I've been trying to figure out which of these supplements I should take, and the information regarding them is extremely confusing. For instance idebenone is often marketed as an analogue to CoQ10 that will cause less oxidative stress however a study found that "Among the quinones tested, idebenone is particularly effective in inducing a dramatic increase of superoxide production . Because idebenone is clinically used in mitochondrial cytopathies and neurodegenerative diseases, its strong pro-oxidant effect raises doubts on its safety as a drug." I want input on how these choices fare relative to the different factors listed, as well as ideas about what factors should also be considered. One factor we have to consider when choosing between Idebenone and some form of CoQ10 is what one can do that the other can't, for instance Idebenone has nootropic effects whereas I'm not sure if CoQ10 does. This is less of a problem when choosing which version of CoQ10 to take because the body can convert Ubiquinone to Ubiquinol and vice versa at need since they are redox pairs. CoQ10 (in the ubiquinol form) has been demonstrated to oxidize fat which partially limits its antioxidant effects, Idebenone has been shown to have oxidative effects (but it should be noted that this study referenced is a review of of studies done on bovine/rat heart and liver submitochondrial particles and not in vivo), Ubiquinol can be converted to normal CoQ10 so it should have the potential for oxidative effects as Ubiquinone (unless its the conversion from Ubiquinone to Ubiquinol itself that causes the oxidation). In the above cited study about idebenone they say "Complex I inhibitors, acting at the level of iron-sulfur clusters, such as p-hydroxymercuribenzoate, inhibited superoxide production" are there ways of inhibiting the oxide production for all of these supplements, are these ways safe? And do they all oxidate things in the same ways? For instance Idebenone has an antioxidative effect in the mitochondria but in the case of the respiratory chain has an oxidative effect.CoQ10 turns prooxidative in the case of lack of oxygen/hypoxia. ISo which supplement causes the least oxidation (especially relative to its antioxidant effect)? I think I heard somewhere that CoQ10 residue builds up in your heart, is this a problem and does Idebenone do this? One advantage of CoQ10 is that when you take it your body has access to both forms of it since it's a redox, I'm not sure if you have something similar in Idebenone. Are there any variants of Idebenone that we have to consider like there are for CoQ10? One advantage of Idebenone is its effects on learning while one advantage of CoQ10 is that it is much better researched. If we're looking at Idebenone we have to consider its bio-availability and the efficiency of its different forms. Out of Idebenone and the two forms of CoQ10 which has the best bioavailibility? And is it possible for the less bioavaiblible supplements to reach comparabale levels of bioavailiblity by using techniques like oil suspension or novel carriers like leitchin or liposomes ? If we're looking at CoQ10 we have to consider which form we should take, for instance an average Ubiquinol will higher bioavailbility than an average Ubiquinone supplement because it has higher water solubility, but Ubiquinone can also be made more bioavailable like it is in the supplement BioQ10 (of course even if BioQ10 absorbs as well as your normal Ubiquinol there could be a way of taking ubiquinol that would be more bioavailible ). It's probably best to take the form of CoQ10 that is most used by the body so the body will have to convert less, does the body use more Ubiquinone or Ubiquinol. And is it as easy for the body to convert Ubiquinol to Ubiquinone as it is to convert Ubiquinone to Ubiquinol or is one harder than the other? We also should compare Idebnone to targeted forms of CoQ10 (are there any targeted forms of Idebnone?) for instance the paper "Mitochondria-targeted antioxidants protect Friedreich Ataxia fibroblasts from endogenous oxidative stress more effectively than untargeted antioxidants" found that MitoQ (mitochrondrial targeted version of CoQ10) was several hundred times more potent at protecting ataxia than Idebenone .Which supplement has the worst risks, which has the most benefit? We have to consider whether one of these has any synergistic effect when paired with certain supplements that the others can't imitate. So which supplement do you think has the best ratio of bioavailiblity, safety, power of effect, and the range of effects? Which do you like the most? Are there any other variants of CoQ10 or synthetic analogues like Idebenone that should be brought into the discussion? Or do you not think any of them are useful?
CoQ10 Vs. Ubiquinol Vs Idebenone
#1
Posted 12 August 2013 - 06:13 AM
I've been trying to figure out which of these supplements I should take, and the information regarding them is extremely confusing. For instance idebenone is often marketed as an analogue to CoQ10 that will cause less oxidative stress however a study found that "Among the quinones tested, idebenone is particularly effective in inducing a dramatic increase of superoxide production . Because idebenone is clinically used in mitochondrial cytopathies and neurodegenerative diseases, its strong pro-oxidant effect raises doubts on its safety as a drug." I want input on how these choices fare relative to the different factors listed, as well as ideas about what factors should also be considered. One factor we have to consider when choosing between Idebenone and some form of CoQ10 is what one can do that the other can't, for instance Idebenone has nootropic effects whereas I'm not sure if CoQ10 does. This is less of a problem when choosing which version of CoQ10 to take because the body can convert Ubiquinone to Ubiquinol and vice versa at need since they are redox pairs. CoQ10 (in the ubiquinol form) has been demonstrated to oxidize fat which partially limits its antioxidant effects, Idebenone has been shown to have oxidative effects (but it should be noted that this study referenced is a review of of studies done on bovine/rat heart and liver submitochondrial particles and not in vivo), Ubiquinol can be converted to normal CoQ10 so it should have the potential for oxidative effects as Ubiquinone (unless its the conversion from Ubiquinone to Ubiquinol itself that causes the oxidation). In the above cited study about idebenone they say "Complex I inhibitors, acting at the level of iron-sulfur clusters, such as p-hydroxymercuribenzoate, inhibited superoxide production" are there ways of inhibiting the oxide production for all of these supplements, are these ways safe? And do they all oxidate things in the same ways? For instance Idebenone has an antioxidative effect in the mitochondria but in the case of the respiratory chain has an oxidative effect.CoQ10 turns prooxidative in the case of lack of oxygen/hypoxia. ISo which supplement causes the least oxidation (especially relative to its antioxidant effect)? I think I heard somewhere that CoQ10 residue builds up in your heart, is this a problem and does Idebenone do this? One advantage of CoQ10 is that when you take it your body has access to both forms of it since it's a redox, I'm not sure if you have something similar in Idebenone. Are there any variants of Idebenone that we have to consider like there are for CoQ10? One advantage of Idebenone is its effects on learning while one advantage of CoQ10 is that it is much better researched. If we're looking at Idebenone we have to consider its bio-availability and the efficiency of its different forms. Out of Idebenone and the two forms of CoQ10 which has the best bioavailibility? And is it possible for the less bioavaiblible supplements to reach comparabale levels of bioavailiblity by using techniques like oil suspension or novel carriers like leitchin or liposomes ? If we're looking at CoQ10 we have to consider which form we should take, for instance an average Ubiquinol will higher bioavailbility than an average Ubiquinone supplement because it has higher water solubility, but Ubiquinone can also be made more bioavailable like it is in the supplement BioQ10 (of course even if BioQ10 absorbs as well as your normal Ubiquinol there could be a way of taking ubiquinol that would be more bioavailible ). It's probably best to take the form of CoQ10 that is most used by the body so the body will have to convert less, does the body use more Ubiquinone or Ubiquinol. And is it as easy for the body to convert Ubiquinol to Ubiquinone as it is to convert Ubiquinone to Ubiquinol or is one harder than the other? We also should compare Idebnone to targeted forms of CoQ10 (are there any targeted forms of Idebnone?) for instance the paper "Mitochondria-targeted antioxidants protect Friedreich Ataxia fibroblasts from endogenous oxidative stress more effectively than untargeted antioxidants" found that MitoQ (mitochrondrial targeted version of CoQ10) was several hundred times more potent at protecting ataxia than Idebenone .Which supplement has the worst risks, which has the most benefit? We have to consider whether one of these has any synergistic effect when paired with certain supplements that the others can't imitate. So which supplement do you think has the best ratio of bioavailiblity, safety, power of effect, and the range of effects? Which do you like the most? Are there any other variants of CoQ10 or synthetic analogues like Idebenone that should be brought into the discussion? Or do you not think any of them are useful?
#2
Posted 14 August 2013 - 01:36 PM
#3
Posted 20 August 2013 - 03:39 AM
#4
Posted 20 August 2013 - 03:47 AM
#5
Posted 20 August 2013 - 01:31 PM
#6
Posted 11 January 2014 - 02:36 AM
I haven't kept up on the bucky balls olive oil, but what evidence is there that it specifically targets mitochondria ROS better than ubiquinol?
#7
Posted 11 January 2014 - 04:44 AM
Good questions, but I think the only real debate is Ubiquinol vs MitoQ. I'm skeptical on the latter because they seem to have specifically designed the supplement to be at dose parity with equivalent ubiqui- doses, i.e. 5mg mitoq x 8.47 = 42mg -nol x 8 = 336mg -none. If MitoQ was really a breakthrough product as claimed, they wouldn't be pussyfooting around trying to maximize their profit on the limited sales they expect thereof, but go for a market dominant position and change the world. Caveat: Blood levels may not reflect intracellular levels.
I'm also skeptical of MitoQ, but only because I'm skeptical of every "breakthrough" - not because of their marketing strategies. A small-time marketing strategy would minimize their overhead and maximize their margins; seeking market dominance would require a large investment. Furthermore, a "change the world" supplement is likely to draw regulatory scrutiny, and whether or not the FDA could legally regulate MitoQ (I have no idea), the company may not have the funds to resist. And if they lost, they would face considerable difficulty and expense getting approval as a drug: However promising the research may be, it may not be strong enough to justify the multi-million-dollar expense of a pivotal trial and an NDA, which could be denied, killing their business entirely.
So I don't think we should read too much into that.
Anyway, one promising aspect of MitoQ: I read that it could deal with reducing free radials in addition to oxidizing free radicals. We usually think of "free radials" as molecules that oxidize whatever they come into contact with (and which need to be reduced by antioxidants), but I see no reason that molecules that reduce whatever they come into contact with wouldn't also be harmful. According to this abstract (haven't read the full paper), MitoQ can decrease both kinds of radicals. Meanwhile, curcumin decreases oxidizing free radicals (the kind we usually talk about), while resveratrol decreases reducing free radials (possibly related to its effects on NAD+).
Edited by Volcanic, 11 January 2014 - 04:47 AM.
#8
Posted 16 January 2014 - 05:09 AM
---Some of us can't. This forum does not allow some of us (poor programming?) to separate our paragraphs.I would also advise you to add paragraphs to your post.
Edited by AlexCanada, 16 January 2014 - 05:10 AM.
#9
Posted 16 January 2014 - 02:46 PM
The "diverse supplement mixture" which significantly shortened lifespan in Spindler's recent paper, also differed from the other supplements tested in that it contained CoQ10. Seems alarmingly consistent...
#10
Posted 16 January 2014 - 05:29 PM
None for me, because CoQ10 actually shortened the lifespan of genetically healthy, well-kept mice.
The "diverse supplement mixture" which significantly shortened lifespan in Spindler's recent paper, also differed from the other supplements tested in that it contained CoQ10. Seems alarmingly consistent...
The first link dealing with CoQ10 doesn't seem to be a peer reviewed study. The 2nd doesn't indicate a result from CoQ10 in the abstract. Is there more detail somewhere else? Also curious what they actually did to achieve the test condition mentioned in the title of feeding mice "isocalorically". If they reduced caloric intake in the controls to offset the extra calories from supplements their results could be off. Because they could actually be comparing taking supplements to caloric restriction. Which would be an interesting result, just not the one claimed. It might be a coincidence, but here is another paper from Spindler on that very subject:
Caloric restriction: from soup to nuts.
A controlled lifespan study in an animal given statins and coq10 taken alone and in combination would be interesting. Looks like Spindler has actually already done that. What's more interesting is to compare the CoQ10 data in figure 4 of the drosophilia Statin study (5 mM CoQ10 [triangle] ):
Statin treatment increases lifespan and improves cardiac health in Drosophila
http://www.ncbi.nlm....e-0039581-g004/
with the CoQ10 data ("In the right-hand chart, The blue curve is co-enzyme Q-10") from the unpublished presentation on mice:
https://web.archive....ife_Spans-2.gif
Showing that both fruit flies and mice have what looks like nearly an identical lifespan response to CoQ10. But I think I'd like to see someone else confirm the validity of all of his data. Fwiw, the form of CoQ10 described in the statin study is Ubiquinone.
Howard
Edited by hav, 16 January 2014 - 05:43 PM.
#11
Posted 16 January 2014 - 06:42 PM
The results from the LGcombo diet you are referring to in Spindlers study came with the following disclaimerNone for me, because
The "diverse supplement mixture" which significantly shortened lifespan in Spindler's recent paper, also differed from the other supplements tested in that it contained CoQ10. Seems alarmingly consistent...
" The toxicity of the LGcombo may be due in part to the Krill oil and opti-DHA present in the diet (Table 1). Opti-DHA is composed of marine lipids rich in docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 450 mg/g) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; 150 mg/g). Mice con- suming AIN-93M diet supplemented with either krill oil or Lovaza, which are also DHA and EPA rich oils, had reduced lifespans relative to the unsupplemented control mice (Spindler et al. 2013a)."
The LGcombo diet had just 1.17 mg of ubiquinol, and 100 mg of ubiquinone. ( 60g total supplement, so do the % ). The LEF mix diet had no CoQ10
#12
Posted 07 May 2014 - 02:05 AM
Hi All, I am the CEO of MitoQ and happy to answer questions. I have requested set up a company sponsored thread and once done can answer your questions directly there. In the mean time a couple of points to address per above.
<br>
Re marketing - we are taking a very conservative and what we feel is a responsible approach to this. The compound shows much promise but we cannot make any claims or hype our effect purely because we would fall into the realm of medical claims and this is not looked upon well by the various medical regulatory bodies around the world. The studies to stack up however and we encourage you to do the research. Our latest research comes out of an independent study at Colorado U, Boulder and is on and aged model of mouse vascular effect - you will need to Google it as this is my first post and I am unable to post links.
<br>
Re dosing - we accumulate in the mitochondria some 847 times that of CoQ10 (not the 8.47 mentioned above) so at 5mg you are going to be getting the benefit of substantially more CoQ10. You cant compare the two molecules quite like that but it is ball park.
<br>
Re funding and more research - Volcanic hit the nail on the head .... funding is an issue and we thought bringing MitoQ to market as a supplement for all to benefit from was the most pragmatic way to make MitoQ available.
<br>
Many thanks and all the best for those that have chosen to purchase the supplement.
<br>
Greg
#13
Posted 07 May 2014 - 02:39 AM
Hi All, I am the CEO of MitoQ and happy to answer questions. I have requested set up a company sponsored thread and once done can answer your questions directly there. In the mean time a couple of points to address per above.
<br>
Re marketing - we are taking a very conservative and what we feel is a responsible approach to this. The compound shows much promise but we cannot make any claims or hype our effect purely because we would fall into the realm of medical claims and this is not looked upon well by the various medical regulatory bodies around the world. The studies to stack up however and we encourage you to do the research. Our latest research comes out of an independent study at Colorado U, Boulder and is on and aged model of mouse vascular effect - you will need to Google it as this is my first post and I am unable to post links.
<br>
Re dosing - we accumulate in the mitochondria some 847 times that of CoQ10 (not the 8.47 mentioned above) so at 5mg you are going to be getting the benefit of substantially more CoQ10. You cant compare the two molecules quite like that but it is ball park.
<br>
Re funding and more research - Volcanic hit the nail on the head .... funding is an issue and we thought bringing MitoQ to market as a supplement for all to benefit from was the most pragmatic way to make MitoQ available.
<br>
Many thanks and all the best for those that have chosen to purchase the supplement.
<br>
Greg
Greg, have you considered selling SKQ1? Quite a few of us here are interested in this molecule and it is very similar to MitoQ so synth should not be a problem. It also appears to provide more benefits than MitoQ.
#14
Posted 07 May 2014 - 03:26 AM
Hi Pwain, no, we haven't considered selling SKQ1. SKQ1 and MitoQ are both mitochondria-targeted antioxidants and both exhibit similar "class" effects. Whilst there is some commentary coming out of Russia that one compound is better than the other the reality is that in in vivo research indicates similar effect. With that in mind our preference is the modified CoQ10 version which is more closely aligned with our own natural antioxidant.
#15
Posted 07 May 2014 - 04:21 AM
This was one of the reasons I was keen on SKQ1:
http://www.longecity...is/#entry654458
Meaning a higher safe dosage.
#16
Posted 07 May 2014 - 07:15 AM
The pro-oxident issue is an interesting one but a red herring.
In theorythere could be an issue but in reality the in vivo dose required to manifest a pro-oxidant effect is significantly above that required for a therapeutic effect.
This is borne out from the human clinical trials at doses as high as 80mg per day that had no pro-oxidant effect. And also in murine research where dosing as high as 27mg/kg/day (2000mg+/day for an 80kg man) have no pro-oxidant effect.
#17
Posted 07 May 2014 - 11:31 AM
#18
Posted 07 May 2014 - 12:36 PM
Hi Greg,
Glad to have you participating here. A few questions. Can MitoQ be used long term or should it be cycled? Are there any contra-indicated supplements you know of? Supplements that might by synergistic? A lot of people here use c60-00 (buckyballs), and I am wondering if it would make a nice cycling partner with MitoQ? I am hoping you could come up with some bulk pricing for longecity members in the future as many will want to take it long term.
Best,
Barry
#19
Posted 07 May 2014 - 12:49 PM
Oh and would MitoQ be contra-indicated for any conditions, cancers, kidney ailments ....?
#20
Posted 07 May 2014 - 09:09 PM
Oh and would MitoQ be contra-indicated for any conditions, cancers, kidney ailments ....?
Hi Barry - Good question ... there are no contra-indications for specific conditions and in fact there is quite a bit of research over on pubmed that you can look up relating to various models of disease where MitoQ can have a positive impact. Just search "MitoQ and X condition" to see the work. Essentially MitoQ is supporting optimal mitochondrial function and rebalancing oxidative stress imbalances - both of which will be of benefit to reduce oxidative insult to cells as well as improving power supply to the cell for repair and optimal function.
Regarding cancer - that is a tough one. We have one paper which indicates some benefit in breast cancer. I still have to post a few more comments before I can post links so you will need to search "The antioxidant transcription factor Nrf2 negatively regulates autophagy and growth arrest induced by the anticancer redox agent mitoquinone" on pubmed. Also take a look at the "Warburg Hypothesis" on wikipedia which suggests there maybe some benefit if the theory is correct. However, the answer is we don't know yet what effect MitoQ might have on cancer and until we do it is better to suggest caution and each individual needs to do the research, talk with their physician and create a plan that fits with their health goals.
Hi Greg,
Glad to have you participating here. A few questions. Can MitoQ be used long term or should it be cycled? Are there any contra-indicated supplements you know of? Supplements that might by synergistic? A lot of people here use c60-00 (buckyballs), and I am wondering if it would make a nice cycling partner with MitoQ? I am hoping you could come up with some bulk pricing for longecity members in the future as many will want to take it long term.
Best,
Barry
There is no real reason why MitoQ can't be taken long term or that it needs two be cycled. Take a look at the Animal and Human studies with MitoQ paper that is on our site for a summary of what we have learnt about MitoQ over the last decade or so. To find the link you will need to go to the bottom of the MitoQ site and click on the Health Professional link and then select the first link under the Mitochondrial Research header on the left.
I am a little behind you all on the c60-OO science so will need to brush up on that before I can comment.
In terms of pricing. We offer wholesale pricing to Physicians - if you are aware of any who are in these forums then perhaps you can arrange a bulk buy with them and distribute that way to save a few $$.
Lastly, to give you some personal experience. I have been taking 20mg of MitoQ daily in the morning for the last 8 months. I have noticed improved clarity of thought, increased exercise endurance, improved energy levels and a general feeling of well being (44yo 80kg male). I started taking 10mg twice a day but found that I was waking to early in the morning so changed to once daily dose and this resolved.
#21
Posted 08 May 2014 - 05:56 PM
Also in chronic lyme or other such infection, can COQ10 protect pathogens from oxidative lysing?
#22
Posted 09 May 2014 - 12:44 AM
How can we prevent BP drop from mito q (I assume its like COQ10 in this regard?)
Also in chronic lyme or other such infection, can COQ10 protect pathogens from oxidative lysing?
MitoQ is going to support the delivery of extra energy to the cell and reduce oxidative stress.
This will manifest differently for each individual but in theory, in the case of being concerned with lowering BP, you may find that your BP will balance out with a normalisation in vascular endothelial activity (potentially decreasing BP) in combination with enhanced heart health offsetting this issue. These changes are not going to happen overnight, they happen slowly and your body will adjust accordingly.
Regarding the issue around pathogen effect - sorry, I do not know the answer to that. What I do know is that MitoQ does not hang around in the blood for long - it accumulates rapidly in the mitochondria and so is unlikely to have a direct impact on pathogens. That said, it may improve the body's own ability to deal with infection.
As a point of interest MitoQ is quite different from broad spectrum antioxidants that have the potential to interfere with beneficial pro-oxidant signalling (as the case will be with infection). Because MitoQ is rapidly accumulated in the mitochondria MitoQ essentially is taken out of circulation.
The pro-oxident issue is an interesting one but a red herring.
In theorythere could be an issue but in reality the in vivo dose required to manifest a pro-oxidant effect is significantly above that required for a therapeutic effect.
This is borne out from the human clinical trials at doses as high as 80mg per day that had no pro-oxidant effect. And also in murine research where dosing as high as 27mg/kg/day (2000mg+/day for an 80kg man) have no pro-oxidant effect.
@Pwain - apologies, I went back and checked my facts and the 27/mg/kg is the recorded dose where you see toxicity. 20mg/mg/kg is the dosing in mice that is considered safe. That equates to 1.6g of MitoQ per day in an 80k man. Still much more than you are likely to take but correcting for the record.
I also want to expand on my comments above regarding my personal experience with MitoQ. I found that I noticed steady changes with different effects during the first 6 months of supplementation. Anecdotally I put that down to the different life cycle times of my various cells and cellular systems. It took about 6 months to get to a new normal.
Thanks
#23
Posted 09 May 2014 - 11:42 AM
@Pwain - apologies, I went back and checked my facts and the 27/mg/kg is the recorded dose where you see toxicity. 20mg/mg/kg is the dosing in mice that is considered safe. That equates to 1.6g of MitoQ per day in an 80k man. Still much more than you are likely to take but correcting for the record.
Actually you need to calculate the HED and scale the dose down not just extrapolate from animal studies. Human equivalent dose for the average man/mice would be (3/37)*20mg/kg, so for a 80kg man that would translate to (3/37)*1600mg =129.73mg. Now obviously this value isn't necessarily toxic, but in a clinical trial (going from animal to human) one would assume that toxicity would occur somewhere around this dosage.
#24
Posted 09 May 2014 - 06:10 PM
Regarding the issue around pathogen effect - sorry, I do not know the answer to that. What I do know is that MitoQ does not hang around in the blood for long - it accumulates rapidly in the mitochondria and so is unlikely to have a direct impact on pathogens. That said, it may improve the body's own ability to deal with infection.
As a point of interest MitoQ is quite different from broad spectrum antioxidants that have the potential to interfere with beneficial pro-oxidant signalling (as the case will be with infection). Because MitoQ is rapidly accumulated in the mitochondria MitoQ essentially is taken out of circulation.
Will the same mechanism cause it to accumulate in lipid coated pathogens?
Another question- Is there any possibility that mito q will pro oxidant in already damaged and energy/perfusion/oxygen deficient mitochondria or cells as I believe coq10 would?
I ask because I have some sort of inflammatory myelitis/encephalaopthy that is causing really bad mitochondrial damage induced brain fog. I really want to protect my neurons and mitochondria while ameliorating some systems as my Dr. and I try to track down the trigger...However I am leery of making things worse. I understand you can't comment on my specific condition thought, which I why my questions are general. Thanks.
#25
Posted 09 May 2014 - 10:30 PM
TOday on Sciencedaily.com there was an article mentioning the poor functioning of mitochondria in autistic people. Might Mitoq be beneficial at all and if so would it be dangerous for children?
#26
Posted 11 May 2014 - 09:50 PM
TOday on Sciencedaily.com there was an article mentioning the poor functioning of mitochondria in autistic people. Might Mitoq be beneficial at all and if so would it be dangerous for children?
We don't have any specific data on whether MitoQ could help with autism nor do we have any data on MitoQ in children I am sorry.
In theory, if there is a level of mitochondrial dysfunction in autism then MitoQ may assist. You would need to discuss with a medical doctor.
#27
Posted 13 May 2014 - 04:21 AM
@Pwain - apologies, I went back and checked my facts and the 27/mg/kg is the recorded dose where you see toxicity. 20mg/mg/kg is the dosing in mice that is considered safe. That equates to 1.6g of MitoQ per day in an 80k man. Still much more than you are likely to take but correcting for the record.
Actually you need to calculate the HED and scale the dose down not just extrapolate from animal studies. Human equivalent dose for the average man/mice would be (3/37)*20mg/kg, so for a 80kg man that would translate to (3/37)*1600mg =129.73mg. Now obviously this value isn't necessarily toxic, but in a clinical trial (going from animal to human) one would assume that toxicity would occur somewhere around this dosage.
Thanks - you are absolutely correct - my apologies for the incorrect information.
#28
Posted 13 May 2014 - 10:39 PM
Regarding the issue around pathogen effect - sorry, I do not know the answer to that. What I do know is that MitoQ does not hang around in the blood for long - it accumulates rapidly in the mitochondria and so is unlikely to have a direct impact on pathogens. That said, it may improve the body's own ability to deal with infection.
As a point of interest MitoQ is quite different from broad spectrum antioxidants that have the potential to interfere with beneficial pro-oxidant signalling (as the case will be with infection). Because MitoQ is rapidly accumulated in the mitochondria MitoQ essentially is taken out of circulation.
Will the same mechanism cause it to accumulate in lipid coated pathogens?
Another question- Is there any possibility that mito q will pro oxidant in already damaged and energy/perfusion/oxygen deficient mitochondria or cells as I believe coq10 would?
I ask because I have some sort of inflammatory myelitis/encephalaopthy that is causing really bad mitochondrial damage induced brain fog. I really want to protect my neurons and mitochondria while ameliorating some systems as my Dr. and I try to track down the trigger...However I am leery of making things worse. I understand you can't comment on my specific condition thought, which I why my questions are general. Thanks.
Will the same mechanism cause it to accumulate in lipid coated pathogens?
Not usually as the membrane potential is lower and they usually have a cell wall that slows down uptake compared to that into other cells.
Another question- Is there any possibility that mito q will pro oxidant in already damaged and energy/perfusion/oxygen deficient mitochondria or cells as I believe coq10 would?
This seems unlikely as we have no evidence of MitoQ (or of CoQ or idebenone) being prooxidant in vivo as they are stuck in or on lipid membranes which prevents this.
I ask because I have some sort of inflammatory myelitis/encephalaopthy that is causing really bad mitochondrial damage induced brain fog. I really want to protect my neurons and mitochondria while ameliorating some systems as my Dr. and I try to track down the trigger...However I am leery of making things worse. I understand you can't comment on my specific condition thought, which I why my questions are general. Thanks.
It seems unlikely that MitoQ would make things worse, but of course you should be guided by your physician. If you do take MitoQ best to start low and see how you feel and discontinue if you feel any problems.
#29
Posted 15 May 2014 - 12:14 PM
Greg,
What do you think of developing MitoQ eye drops, like the SkQ1 eye drops?
Also, what became of MitoE?
Thanks.
#30
Posted 15 May 2014 - 11:50 PM
Greg,
What do you think of developing MitoQ eye drops, like the SkQ1 eye drops?
Also, what became of MitoE?
Thanks.
Yes, MitoQ eye drops are in the pipeline. Not exactly sure when we will get them to market but watch this space.
Of all of the compounds in the Mito family - MitoE, MitoC, MitoLipoicAcid etc MitoQ has consistently shown to be the compound of most promise. Because of this all our energy has been committed to knowing as much as we can about MitoQ.
As we get more resource we will be able to start to get more research underway on these other interesting compounds.
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: coq10ubinquinol, idebenone, mitoq, comparison, longevity, ubiquinone, mitochondria, dangers, benefits
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users