ubquinone v. ubiquinol

[sylviak]

I found the following article, which is useful. (source:http://www.alternativehealthjournal.com/article/coenzyme_q10_facts_or_fabrications/1311)

Coenzyme Q10 Facts or Fabrications
William V. Judy, Ph.D., Willis W. Stogsdill, M.D., Daniel S. Judy, M.D. and Janet S. Judy, R.N. CRC

CoEnzymeQl0 has been researched for years by scientists around the world, and its importance to the human body and its reported health benefits are widely known. For more than 30 years, people have been taking CoQ10 supplements in its oxidized form, ubquinone. When ubiquinol — the reduced form of CoQ10 — entered the US commercial market, manufacturers claimed that they had discovered a way to make the product stable so it could be used as a food or nutritional supplement in various delivery forms including softgels and free CoQ10 molecules in water and/or lipid based solutions such as liposomes, micelles, or nanoparticles. Several marketers also claimed that ubiquinol was the most bioactive and preferred form of CoQ10 in that 90-95% of the total body CoQ10 was in the form of ubiquinol. The absorption and bioavailability was claimed to be 300% better than of the oxidized (ubiquinone) forms of CoQ10.

Read the full article at:http://www.alternativehealthjournal.com/article/coenzyme_q10_facts_or_fabrications/1311

[cjbrooksjc]

Counterpoint: Google "Langsjoen + Ubiquinol" for extensive test results on the bioavailability of Ubiquinol.

Brooks

[Ray Holder]

Would the authors of the excellent link quoted by sylviak have any connection with Nurse Judy who posts on this forum? There is a lot of commercial site blurb about Q10, not all reliable or believeable. Scientifically based information can do nothing but good, I am still trying to evaluate the relative benefits and availability of each type in my present state, I know Q10 cannot be the giver of eternal life on this earth, but I am determined to get the maximum benefit I can from it and other supplements involved in energy production.

Ray

[sylviak]

*http://www.jlr.org/cgi/content/full/39/7/1430

*http://journals.lww.com/pedresearch/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=1993&issue=08000&article=00004&type=abstract

*http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/15/8/1425

*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18655217?ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

*http://www.dartmouth.edu/~blt/Publications/13535.pdf

*http://jb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/111/1/91

*http://www.hindawi.com/journals/mi/2009/415437.html

[sylviak]

A good source of peer-reviewed scientific papers dealing with the relationship between statin and COQ10 ...........

*http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=searchArticles&q1=&f1=all&b1=and&q2=coq10&f2=all

on ubiquinol
*http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=searchArticles&q1=ubiquinol&f1=all&b1=and&q2=&f2=all

on cholesterol testing & statin
*http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/9/39
*http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=searchArticles&q1=statin&f1=all&b1=and&q2=&f2=all

[Ray Holder]

I have to admit that most of sylviak's links go over my head, but the apparently good link below shows that although all known factors were taken into account, others, not known at the time, could well have had an effect on the observed outcomes. I refer to the statement that some candidates were taking beta blockers, now known to reduce the body's Q10 supply, so adding an unknown into the Q10 levels of those using them, and others were using calcium channel inhibitors, now known to interfere with the disposal of statins, thus enhancing their length of stay in the body

*http://www.jlr.org/cgi/content/full/39/7/1430

These factors could well have influenced the results, as they were only a passing note in the paper, and any differences in results ignored, but they would have made the apparent Q10 performance worse.

I do not know the circumstances of all these trials, but I am wary of peer reviews of cholesterol associated studies, which often are heavily funded by industry, and the reviewing peers may well be under the same financial constraints as the authors.

Ray

[sylviak]

Ray,

I've posted the links to the *www.doaj.org because it is an excellent source of peer-reviewed scientific articles available online and in full text for those who want to read more scientific papers dealing with the issue of COQ10 /COQH, instead of claims by the manufacturers or pharmaceutical companies.

There are other studies , but it would require that your library has a subscription to Science Direct, Ingenta etc.
These papers are written by members of the academic community and are required to state whether the reserach has been funded by pharmaceutical groups ( you can scroll at the last page of each articles).

In general, the studies found the beneficial effect of COQ10 and ubiquinol.
When papers are submitted to academic journals, they are peer-reviewed by editorial board members who are expert within this area. If there are unsubstantiated claims, they are questioned and asked to prove them. If the research is funded , they have to state this in the paper.

[cjbrooksjc]

I think "Ubiquinol/Ubiquinone GOOD; statins BAD" is a good catchall. :)

Brooks

[Biologist]

I think the originally linked URL was a pretty compelling argument:

*http://www.alternativehealthjournal.com/article/coenzyme_q10_facts_or_fabrications/1311

I reordered the non-reduced version of CoQ10 because of it -- because it's cheaper.

However, I watched/read this just now:

*http://products.mercola.com/coq10-ubiquinol/?source=nl

So I am unsure what to think at this point. I have not read all of sylviak's links in this thread yet, I should add. I hope to soon.

Ray, do you have any further thoughts on the issue of age and the ability to regenerate the reduced version? Could all of this mainly be hype?

Thanks.

Biologist

[cjbrooksjc]

Sylvia and Biologist: Dr Langsjoen once told me the best CoQ10 to use was a form of Ubiquinol he had tested at their CoQ10 lab in Tyler, Texas and found to have the best bioavailability of any Ubiquinol product available. I have posted this link many times before and won't bother you with it again. The reason I take this particular form is entirely based on Dr Langsjoen's recommendation. I will say that Mg for Mg it is decidedly cheaper that the Mercola version, though it is not cheap by any measure.

Best,

Brooks

[sylviak]

Thanks. I'm actually waiting for the arrival of the COQH you recommended. Aside from your recommendation, I checked with Consumer Lab and the lady in the Research department told me that based on the tests, the COQ10 (and all the products) manufactured by Tishcon passed the label claim. I asked her which brand she will recommend based on their research and she said this brand.

I am taking COQH but I will supplement it with COQ10 (100mg) to get the best possible effect.

[cjbrooksjc]

Sylvia: Seems a sensible approach.

Brooks

[sylviak]

World experts on CoQ10 including Dr. Fred Crane, the discoverer of CoQ10; Dr. Bill Judy, long-time colleague of Dr. Karl Folkers and world-leading authority on measuring CoQ10 bioavailability; Dr. Stephen Sinatra, the leading educator on CoQ10 and cardiovascular health; and Dr. Emile Bliznakov, eminent CoQ10 researcher and author of The Miracle Nutrient: Coenzyme Q10 discuss the differences.
*http://www.drpasswater.com/nutrition_library/Q-10%20Basics.htm

There are numerous articles to read .
*http://www.drpasswater.com/

Other helpful links
*http://www.articlecube.com/article.php?id=398392
*http://www.douglaslabs.com/coq10/images/CoQ10%20Poster.pdf

[cjbrooksjc]

Sylvia: Interesting link (*http://www.drpasswater.com/nutrition_library/Q-10%20Basics.htm); especially this bit: ---

"Reduced CoQ10 tends to oxidize eventually back to true CoQ10 and shelf-life studies ensure consumers that they are getting what they’re paying for. Consumers can check for themselves by opening a capsule and examining the color of the ingredients. Ubiquinol is white/gray compound whereas ubiquinone is yellow/orange."

I bit the end off one of my Epic4health UbiQuinol caps and found it to be yellow; not gray. I am sending a note to the supplier and the manufacturer with this verbiage and link embedded. We'll see what they say, but if I'm getting re-oxidized Ubiquinol; I'm not buying it any longer.

Good catch!

P.S. The name is an almost irresistible straight line.

Best,

Brooks

[cjbrooksjc]

I sent the note to Tishcon and Epic4health and copied Ali Langsjoen who runs the CoQ10 testing lab in Tyler, Tx. We'll see what they say. If you want to send a note as well and for the same reason:

**help@epic4health.com

and

**Raj@tishcon.com

No asterisks.

Brooks

[sylviak]

Brooks,
I am still waiting for my order to arrive. However, I checked the COQH (ubiquinol) NSI Kaneka that I am currently using. It is light yellow and it is not ubiquinol.
Hmmm.. Are they selling us old stocks? I will contact Vita Cost and NSI.
Does anybody else have the same experience?

[cjbrooksjc]

dunno. I figure if they get enough email questions - we will get an answer.

Brooks

[Allen1]

Reduced CoQ10 is white/yellow oxidized CoQ10 is orange. take a look at Dr Mecola's video from Biologists post earlier in this thread to see what I mean.
*http://products.mercola.com/coq10-ubiquinol/?source=nl

[Allen1]

Just to simplify the situation (unless I got it wrong):-

The reduced form of Co Q10 is called (ubiquinol) this is the new fangled version (Reduced CoQ10 is white/yellow)

The oxidized form of Co Q10 is called ( ubiquinone) this version is what we have been using up till now (oxidized CoQ10 is orange)

[cjbrooksjc]

Allen: The batch I bit into was definitely NOT white or yellow-white, but decidedly yellow-orange. I'm stickin' to my guns with the supplier - I want a response.