Coenzyme Q10/Ubiquinone - Ubiquinol

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Luciano

Same here, but I thought it came from pentox...
as i'm taking both I actually dont know...
(Actually it occurs when i take my medicine on empty stomach)
as i heard pentox can give you stomach probs on empty stomach.. I thought it came from that.

Luc

Woodman

I was taking Pentox along with the CoQ10. I have heard that Pentox will cause reflux and stomach issues for some too. I ve also heard it should be taken with food to try and avoid it.

I guess the easiest way to figure it out is to quit taking the CoQ10 for a little while and see if the symptoms improve. If it was happening on an empty stomach only I would probably start first taking the pentox and CoQ10 with food and see if that resolves the problem.

ComeBacKid

Pentox can make the stomach upset, try taking it with food, unfortunately this is just a side effect that can happen, but not always.  Right now I"ve been on pentox since October and am seeing very good results from it, its the 3rd time I"m on it, and every time the side effects have been mostly the same, but some have been slightly different.

Comebackid

james1947

I am taking the Pentox twice a day in the middle of the meal as I was advised by the forum and have no any stomach upset.
Not latest than 6 pm.
James
Age 71, Peyronies from Jan 2009 following penis fracture during sex. Severe ED.
Lost 2" length and a lot of girth. Late start, still VED, Cialis & Pentox helped. Prostate surgery 2014.
Got amazing support on the forum

goodluck

I know this is an older post but very relevant and important.  I thought I would share my experience with a variety of Ubiquinol products and maybe some other folks can weigh in.  I have used Dr's Best, Jarrow, and the house brands from Vita Cost and Vitamin Shoppe.

All use Kanekas QH as their source.  Other ingredients may vary.

I have never had any negative effects from any of them.  I always take with food.  

Is one more effective or made better than an other?  Who knows????

If anyone subscribes to Consumer Lab please comment on what they may have found about such products.

Good Luck  

George999

Consumer Labs does not tell you which products are "better".  They only identify issues of purity and contaminants which usually do not apply to products like CoQ10 and Ubiquinol since they are simply repackaging a common pharmaceutical ingredient.  - George

goodluck

I believe you are right that consumer labs does not test for effectiveness of any product.  They only check for quality.

My understanding is they will confirm the info on the lable actually agrees with what they find in the bottle.  For example is the product really 100mg of Co- Q10 and not something more or less.  As you pointed out contaminants are also looked for.  I am not sure if they check only a few samples or multiple samples from different lot numbers. This can be a good indication of a companies concern and commitment for overall quality.  Quality can be an issue in OTC supplements as there is little oversight.

In the context below a quality product is made better.  

George999

OK, a quick look at the CL page suggests that they tested something around 33 products and everyone of them passed, probably because they ALL contain the key Kaneka product in the correct amount.  There were a handful of them that failed, but only because C L had a beef with health claims on their label, NOT because of any defect in the quality of their product.  - George

TomP

Hi,

Since ubiquinol seems to be effective, I was wondering if there is research or tests about idebenone ? I heard it was used with Dupuytren.

Tom.

George999

Quote from: TomPeyronies on May 28, 2012, 01:31:56 PM
Hi,

Since ubiquinol seems to be effective, I was wondering if there is research or tests about idebenone ? I heard it was used with Dupuytren.

Tom.

NOTE:  My comment below is in error as pointed out by Luciano's post that follows this one.
Tom,  I think the question is: how would you get access to this drug.  This is an experimental/investigative prescription drug.  It likely costs a lot of money even though it is still unproven.  It is nearly  impossible to get most docs to prescribe pentoxifylline, a proven, safe, and reliable drug with a long track record of use.  And you would ask those docs for idenbenone?  Good luck!  - George

Luciano

Well not really George.. its not a drug, its a supplement so there is no prescription.
As far as I know - (but I am not sure) its synthetic Q10. Now is it good or bad. I have no idea. I only remember that there was a hype many years ago on cheap synthetic vitamin E. As far as I remember it was not as good as the real natural stuff.

To get it, like any supplement, my first source would be amazon.com, to get an idea about pricing. then checkout the different supplement providers (swanson, puritan pride etc..) to see if you can get it cheaper.
Actually the best price i could find on amazon:
idebenone (80 caps - 180mg each) for $34.99
http://www.amazon.com/Primaforce-Idebenone-180-Milligrams-Capsules/dp/B002SSUQOC

but you also find it in other dosage:
idebenone (50 caps - 45mg each) for $13.23
http://www.amazon.com/WORLD-ORGANICS-Idebenone-45mg-CAPS/dp/B001QRV91K

At least here in Europe it seems a little cheaper than ubiquinol. (but maybe thats due to marketing strategies by the manufacturing companies)

Luc

Actually there is an overview over effects on http://www.idebenone.org/ . (it seems though this is a commercial site, although it has the .org ending.). But they have really lots of studies on idebenone with all possible diseases, from alzheimer to Friedreich's ataxia.

George999

 :-[ :-[ :-[

Oops!  Thanks Luc!  I was completely unaware of this product being sold as a supplement.  Thanks for the Amazon links.  Hopefully there will be some brave souls here who will give this a try so we can see if it is effective.  - George

TomP

Thanks Luc,

I don't need to give more information !

What I read is that's more efficient than ubiquinol, but I am not an MD. I looked for information in Google about peyronie and idebenone with no success. Since we talk a lot about coq10, ubiquinone, ubiquinol, I thought it could be a promising supplement.

Tom.

pless

Idebenone treatment is being studied for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.  That's D-U-C-H-E-N-N-E not D-U-P-U-Y-T-R-E-N.

Idebenone is definitely not synthetic CoQ10.  Idebenone's a much smaller molecule.  CoQ10 is so big because of its chain of 10 C5H8 groups.  That's the 10 of CoQ10; it makes it what it is.  Kaneka has studied CoQ9, which functions in mice somewhat as CoQ10 functions in humans.  Idebenone is a much smaller molecule than CoQ9 too.  Idebenone is what it is.

Remember that the usefulness of CoQ10 with Peyronies is based on a single scientific study (Safarinejad, 2010).  Dr. Safarinejad had reasons for suspecting CoQ10's usefulness:

"CoQ10 is one of the most potent antioxidants, which is used to regenerate other antioxidants (tocopheryl and ascorbate), and may serve important roles in protection against oxidative stress and free radical oxygen damage.15 TGF-b1 is a key fibrogenic mediator. It has been reported that solubilized CoQ10 suppresses the expression of TGF-b1 induced by dimethylnitrosamine in mouse liver and mouse embryonic fibroblast cells.16 In addition, CoQ10 activates NF-E2-related factor-2 (Nrf2).16 Nrf2 overexpression itself reduces the basal expression of a-smooth muscle actin and TGF-b1.16  Therefore, CoQ10-induced Nrf2 activation may suppress TGF-b1 expression."

Is there any reason to suspect Idebenone is useful with Peyronies?

james1947

Regarding usefulness of CoQ10 and Ubiquinol have a topic with a very deep professional discussion, much over my capability under the  "Oral Treatments for Peyronies Disease" board.

If CoQ10 and Ubiquinol helps Peyronies, I suppose the "Super Ubiquinol" Idebenone may help also. No one try it yet for Peyronies, not from the active forum members.

James
Age 71, Peyronies from Jan 2009 following penis fracture during sex. Severe ED.
Lost 2" length and a lot of girth. Late start, still VED, Cialis & Pentox helped. Prostate surgery 2014.
Got amazing support on the forum

pless

james1947:if Idebenone were being investigated for treating Dupuytren syndrome, with its known relation to Peyronies, that should excite curiosity about treating Peyronies with Idebenone.  Tom P's first post about Idenbenone sprang from that connection, but he unfortunately confused two diseases.

The only other ground for hoping Idebenone is more useful for treating Peyronies than any other randomly chosen supplement, or foodstuff, or edible toy or whatever, is that someone called it "Super Ubiquinol". Let's be real.  Who said it?  Some marketer of supplements.  Marketers of supplements, unlike marketers of prescription drugs, can call them whatever they want.  Idebenone is not Super Ubiquinol.  Idebenone is very distantly chemically related to CoQ10.  CoQ10 has many confirmed treatment functions and Idebenone is not even being investigated for replacing CoQ10 in those functions.  

Most of us in this forum feel desperate about our Peyronies, but we we must remain rational and not waste money and hope on pure nonsense.  Also the idea that if one guy in the forum tries Idebenone, his experience could be suggestive for the rest of us is too, too unscientific.  All the medical reports we're sharing show that you need a much bigger sample group, and you need good controls, to glean any worthwhile suggestions.

Conventional wisdom is that the oral treatments for Peyronies are primarily useful in the early stages of the disease.  Conventional wisdom might be wrong.  Without knowing that, it's unreasonable to play longshots during the brief game-time.

TomP

Thanks for all replies. I agree we do not have to test by ourselves products where there are no medical report saying that there is something good to do about peyronie. That's why i asked the forum to get eventually evidence. And there is no evidence about idebenone !

To tell you the truth, since I am new on peyronie (2 months ago), I was looking for more information about coq10. I read things about ubiquinone vs ubiquinol, then I found things about ubiquinol vs idebedone. For example : "Idebenone is closely related to CoQ10 in its structure. It can replace CoQ10 in the process of cellular energy production and, just as CoQ10, idebenone is also an antioxidant".Dr. G. Todorov - Ph.D. in Biology. Plus many articles (commercial) such as "Why Idebenone is superior to CoQ10" : http://idebenone.org/idebenone-article.htm.

Forget idebedone...

Tom



james1947

Pless

I am not pretending to understand in supplements, medications etc. I was far from all this subject until Peyronies struck.
My knowledge (still limited) is based on my own experience regarding some medications/supplements, VED, what I have learned on this forum and searching the Internet.

The point with all the medications, supplements and other treatments we are using to try to fight this disease is that non have enough research behind regarding Peyronies (maybe except Xiaflex).
We are using them because forum members have tried and it helped to some degree. Any one specifically may react different to the different treatments so if it helped someone it not means it will help the other one but we are giving a try.
For example we have a member that made and is continuing a treatment with injection of stem cells in the penis. He is the first one, reporting to the forum  and if will be successfull, others will follow, I am sure.

If you will read:
"Alternative Treatments of Peyronie's Disease board" > "UNUSUAL Treatments & Experiments" topic you will be surprised what people have done to try to find a solution for this disease ;D

TomP

Don't forget Idebenone. Maybe someone, one day will try it for Peyronies and he will have so big success that all of us will run to use it. :)
Any new idea of a new possible treatment is welcome on the forum, we can discuss the subject and understand (or not) if have some usefulness for Peyronies.  :) ;D >:( :(

James
Age 71, Peyronies from Jan 2009 following penis fracture during sex. Severe ED.
Lost 2" length and a lot of girth. Late start, still VED, Cialis & Pentox helped. Prostate surgery 2014.
Got amazing support on the forum

love


james1947

The forum member who is injecting stem cells is rd

You can read all his posts and people questions on:
"Developmental Drugs & Treatments" board
"Stem Cells & Adult stem cell injections for Peyronies" topic
rd is updating the forum periodically regarding his progress, cost etc'

James
Age 71, Peyronies from Jan 2009 following penis fracture during sex. Severe ED.
Lost 2" length and a lot of girth. Late start, still VED, Cialis & Pentox helped. Prostate surgery 2014.
Got amazing support on the forum

RickG

What is the difference between CoQ10 and Ubiqinol? I am on Puritan's Pride and both are offered. I'm wondering if one or the other if better for Peyronie's. Thanks!

james1947

Our body processing the CoQ10 to become Ubiquinol, our body uses Ubiquinol.
If one is less than 40 year old his body make easy processing so one can use CoQ10, much cheaper than Ubiquinol.
I am 65, so taking Ubiquinol.

James
Age 71, Peyronies from Jan 2009 following penis fracture during sex. Severe ED.
Lost 2" length and a lot of girth. Late start, still VED, Cialis & Pentox helped. Prostate surgery 2014.
Got amazing support on the forum

RickG

I am 47, guess I better spring for Ubiquinol.  :'(

goodluck

Just a heads up on a very good deal for Co-Q10.  I was just placing an order at Iherb.com and I saw a good special:

Healthy Origins, CoQ10 Gels ( Kaneka Q10 ), 100 mg, 60 Softgels, a $39.99 value, for only $6.00.

The sale is good till 10am PST next wed and they are only allowing one per customer.  This seems to be an item that may be discountinued as they say they can only honor it as supplys last.

In the continental US  you can get free shipping for orders over $20.

For orders over $40 you can get free international shipping and if you are a new customer you can save an additional $10 with code KAB400.

I am not trying to pimp anything, I just think this offers members a very good savings which is time sensitive.

I hope this helps.

james1947

Goodluck

Thank you for the information. Not for me, I am taking Ubiquinol (old people, you know)
I am copy/past you sentence to make it bold:

CoQ10 Gels ( Kaneka Q10 ), 100 mg, 60 Softgels, a $39.99 value, for only $6.00.

If interested, see Reply #362 bellow

James
Age 71, Peyronies from Jan 2009 following penis fracture during sex. Severe ED.
Lost 2" length and a lot of girth. Late start, still VED, Cialis & Pentox helped. Prostate surgery 2014.
Got amazing support on the forum

Jonbinspain

Again, I've no ulterior motive in saying this. If you want a regular supplier of Kaneka Q10, I buy from Wholehealth in Colorado.  If you use their plan, 60x300mg  costs around $27  that is guaranteed, apparently to be genuine Kaneka Q10

goodluck

Jonbinspain.

Thanks for sharing.  Just a few observations.  Being a bit of a supplement and herb geek I checked out the whole health brand you recommended.

1. It includes Magnesium Stearate which interferes with absorbtion.  The higher quality vendors have recognized this and are begining to remove it from formulations.

2.  No mention of being free of GMO ingredients or common allergens such as wheat, egg, soy, nuts, dairy, etc.

3.  I know it is easier to take one 300mg pill a day but I think you will get better overall absorbtion by keeping the blood levels up  by multi dosing through the day.  150mg 2x or 100mg 3x.  This may be subtle.  If there is a study that says otherwise regarding CoQ-10 I am happy to be corrected.

The Healthy Origins lable says this:

Pure olive oil (fruit), gelatin, glycerin, natural bees wax, purified water.

Scientifically formulated with all natural ingredients that do not contain any genetically modified organisms.

Free of sugar, salt, starch, yeast, wheat, gluten, corn, soy, barley, fish, shellfish, nuts, tree nuts, egg and dairy products. No preservatives, artificial colors, or artificial flavors.


James:  you are right about Ubiquinol.  But the conventional Co Q-10 work the same you just need to take more.

Jonbinspain

I'll bow to your superior knowledge on this. However, I always thought that Kaneka were an acknowledged market leader of this product. It would seem strange of them to fall behind in their technology.

goodluck

Kaneka is a Japanese company that manufactures the raw Co-Q10.  They do have the reputaiton for being an industry leader in this area. But you need to understand they don't have anything to do with making the final end product inside the bottle you buy.  

In otherwords, they just supply one component to many Co-Q10 capsule manufacturers.

Jonbinspain

Ok, just looked at the bottle. It does contain Mag Stearate ( veg source)  however it states: does not contain milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, soya beans, GMO's, artificial colours or preservatives.  

George999

Yup, Kaneka just makes the raw material.  They leave to the end manufacturers to optimize it.  That is what differentiates the brands.  - George

Jonbinspain

Just been reading this also. There are various articles on the net saying that Mag Stearate, in the quantities used my reputable suppliers, are so small as to make virtually no difference to absorption.

Does stearic acid (magnesium stearate, mag stearate) interfere with vitmain/mineral absorption? | manufacturing and quality | Metagenics | Answers to Common Questions

james1947

Goodluck

Regarding:
Quotethe conventional Co Q-10 work the same you just need to take more
May be right, may be wrong. Have people that they body converting CoQ10 even when they are old, some not converting it even when young.
To be sure that the conversion works for an individual, maybe need to make some test. I don't know how :(
Maybe somebody on the forum can give an answer on the subject (how to test the conversion efficiency) and I can change to Coq10 that is much cheaper :)

James
Age 71, Peyronies from Jan 2009 following penis fracture during sex. Severe ED.
Lost 2" length and a lot of girth. Late start, still VED, Cialis & Pentox helped. Prostate surgery 2014.
Got amazing support on the forum

pless

Quote from: goodluck on October 12, 2012, 11:05:13 AM
I know it is easier to take one 300mg pill a day but I think you will get better overall absorbtion by keeping the blood levels up  by multi dosing through the day.  150mg 2x or 100mg 3x.  This may be subtle.  If there is a study that says otherwise regarding CoQ-10 I am happy to be corrected.

The most relevant study I've seen for us regular ubiquinol (or ubiquinone) takers is Hosoe et al., "Study on safety and bioavailability of ubiquinol (Kaneka QH) after single and 4-week multiple oral administration to healthy volunteers" (2007). The paper estimates the plasma half-life of ubiquinol to be about 48 h. Figs. 1 and 2 together strongly suggest that daily dosing is frequent enough.  (After 2 weeks of slow ascent to the peak level how much decline could occur in less than a day?)   Since the goal of the study was to test safety at high plasma levels, the study's choice of daily dosing should be our choice too.  

George999

Quote from: pless on October 14, 2012, 09:11:57 AM
The most relevant study I've seen for us regular ubiquinol (or ubiquinone) takers is Hosoe et al., "Study on safety and bioavailability of ubiquinol (Kaneka QH) after single and 4-week multiple oral administration to healthy volunteers" (2007).

This study is for UBIQUINOL NOT UBIQUINONE.  Do NOT confuse the two.  UBIQUINOL is ALWAYS sold as UBIQUINOL.  UBIQUINONE is ALWAYS sold as CoQ10.  - George

pless

Quote from: George999 on October 14, 2012, 11:55:57 AMThis study is for UBIQUINOL NOT UBIQUINONE.  Do NOT confuse the two.

I am well aware that it was a study of the bioavailability of ubiquinol, as its title says.  But if you read the report you find valuable information about ubiquinone taking too.  The report had to be such because the medical field had long used ubiquinone, so the most meaningful descriptions of ubiquinol would be in terms of ubiquinone.  On page 20 we learn:
QuoteFurthermore, we found that when rats were orally administered a single-dose (100mg/kg) of ubiquinol or ubiquinone dissolved in olive oil, there was an approximately 2-fold difference in area under the plasma total coenzyme Q10 concentration curve between the two agents, indicating that ubiquinol has higher bioavailability than ubiquinone.
On page 25:
QuoteSince ubiquinol has approximately twice the bioavailability of ubiquinone, the results of the clinical studies conducted with ubiquinone at relatively high-doses ranging from 600 to 3000mg/day for at least 2 weeks and up to 16 months ... are especially important in confirming the safety of ubiquinol.
Bioavailability measures the amount of CoQ10 (total for both forms) in the blood versus the amount of CoQ10 eaten.  All the valuable pharmacokinetic findings of Hosoe, especially his Fig. 2, have implications for ubiquinone taking as well as for ubiquinol taking.  Sure there is a difference in how much of each gets into the blood.  For ubiquinone it depends strongly on the vehicle, and the paper says that a suspension of ubiquinone in olive oil is about half as efficient as ubiquinol (in olive oil).  (There are dry ubiquinone powders even less efficient, and there are claims of higher efficiency ubiquinone preparations).  The pharmacokinetic findings should be interpreted in conjunction with the bioavailability factor.  I stand by my statement:
Quote from: pless on October 14, 2012, 09:11:57 AM
The most relevant study I've seen for us regular ubiquinol (or ubiquinone) takers is Hosoe et al.

George999

pless,  My apologies.  I found the title of the study, itself, confusing, which is not your fault.  The title seemed to be equating the two, but actually meant to convey that it was comparing the two.  Thanks for correcting me on this AND elaborating on the study itself at the same time.  Again, my apologies, your response more than answers my concerns.  - George

pless

Many people in this forum believe that for older takers ubiquinone has reduced value and ubiquinol should be taken instead.  For example:
Quote from: james1947 on July 25, 2012, 06:08:19 PM
Our body processing the CoQ10 to become Ubiquinol, our body uses Ubiquinol. If one is less than 40 year old his body make easy processing so one can use CoQ10, much cheaper than Ubiquinol. I am 65, so taking Ubiquinol.
I think this belief arose from advertising claims, not from science, and is false.

We take CoQ10 as either ubiquinol or ubiquinone to raise the ubiquinol level in our blood.  Scientifically there are two factors determining how much we raise that level. First there is the bioavailability of the CoQ10 we take.  Bioavailability measures how much total CoQ10 (ubiquinone + ubiquinol) gets into the blood from each unit of CoQ10 we take.  Second there is the ubiquinone <--> ubiquinol chemical equilibrium in the blood.  This determines how much ubiquinol there is from each unit of total ubiquinone + ubiquinol in the blood.

How might age fit into this?  There are three distinct old-young differences possible:
1. Old people need more ubiquinol in their blood than young people do.
2. Relative bioavailability of ubiquinone to ubiquinol decreases with age.
3. The ubiquinone <--> ubiquinol equilibrium in the blood tilts toward ubiquinone with age.

#1 is true. but this does not justify the the belief in question.
I don't know if #3 is true, but even so it wouldn't justify the  belief in question.   If the equilibrium disfavors the old then the old must take more CoQ10, regardless of its form. That redox reaction comes after the CoQ10 we take gets into the blood.
So only #2 is relevant for the belief in question  What scientific information points to the relative bioavailability changing with age.  Hosoe et al. (2007) estimated the relative bioavailability at about 1:2 without any mention of age.  What other scientifc study of ubiquinol availability has there been?  
Sloppy thinking can confuse factors #1 & #3 with relevant factor #2.  Advertisement writers love sloppy thinking.

The decision between ubiquinone and ubiquinol has nothing to do with age but simply with how much they cost and how much total CoQ10 gets into the blood. If the Hosoe estimate of 1:2 were firm then we should buy ubiquinone when it costs 1/2 as much as ubiquinol.  But Hosoe's estimate is somewhat off-the-cuff, and various delivery systems for ubiquinone result in various bioavailabilities.

The one published paper on CoQ10 treatment for Peyronies is Safarinejad (2010) and he gave his subjects with average age 52.7 ubiquinone 300 mg/day.

Knowing all this i chose ubiquinol over ubiquinone.  It's a matter of shopping and certainty.  Swanson ubiquinol is well-priced and it was a nuisance mixing the very cheap ubiquinone powder I initially bought with oil. The fancy ubiquinones make unbelievable claims about their bioavailability, never including longterm studies like Hosoe's.  My choice was not influenced by my age.

George999

I have long been an advocate of Ubiquinol over Ubiquinone for guys older than 40.  HOWEVER, I think the bottom line has to be whether or not it is working for the person in question.  If someone 65 feels they are getting just as much benefit from Ubiquinone as from Ubiquinol, then it obviously pays to choose the less expensive product.  So I would say try both, each for a few months, and see how they compare in terms of perceived benefit.  Personally, I have chosen to play it safe and use Ubiquinol, but I have to admit that choice is costing me a significant amount of money.  - George

james1947

Pless

Your assessment of Ubiquinol/Ubiquinone is impressing and professional!!!
I just have some small, maybe irrelevant remarks. You have stated:
Quote1. Old people need more ubiquinol in their blood than young people do.
2. Relative bioavailability of ubiquinone to ubiquinol decreases with age.
Those are the reasons I am taking Ubiquinol.
You have quoted my sentence:
QuoteOur body processing the CoQ10 to become Ubiquinol, our body uses Ubiquinol. If one is less than 40 year old his body make easy processing so one can use CoQ10, much cheaper than Ubiquinol. I am 65, so taking Ubiquinol.
And you have stated:
QuoteI think this belief arose from advertising claims, not from science, and is false.
Sounds like I am giving false information to people  :( I would like to know what is the false part of my sentence for learning purposes, to stop missleading people.
Our body processing the CoQ10 to become Ubiquinol, our body uses Ubiquinol. False or true?
If one is less than 40 year old his body make easy processing. Your answer:
QuoteRelative bioavailability of ubiquinone to ubiquinol decreases with age.
False or true?
CoQ10, much cheaper than Ubiquinol. False or true?
I am not an expert in chemistry and not a doctor, just learning from what I am reading :)

James
Age 71, Peyronies from Jan 2009 following penis fracture during sex. Severe ED.
Lost 2" length and a lot of girth. Late start, still VED, Cialis & Pentox helped. Prostate surgery 2014.
Got amazing support on the forum

pless

Quote from: james1947 on October 14, 2012, 05:06:47 PM
Pless
You have stated:
Quote1. Old people need more ubiquinol in their blood than young people do.
2. Relative bioavailability of ubiquinone to ubiquinol decreases with age.
Those are the reasons I am taking Ubiquinol.

Oh no.  I didn't state 1 and 2.  I said "There are three distinct old-young differences possible:" and then listed 1, 2, and 3 and went on to discuss whether they were true.  I explained that we have no grounds for believing 2 is true.

Quote from: james1947 on October 14, 2012, 05:06:47 PMI would like to know what is the false part of my sentence for learning purposes, not to misslead people.
Please look carefully at what you wrote:
Quote from: james1947 on July 25, 2012, 06:08:19 PM
Our body processing the CoQ10 to become Ubiquinol, our body uses Ubiquinol. If one is less than 40 year old his body make easy processing so one can use CoQ10, much cheaper than Ubiquinol. I am 65, so taking Ubiquinol.

Processing the CoQ10 to become ubiquinol is what I called the ubiquinone <--> ubiquinol chemical equilibrium.  This corresponds to the third possible old-young difference:

Quote from: pless on October 14, 2012, 04:35:07 PM
3. The ubiquinone <--> ubiquinol equilibrium in the blood tilts toward ubiquinone with age
I said this about #3:
Quote from: pless on October 14, 2012, 04:35:07 PM
I don't know if #3 is true, but even so it wouldn't justify the belief in question.   If the equilibrium disfavors the old then the old must take more CoQ10, regardless of its form. That redox reaction comes after the CoQ10 we take gets into the blood.

What you wrote is false because even if in old people's blood ubiquinone is converted to ubiquinol with less efficiency than in young people's blood, swallowing ubiquinol capsules instead ubiquinone capsules won't change this disadvantage in the blood.  You have confused that disadvantage of age with the bioavailability disadvantage of ubiquinone.  You maintain that confusion in your final question, where you ask me whether my #2 is true or false.  It is false.  My #3 is true.  My post sought to disentangle the factors of bioavailability and conversion efficiency.  I warned that sloppy thinking can confuse factor #2 with factor #3.  Perhaps re-read my post.    

james1947

Pless

Now I understand that I get everything wrong, including that CoQ10 is cheaper than Ubiquinol. :(
An other thing I understand that Ubiquinol is just a good marketing product so everyone should stop taking it and taking CoQ10. It will really help my budget :)
Thank you for the enlightenment.

James

Age 71, Peyronies from Jan 2009 following penis fracture during sex. Severe ED.
Lost 2" length and a lot of girth. Late start, still VED, Cialis & Pentox helped. Prostate surgery 2014.
Got amazing support on the forum

james1947

Some sources to enforce my theory regarding Ubiquinol/Coq10:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquinol
QuoteNot only do aged subjects have reduced CoQ10 biosynthesis, their ability to convert ubiquinone to ubiquinol is also diminished.[
and much more
KANEKA QH™ UBIQUINOL: Frequently Asked Questions
QuoteFor individuals who are 40+, KanekaQHä (ubiquinol) is likely more beneficial since the body's ability to produce CoQ10 and convert it into ubiquinol is diminished
and much more
Taking Q10 for a Test Drive – Is Ubiquinol Better? | Health Tips
QuoteThe antioxidant-Q10 product I used was more than twice as helpful to me as plain powder energy-Q10, and costs three times as much.  
and much more
Bodybuilding.com - CoQ10 - Ubiquinone Vs Ubiquinol: What's The Difference?
QuoteThe problem arises with aging in many people; the ability for the body to metabolize is reduced significantly over time and many people will find that it's difficult for the body to break down Ubiquinone into Ubiquinol. There-in lies the difference between the two supplements. Though it will come at a greater cost, taking Ubiquinol after the age of 40 is a good idea.
Has Your CoQ10 Become Obsolete? - Life Extension
February 2008 - CoQ10-- Ubiquinol vs. Ubiquinone - Vitamin Express
QuoteUbiquinone is converted within our body into ubiquinol, the potent anti-oxidant portion of CoQ10. However, as we age, our ability to make this conversion reduces significantly. Therein lies the major difference between the two products. Ubiquinol is already in its reduced form as a potent anti-oxidant.

After investing time in reading the above (and other) links, I get to the conclusion that my statement bellow is not false:
QuoteOur body processing the CoQ10 to become Ubiquinol, our body uses Ubiquinol. If one is less than 40 year old his body make easy processing so one can use CoQ10, much cheaper than Ubiquinol. I am 65, so taking Ubiquinol.
Everyone can read the articles also and to get to his own conclussions!!!

James
Age 71, Peyronies from Jan 2009 following penis fracture during sex. Severe ED.
Lost 2" length and a lot of girth. Late start, still VED, Cialis & Pentox helped. Prostate surgery 2014.
Got amazing support on the forum

George999

Personally, I continue to believe that Ubiquinol is the better choice for older guys.  BUT, IF anyone has doubts about that, the solution is to try both and observe the results.  On the other hand, if one is not getting results from CoQ10 after a few months, they should certainly give Ubiquinol a shot.  - George

pless

James,
Checking Swanson's website today:
.....Swanson Ultra Ubiquinol, 60 caps 100 mg ... $18.69
.....Swanson Ultra CoQ10, 90 caps 200 mg  ... $12.99
The second product must be ubiquinone.  There's a large 4.3× price difference per mg.
If the second product is a formulation in oil (unlike the very cheap ubiquinone I bought in Germany), then Hosoe et al. estimate it is ½ as bioavailable as the first product, making it a buy.  Age has nothing to do with this choice because that difference in bioavailability has nothing to do with age.

If you read Hosoi et al. (2007) you'll sense Kaneka's pride at having found a way to stabilize ubiquinol while claiming just 2× increase in bioavailability.  Kaneka, as maker of both ubiquinone and ubiquinol, knows that if ubiquinol were to cost more than double ubiquinone it wouldn't sell, or rather shouldn't sell.  While ubiquinol is novel marketing hype will distort the pricing.  Marketing hype includes the false claim that men over 40 should choose ubiquinol.  

The science does not support that claim.  The science describes a two step process where either the ubiquinone or the ubiquinol gets into the blood and then enters into a redox equilibrium with its other.  The science has never stated or hinted that the first step is age dependent.  The second step might be age dependent so old people have a higher ubiquinone:ubiquinol ratio in the blood.  But it is the first step, not the second step, where there is an advantage of ubiquinol over ubiquinone.  

pless

Quote from: james1947 on October 14, 2012, 06:56:03 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquinol
QuoteNot only do aged subjects have reduced CoQ10 biosynthesis, their ability to convert ubiquinone to ubiquinol is also diminished.

This quote DOES NOT support your thesis.  Biosynthesis means making CoQ10 without having to eat CoQ10.  That old people do this less simply means they need to get more CoQ10 from food and supplements than young people do.  This was rolled into the #1 in my first post and is irrelevant to the age factor re. ubiquinol vs ubiquinone taking.  Diminshed ability to convert simply means the ubiquinone <--> ubiquinol equilibrium in the blood tilts toward ubiquinone with age.  This was the #3 in my first post, again irrelevant to the age factor re. ubiquinol vs ubiquinone taking.

Your next quote is advertising hype from Kaneka-USA based the exact same lines you quoted from Wikipedia.  The same illogic reverberates through the internet.  None of your quotes are from scientifically respectable sources.

Quote from: james1947 on October 14, 2012, 06:56:03 PM
Everyone can read the articles also and to get to his own conclussions!!!

I sincerely hope that not everyone in this forum is so uncritical about informing himself.  


james1947

Pless

I see that can't conduct with you a civilised conversation without going to phrases like:
QuoteI think this belief arose from advertising claims, not from science, and is false
QuoteI sincerely hope that not everyone in this forum is so uncritical about informing himself
I have not insulted you by even one word, but you are doing that, so for me this conversation is over because is getting personally and not related to the subject in discussion.
Have a nice day

James
Age 71, Peyronies from Jan 2009 following penis fracture during sex. Severe ED.
Lost 2" length and a lot of girth. Late start, still VED, Cialis & Pentox helped. Prostate surgery 2014.
Got amazing support on the forum


George999

I think that if one is going to make decisions based exclusively on science, one has to consider ALL of the research on the subject in question.  The Iranian CoQ10 study found Ubiquinone effective in treating Peyronie's.  This is NOT to assume with certainty that Ubiquinol is not more effective.  There are no studies thus far comparing the relative effectiveness of the two forms in treating Peyronie's.  That may change soon because Dr Safarinejad is currently using Ubiquinol in his urological research in place of Ubiquinone.  But there ARE data for comparison of the two in the case of heart failure.  And that data shows Ubiquinol to be DRAMATICALLY more effective than Ubiquinone.  I think that speaks far more than any study comparing mere blood concentrations and ratios etc.  The important thing is how effective the product is in healing damaged tissue under adverse metabolic conditions and this study speaks directly to that issue.

Thus I REPEAT ... if plain old CoQ10 does not work, Ubiquinol might.  And if one wants to avoid potential risk of failure, Ubiquinol is the best bet.  - George

Quote from: PubMed

Biofactors. 2008;32(1-4):119-28.
Supplemental ubiquinol in patients with advanced congestive heart failure.
Langsjoen PH, Langsjoen AM.
Source

East Texas Medical Center and Trinity Mother Francis Hospital, TX, USA. alilangsjoen@cs.com
Abstract

Patients with CHF, NYHA class IV, often fail to achieve adequate plasma CoQ10 levels on supplemental ubiquinone at dosages up to 900 mg/day. These patients often have plasma total CoQ10 levels of less than 2.5 microg/ml and have limited clinical improvement. It is postulated that the intestinal edema in these critically ill patients may impair CoQ10 absorption. We identified seven patients with advanced CHF (mean EF 22%) with sub-therapeutic plasma CoQ10 levels with mean level of 1.6 microg/ml on an average dose of 450 mg of ubiquinone daily (150-600 mg/day). All seven of these patients were changed to an average of 580 mg/day of ubiquinol (450-900 mg/day) with follow-up plasma CoQ10 levels, clinical status, and EF measurements by echocardiography. Mean plasma CoQ10 levels increased from 1.6 microg/ml (0.9-2.0 microg/ml) up to 6.5 microg/ml (2.6-9.3 microg/ml). Mean EF improved from 22% (10-35%) up to 39% (10-60%) and clinical improvement has been remarkable with NYHA class improving from a mean of IV to a mean of II (I to III). Ubiquinol has dramatically improved absorption in patients with severe heart failure and the improvement in plasma CoQ10 levels is correlated with both clinical improvement and improvement in measurement of left ventricular function.

PMID:
   19096107
   [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


pless

George999, The report involves rather high doses and very sick people -- "It is postulated that the intestinal edema in these critically ill patients may impair CoQ10 absorption" -- and the results are not so surprising.  Look what happened with the 7 patients.  Initially they were taking ubiquinone average 450 mg/day and their average plasma CoQ10 was 1.6 microg/ml.  Then they were changed to ubiquinol average 580 mg/day and their average plasma CoQ10 rose to 6.5 microg/ml.  How surprising is this 4.1× increase?  Since we already know from Hosoe that the bioavailability of ubiquinol is about twice that of ubiquinone, and we also know from Hosoe's Fig. 2 that the long term plasma level is nearly proportional to daily dose level (a surprising result), increasing the intake 1.3× is expected to increase the plasma CoQ10 2.6×.  (And we don't know what vehicle was used for the ubiquinone, Hosoe's factor assumes it is in oil.)  2.6× is not dramatically shy of 4.1× considering the special situation.

Where ubiquinol taking and ubiquinone taking differ is in each respective molecule's ability to get from the stomach to the blood.  Sure enough, for an unusual condition of the stomach lining, the usual (Hosoe) factor of 2× difference might not apply.  Maybe for these 7 patients there is a factor of 3.2× instead.  This is no biggie, and it implies nothing for this strand's topic, which is the age factor in the difference.

I don't think Safarinejad explains why he chose 300 mg/day for his CoQ10 study; he refers to various other uses of CoQ10 in the medical literature.  Those studies presumably experimented with dosage.  For extremely large doses, like thousands of mg/day, my simple picture of the mechanism probably breaks down, but that's not our case.  300 mg/day is well within the range studied by Hosoe.  When we take 300 mg/day of ubiquinol we're already effectively doubling Safarinejad's ubiquinone dose.