well with the 30 + GRAMS of fish oil I take.

I have often wondered if my body just runs out of choline, and that perhaps that has to do with the issues of the citicoline. Alas, given the overwhelming beneficial properties of this substance to increase function in the logical frontal cortex part of my brain - that I must reverse engineer this stuff.

I have taken other cognitive enhancing supplements. herbs, but they all were much more left brained -borderline manic/acid trip sorts of experiences.
I am so loving the right brainededness of the citicoline. Is that a scientific term lol?

[Erstwhile]

Would taking ALCAR instead of Alpha-GPC be anywhere as effective for this combo? I ask because Alpha-GPC seems to give me some kind of brain fog, even at modest doses..

[rwac]

The Combo of ALCAR+Uridine works pretty well for me.

[MrHappy]

Discovered an additional short-term benefit in mediating the effects of sleep debt.

I had already had a long and unusually difficult 90 hour working week, however on top of that, I had to pull a 21 hour work day, get 3 hours sleep and be fully functional for another similar day. I found that shortly after dosing, that my brain was operating at near-normal efficiency. My body was tired and aching, but brain was great!

The next day, after 6 hours sleep, I was so busy that I skipped my morning dose and nearly had a complete meltdown by about 3pm. Dosed. Was back to normal function again shortly afterwards.

Under normal circumstances (ie. not overworked and sleep deprived) I can miss dosing for days at a time and there is no such 'crash', so I can only postulate that this regime is able to mitigate the effects of sleep debt to a fairly large degree.

Very interesting. Quite useful for doctors and uni students, I guess.

I'm guessing it's maintaining/elevating levels of PC that causes this?

[noos]

Why not make it easy and take CDP choline that increases uridine?

[health_nutty]

The Combo of ALCAR+Uridine works pretty well for me.

You don't think omega3's make a difference?

[rwac]

The Combo of ALCAR+Uridine works pretty well for me.

You don't think omega3's make a difference?

Personally, I believe that the role of omega3s is mostly to suppress the activity of omega6s, and that long term intake of omega3s is detrimental to health. Instead, the long term solution would be to try to minimize PUFAs in diet, but this will take 2-3 yrs to really show efficacy.

I used to take about 1.5g of DHA/EPA but it started having immediate negative effects after a couple of years or so.

[sam7777]

Just what is an effective dose of UMP. I could not even find this stuff online. I am not sure CDP is going to do what you claim UMP will, but I have aniracetam and sulbutiamine and GPC on the way, surely that would. I just was not aware how powerful UMP could be? Is it?

[rwac]

Just what is an effective dose of UMP. I could not even find this stuff online. I am not sure CDP is going to do what you claim UMP will, but I have aniracetam and sulbutiamine and GPC on the way, surely that would. I just was not aware how powerful UMP could be? Is it?

I take 500mg RNAx2 that's 250mg x2 uridine+cytidine and works pretty decently.

Edited by rwac, 12 November 2011 - 03:51 AM.

[MrHappy]

Sam7777 - superiornutraceuticals.com or ebay. 25g is $50.

250-500mg/day is pretty effective.

[Baten]

I bought from the ebay source. Looks like sugar! heh.

[MrHappy]

.. and sticks like crazy. I leave the scoop outside the tub, when not it use.

[chrono]

Supplementing folic acid - which, like uridine, you also obtain from your daily dietary intake, is all that is required to prevent that scenario from ever occuring.

Sorry, but is there any support for this being true in vivo? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no evidence which conclusively suggests that supplementing folic acid will perfectly correct for all the ill effects mentioned in post #35 in all areas of the body. Making absolute statements (let alone recommendations) about something like how to avoid cancer, in absence of really good data, strikes me as astonishingly reckless. People looking for easy answers will probably believe it, without being aware of all the assumptions you've based it on, or the levels of probability based on the actual research findings.

Also, supplementing folic acid is not a great way to avoid cancer, in general. See the wikipedia article for an introduction to the complexity.

[EDIT: my concern was overblown. see post #101]

Edited by chrono, 22 November 2011 - 09:28 AM.

[MrHappy]

One of the studies was in vivo.

Again, they went out of their way to make sure the animals were completely folate deficient, to cause the effect - a state which is unlikely to occur in nature.

It still pays to be cautious, don't you think?

[MrHappy]

http://www.pamelaega...ciency_0001.htm

[MrHappy]

http://www.iherb.com...Caps/18245?at=1

L-methylfolate supplement if you don't absorb folic acid.

[chrono]

One of the studies was in vivo.

Again, they went out of their way to make sure the animals were completely folate deficient, to cause the effect - a state which is unlikely to occur in nature.

It still pays to be cautious, don't you think?

More than the specific likelihood of your assumptions about this particular data being true, my main point was that you seem eager to look for, and pass on, simplified answers to complex problems. This can be dangerous when the subject is a confirmed carcinogen, and we must examine the data a lot more strenuously to assure an acceptable risk/benefit ratio (or at least, most people here would). Accuracy becomes a lot more critical, as does the importance of not making definitive statements about safety which are very unlikely to be supported conclusively by the available data.

As to this specific instance: I meant human in vivo studies. We don't understand cancer very well, even when we have a plethora of studies available. One animal study is better than none, but is unlikely to be grounds to make a definitive statement about anything in pharmacology, let alone cancer. Is the animal used a good model for the human folate system? Is total deficiency the only state which produces these effects, and was the opposing possibility positively ruled out across several studies in several models? Would this hold true in humans? Do the studies elucidate comprehensively the only possible routes of danger? Is "folate deficiency" a single, gross state, or can an agent deplete parts of the body differently, and supplementation correct this to varying degrees in varying timeframes? Does deficiency caused by uridine behave exactly the same as "natural" deficiency, making data about correction transferable? How might different people's folate metabolism interact with these variables? Does the proposed protective measure carry risks of its own?

These are just examples of the kind of questions we should be asking in this situation. I don't know the answers, and I doubt the studies posted in this thread would get us much closer to the level of assurance you seem to be defending. Some of these questions may be irrelevant and some may be answerable with further research and discussion, but I see little evidence of such thorough consideration before assuring us that this will never happen if we just take folic acid.

http://www.pamelaega...ciency_0001.htm

Not sure what you're saying here. This was written by someone selling folate supplements, which is probably why it doesn't mention any of the downsides found just in the wikipedia summary. I wouldn't deny that supplementation can be beneficial in some instances, but there are a lot of unknowns here which you don't seem to be acknowledging. Which, again, is my point. Sorry for the pointed criticism, but like I said, people with varying levels of understanding read what you and I write.


[EDIT: my concern was overblown. see post #101]

Edited by chrono, 22 November 2011 - 09:29 AM.

[MrHappy]

I'd love to see more human studies, but despite their existence, they weren't looking at the roles of methylfolate and UMP in humans specifically. The only data available for this question exists in vitro and in vivo (animal studies).

Since there are more than 6 patents either applied for, held, or pending for uridine, in relation to disease modifying capabilites for the most common neurodegenerative diseases, which also include data from 1-2 years of trials, I'm fairly content that they also believe it to be fit for human supplementation. Heck, how long has CDP-choline been popular for? Haven't heard of any cancer clusters surrounding it.

However, even if the risk is small, I'd rather play it safe and consume the same ratios of folate with my UMP that I would get if I was to obtain it from a natural source.

Folate has many important roles in cellular development, which is why it is listed as a critical part of a pregnant woman's dietary intake. Insufficient folate can lead to birth defects, including neural tube defects. Folate is also required to synthesize, methylate and repair DNA.

However, folate has been shown to cause problems with B12 absorption. I posted the study showing B12 deficiency as a potential cause of carcinogenesis. Again, not a good situation, so keeping B9/B12 in balance seems like a good idea to me.

So, in the absence of 20 years of human trials and data to crunch, I'm go to take the most logical and safe approach. I can't see any issue with maintaining the approximate RDI for 2 common B vitamins as a precaution. It's not like I'm suggesting a daily 10xRDA megadose.

Uridine is regularly obtained from RNA-rich foods, so I'm reasonably satisfied that the substance itself is not carcinogenic. It's also in reasonable doses in breast-milk substitute formula and of course, breast milk. These substances also have balanced B9/B12 and many other nutrients. Again, no cancer cluster in babies.

Uprating cellular genesis without the related supporting nutrients required to maintain that replication process being considered as potentially genotoxic and by virtue carcinogenic makes logical sense to me.

Again, more human studies and data would be helpful in demonstrating that. Perhaps there will be some in a few years.

[chrono]

That's a better explanation, as your assumptions are more clear. That patents/human trials and presence in foods is a measure of safety, that CDP-choline is substantially similar and its history of use indicates safety, that if people have gotten cancer from uridine it will be evident as the cause, natural sources like breast milk are comparable to supplements, etc. These may all very well be true, but aren't really definitive.

So, in the absence of 20 years of human trials and data to crunch, I'm go to take the most logical and safe approach. I can't see any issue with maintaining the approximate RDI for 2 common B vitamins as a precaution.

No, if you're just getting the RDI, that's not a problem. But that this is the right level to assure an optimum balance is another assumption. Though it might be the best one can do, when taking more could have downsides.

Indeed, you mentioned earlier in the thread that natural sources like tomatoes give humans the correct balance of these molecules, but I couldn't find a source or explanation just now. Could you elaborate on this? I find it somewhat hard to believe that the tomato's healthy molecules are present in ideal ratios for human nutrition...

Personally, in the absence of clear answers to some of these questions, I think the most logical and safe approach would be to use one of the many other neurogenetics discussed on the board, assuming a young and healthy person requires one at all. I'm uncomfortable about assuming safety based on one animal study and some thought experiments, when it comes to cancer, and no necessarily compelling advantage over similar supps (though I haven't done a thorough review, so I could well be mistaken about this). But this is just my line of reasoning, and I could very well be making an issue of nothing. If people here want to use this after being informed of the potential issues, that's totally up to them. I may end up using it myself, depending on the relative levels in some of those superfood plants. Just be careful about sounding definitive about things which are based on a string of assumptions, when you're handing out all this advice.

Edited by chrono, 13 November 2011 - 01:59 PM.

[spider]

That's a better explanation, as your assumptions are more clear. That patents/human trials and presence in foods is a measure of safety, that CDP-choline is substantially similar and its history of use indicates safety, that if people have gotten cancer from uridine it will be evident as the cause, natural sources like breast milk are comparable to supplements, etc. These may all very well be true, but aren't really definitive.

To think of new options for cognitive problems, it is necessary to make assumptions. This is because there is so little amount facts in this field. Even the best scientists in this field cannot give definite answers to consequences, right amounts, methods of action, co-effects, etc. about supplements and drugs. Of course, because it is such a complex subject.

This being said, you cannot recommend a supplement or drug combi implying it is 100% safe or 100% effective. However, probably most of us know that everything being 'recommended' here is somewhat experimental. This means that you should regard it with a healthy amount of sceptisism and do your own 'research' and thinking. Also, comparing multiple opinions is helpful in evaluating the risk and effectiveness of the drug/supplement. It would be optimal to discuss it with a physician/neurologist.