LEF's new CoQ10

LEF has a new tweaked out CoQ10. What do you guys think?

http://www.lef.org/n.../item00952.html

http://www.lef.org/m...rt_coq10_01.htm

I'll wait and see how it pans out. Personally, I'll stick with mtioQ, coQ10 or idebenone in the meanwhile.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

Personally, I'll stick with mtioQ,

Mito Q is commercially available?

Kind of commercially available, sort of a gray area. Just like the injectible forms of SOD out there. Personally I've strayed away from these gray market supps as I'm paranoid about pruity concerns and other issues. Guess I'll stick with coQ10 and idebenone for now.

So for LEF new CoQ10, if you are not a member and pay 600.00 for 10 bottles, we are talking a 1.20 per day supplement (2 caps). I know many people take CoQ10. Based on the available evidence, is it worth that much? Or do you guys have some cheaper sources for the supp?

Mind, I don't think CoQ10 is worth $1.20 per day.

[quote]So for LEF new CoQ10, if you are not a member and pay 600.00 for 10 bottles, we are talking a 1.20 per day supplement (2 caps). I know many people take CoQ10. Based on the available evidence, is it worth that much? Or do you guys have some cheaper sources for the supp? [/quote]

You don't have to be a member to get member or below member pricing I just bought 1 bottle for $49.99. Theres a bunch of interesting info on the forums.


[quote]When it comes to achieving optimal results from your CoQ10 supplement, how much you absorb is of critical importance. Since 1983, Life Extension has continuously sought out the purest, most bioavailable CoQ10 available. Now, Japan's largest CoQ10 producer has patented a form of CoQ10 that offers unprecedented bioavailability�capable of increasing human blood levels up to 8 times more efficiently than the higher-absorption CoQ10 products on the market today.

In studies from Japan, this superior new form of CoQ10 has shown remarkable antiaging effects. In one study, it was 40 percent more effective than conventional CoQ10 in slowing markers of aging in middle-aged mice.1 In a study of aged rats, this new form of CoQ10 demonstrated anti-fatigue effects that were 2.5 times greater than conventional CoQ10 supplements.2

The reason this new form of CoQ10 is so effective is that scientists have succeeded for the first time in producing a stabilized ubiquinol capsule form of CoQ10. While CoQ10 exists in both ubiquinol and ubiquinone forms, the ubiquinol form has been shown to be vastly more bioavailable than conventional ubiquinone CoQ10. In a study measuring absorption in humans supplementing with 150 mg and 300 mg , far lower doses of ubiquinol CoQ10 produced blood plasma levels of CoQ10 that were equivalent to those produced by much higher doses of ubiquinone.3 In fact, it would take up to 8 times more ubiquinone than ubiquinol to raise CoQ10 blood levels to the same level.3

Each capsule of Super BioActive CoQ10 Ubiquinol provides 50 mg of this novel ubiquinol form of CoQ10. With its superior absorption and ability to remain bioavailable over much longer periods of time,1 most healthy people will need to take just one capsule twice daily to obtain significantly higher blood levels of CoQ10.

References
1. Exp Gerontol 2006 Feb;41(2):130-40.
2. Kaneka Corporation study. Treadmill test with the age rat at the age of 61-63 weeks. 2006
3. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2006 Aug 17; Absorption Comparison Using Different Form of CoQ10.



Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2006 Aug 17
Study on safety and bioavailability of ubiquinol (Kaneka QH(trade mark)) after single and 4-week multiple oral administration to healthy volunteers.Hosoe K, Kitano M, Kishida H, Kubo H, Fujii K, Kitahara M.
Pharmacology and Toxicology Group, Life Science Research Laboratories, Kaneka Corporation, 1-8 Miyamae-machi, Takasa-cho, Takasago-shi, Hyogo 676-8688, Japan.

The safety and bioavailability of ubiquinol (the reduced form of coenzyme Q(10)), a naturally occurring lipid-soluble nutrient, were evaluated for the first time in single-blind, placebo-controlled studies with healthy subjects after administration of a single oral dose of 150 or 300mg and after oral administration of 90, 150, or 300mg for 4 weeks. No clinically relevant changes in results of standard laboratory tests, physical examination, vital signs, or ECG induced by ubiquinol were observed in any dosage groups. The C(max) and AUC(0-48h) derived from the mean plasma ubiquinol concentration-time curves increased non-linearly with dose from 1.88 to 3.19mug/ml and from 74.61 to 91.76mugh/ml, respectively, after single administration. Trough concentrations had nearly plateaued at levels of 2.61mug/ml for 90mg, 3.66mug/ml for 150mg, and 6.53mug/ml for 300mg at day 14, and increased non-linearly with dose in the 4-week study. In conclusion, following single or multiple-doses of ubiquinol in healthy volunteers, significant absorption of ubiquinol from the gastrointestinal tract was observed, and no safety concerns were noted on standard laboratory tests for safety or on assessment of adverse events for doses of up to 300mg for up to 2 weeks after treatment completion.


Bruce Ames wrote about it http://www.pnas.org/.../87/12/4879.pdf


Another interesting PDF.




[quote]These pictures were taken of senescent-accelerated mice at around 12 months of age. The control mouse at the top received no coenzyme Q10 and underwent the severe degenerative changes that normally occur in this breed of mouse.

The mouse in the middle received conventional coenzyme Q10 and displayed a slower rate of aging compared to the group receiving no coenzyme Q10.

The mouse at the bottom received the new �ubiquinol� form of coenzyme Q10 and was shown to age 40% slower than the group receiving conventional coenzyme Q10. Compared to the controls who received no coenzyme Q10, the group who received the new �ubiquinol� coenzyme Q10 aged at a 51% slower rate.

Yellow Arrows: Bended backbone
Blue Arrows: Irritation[/quote]





References
1. Kaneka Corporation study. Treadmill test with the aged rat at age of 61-63 weeks. 2006.
2. Yan J, Fujii K, et al. Exp Gerontol. 2006 Feb;41(2):130-40.
3. Hosoe K, Kitano M, et al. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2006 Aug 17; [Epub ahead of print]

Oh and it's 0.49 cents a day at 50 mg daily. At that price I think it's a great deal over regular CoQ10.

I have not looked closely at CoQ10. Why are ImmInst members taking this supplement? Could you post the links to the studies that show it's effectiveness? Does it work in mice or any other vertebrates? Why is this study saying lifelong CoQ10 supplementation had no effect on mouse longevity? http://www.ncbi.nlm....6&dopt=Abstract It seems a rather weak chemical compared to resveratrol. I'm not sure I trust a study by the Kaneka Corporation. Do they have a financial stake in this?

The effects of lifelong ubiquinone Q10 supplementation on the Q9 and Q10 tissue concentrations and life span of male rats and mice.

Lonnrot K, Holm P, Lagerstedt A, Huhtala H, Alho H.

Laboratory of Neurobiology, University of Tampere, Medical School, Finland.

The effect of lifelong oral supplementation with ubiquinone Q10 (10 mg/kg/day) was examined in Sprague-Dawley rats and C57/B17 mice. There were no significant differences in survival or life-span found in either rats or mice. Histopathologic examination of different rat tissues showed no differences between the groups. In Q10 supplemented rats, plasma and liver Q10 levels were 2.6 to 8.4 times higher at all age points than in control rats. Interestingly, in supplemented rats the Q9 levels also were significantly higher (p<0.05) in plasma and liver at ages 18 and 24 months. Neither Q9 nor Q10 levels were affected by supplementation in kidney, heart, or brain tissues. In spite of the significant changes in plasma and liver ubiquinone concentrations, lifelong Q10 supplementation did not prolong or shorten the lifespan of either rats or mice.

PMID: 9584986 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Edited by velopismo, 24 November 2006 - 06:24 PM.

velopismo thanks for proving my point the ubiquinol is the right form to take for antiaging benefits.

Also will respected 3rd party people like professor Bruce Ames (*) backing it up with no financial stake makes it something every antiaging person should consider.


*
http://mcb.berkeley..../BMB/amesb.html
http://www.bruceames.org/n/about.php
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Bruce_Ames

Ubiquinol profoundly impacted and prolonged running time 150 fold vs. placebo in aged female rats.

http://www.mindandmu...pe=post&id=4676

That's pretty impressive. Even 400 mg/kg of resveratrol only doubled the running distance from 1 to 2 km for mice. The Kaneka Corporation study was not published in a peer reviewed journal. (Unlike the resveratrol studies in Nature and Cell) I would like to see an independent study in a peer reviewed journal replicate these results. I also have great respect for Dr. Ames, but his study was done in 1990 and made none of the claims that the Kaneka study has. Ames just says in his study that ubiquinol-10 has antiperoxide activity. As Carl Sagan would say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

This thread has gotten silly. Since when it causing rats to live longer the endpoint for taking a supp?

So for LEF new CoQ10, if you are not a member and pay 600.00 for 10 bottles, we are talking a 1.20 per day supplement (2 caps). I know many people take CoQ10. Based on the available evidence, is it worth that much? Or do you guys have some cheaper sources for the supp?

Mind,

Don't buy LEf stuff. Not that quality is bad, most of it is probably OK. However too pricey mostly. Go to e.g. iherb.com (no commercial interest) and get e.g. Now brand, or jarrow brand, etc. For coenzyme Q-10 you want stuff e.g. in gelcaps with oil. 100 mg/day is PLENTY.

Now Foods, CoQ10, 100 mg, 150 Softgels

SRP: $79.99
Our Price: $46.19

which equals 30.8cents/day.

Is co-q10 the most important supp, or top 3. Nope. But it is one I recommend. It has made a big difference in my endurance (not sure how widespread this effect is, but reproducible in me). Also very important for gum health, though I would take some even without these issues.

Price has come way down since japanese monopoly has been broken. Which is why there is suspicion on new propriatery (sp?) form to keep raking in the profits.

[quote]That's pretty impressive. Even 400 mg/kg of resveratrol only doubled the running distance from 1 to 2 km for mice. The Kaneka Corporation study was not published in a peer reviewed journal. (Unlike the resveratrol studies in Nature and Cell) I would like to see an independent study in a peer reviewed journal replicate these results. I also have great respect for Dr. Ames, but his study was done in 1990 and made none of the claims that the Kaneka study has. Ames just says in his study that ubiquinol-10 has antiperoxide activity. As Carl Sagan would say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. []/QUOTE]

As a new supplment of course there is not alot of peer reviewed research why would there be? Ames study pointed out several benefits of the reduced coq10 and since I've started taking it I feel great! I'm going to do another CoQ10 blood test and see if it increases as high as the studies suggests.

Don't buy LEf stuff. Not that quality is bad, most of it is probably OK. However too pricey mostly. Go to e.g. iherb.com (no commercial interest) and get e.g. Now brand, or jarrow brand, etc. For coenzyme Q-10 you want stuff e.g. in gelcaps with oil. 100 mg/day is PLENTY.

"Don't buy LEF stuff"? Why not? This Org is supported by LEF, LEF has great products, great quality, and for members or online you can get up to 50% off retail.

"no commercial interest"? Iherb is a for profit company LEF is not!! They put their money towards antiaging research and supporting legal rights for us to have supplements!!

Scottl did you have a bad experience with LEF?

It has made a big difference in my endurance (not sure how widespread this effect is, but reproducible in me).

I would like to see some studies on endurance. Do you know of any I can look at? According to the Linus Paulding Institute website athletic performance was not improved by CoQ10. http://lpi.oregonsta...thernuts/coq10/

Although coenzyme Q10 supplementation has improved exercise tolerance in some individuals with mitochondrial encephalomyopathies (see Deficiency) (26), there is little evidence that it improves athletic performance in healthy individuals. At least 7 placebo-controlled trials have examined the effects of 100-150 mg/d of coenzyme Q10 supplementation for 3-8 weeks on physical performance in trained and untrained men. Most found no significant differences between groups taking coenzyme Q10 and groups taking placebos with respect to measures of aerobic exercise performance, such as maximal oxygen consumption (VO2 max) and exercise time to exhaustion (57-61). One study found the maximal cycling workload to be slightly (4%) increased after 8 weeks of coenzyme Q10 supplementation compared to placebo, although measures of aerobic power were not increased (62). Two studies actually found significantly greater improvement in measures of anaerobic (60) and aerobic (61) exercise performance after supplementation with a placebo compared to coenzyme Q10. Studies on the effect of supplementation on physical performance in women are lacking, but there is little reason to suspect a gender difference in the response to coenzyme Q10 supplementation.

The cost of CoQ10 is not a problem for me. The question I have is what does it do?

Since when it causing rats to live longer the endpoint for taking a supp?

Well do the rats at least look or feel better? If it prevents/reduces cancer and heart disease it must increase the lifespan of mice by some measurable amount. Am I missing something here?

[quote]

Iherb is a for profit company LEF is not!! QUOTE]

And lifemirage is not a twentysomething mentally deranged person selling supps as unique nutrition.

It is highly likely if not certain that LEF makes money and not all goes for research.

Please tell me why mind should spend more money to support LEF when he can get equal quality for less.

No commercial interest means I have no interest in iherb.

Speaking of commercial interest cellfighter, do you have any commercial interest in any company relevant to any of these discussions, or any supplements?

This thread has gotten silly.  Since when it causing rats to live longer the endpoint for taking a supp?

Don't buy LEf stuff.  Not that quality is bad, most of it is probably OK.  However too pricey mostly.  Go to e.g. iherb.com (no commercial interest) and get e.g. Now brand, or jarrow brand, etc.  For coenzyme Q-10 you want stuff e.g. in gelcaps with oil.  100 mg/day is PLENTY.

  Now Foods, CoQ10, 100 mg, 150 Softgels

SRP: $79.99
Our Price: $46.19

which equals 30.8cents/day.

Is co-q10 the most important supp, or top 3.  Nope.  But it is one I recommend.  It has made a big difference in my endurance (not sure how widespread this effect is, but reproducible in me).  Also very important for gum health, though I would take some even without these issues.

Price has come way down since japanese monopoly has been broken.  Which is why there is suspicion on new propriatery (sp?) form to keep raking in the profits.

May I disagree?

Which delivery form NOW foods uses in its product? I bet that it is not a liposomal delivery. According to the CoQ10 studies I have read in the past, the ideal dose of CoQ10 is 2-300mg/day, split in 2-3 doses. And this is for LIPOSOMAL coQ10, the form used in research studies (Not sure if MitoQ is of this kind but i believe so).

Powders and various oily delivery have an effectiveness on blood serum levels of 1/5 to 1/10 of the form used in clinical studies.
Your figure, Scott, woudl be:
2 x $0.308 x 5 = $3.08 /day - CoQ10 benefits are not worth this much.

I stick with the tiny 30mg dose included in my multi since anecdotal reference shows some effect of even such doses of CoQ10 ranging from 30 to 100mg, that most people take.

I have no perosnal interest in LEF or in ANY other supplement company, but if the bioavailability claims are meet (i.e further studies confirm that), LEF ubiquinol would currently be the most cost-effective product of this kind, at 1 cap/day.

BTW, anyone knows about half life of ubiquinol? I'm pretty sure CoQ10 should be taken at least in 2 separate doses in a day.

I have not looked closely at CoQ10. Why are ImmInst members taking this supplement?

CoQ10 benefits IMHO are not related to lifespan increasing. Main benefits are twofold:
1) kidney protection
2) energy improvement
Both of which improve the quality of life.

I dont have references at hand but I think you should find something looking into pubmed.

This thread has gotten silly.  Since when it causing rats to live longer the endpoint for taking a supp?

Don't buy LEf stuff.  Not that quality is bad, most of it is probably OK.  However too pricey mostly.  Go to e.g. iherb.com (no commercial interest) and get e.g. Now brand, or jarrow brand, etc.  For coenzyme Q-10 you want stuff e.g. in gelcaps with oil.  100 mg/day is PLENTY.

  Now Foods, CoQ10, 100 mg, 150 Softgels

SRP: $79.99
Our Price: $46.19

which equals 30.8cents/day.

Is co-q10 the most important supp, or top 3.  Nope.  But it is one I recommend.  It has made a big difference in my endurance (not sure how widespread this effect is, but reproducible in me).  Also very important for gum health, though I would take some even without these issues.

Price has come way down since japanese monopoly has been broken.  Which is why there is suspicion on new propriatery (sp?) form to keep raking in the profits.

May I disagree?

Which delivery form NOW foods uses in its product? I bet that it is not a liposomal delivery. According to the CoQ10 studies I have read in the past, the ideal dose of CoQ10 is 2-300mg/day, split in 2-3 doses. And this is for LIPOSOMAL coQ10, the form used in research studies (Not sure if MitoQ is of this kind but i believe so).

Powders and various oily delivery have an effectiveness on blood serum levels of 1/5 to 1/10 of the form used in clinical studies.
Your figure, Scott, woudl be:
2 x $0.308 x 5 = $3.08 /day - CoQ10 benefits are not worth this much.

I stick with the tiny 30mg dose included in my multi since anecdotal reference shows some effect of even such doses of CoQ10 ranging from 30 to 100mg, that most people take.

I have no perosnal interest in LEF or in ANY other supplement company, but if the bioavailability claims are meet (i.e further studies confirm that), LEF ubiquinol would currently be the most cost-effective product of this kind, at 1 cap/day.

BTW, anyone knows about half life of ubiquinol? I'm pretty sure CoQ10 should be taken at least in 2 separate doses in a day.

I'll comment just on conventional coenayme Q10:

LEF has some good information, and lots of hype.

Powders are not well absorbed--I agree.

There are many many different companies each with their own proprietary better absorbed form of coenzyme Q-10. If you can show me comparisons among any of these, I am certainly willing to look i.e. I know any of them will be better then powder, is there any evidence that any are better then any others, or any are better then powder in an oil base?

"the ideal dose of CoQ10 is 2-300mg/day, split in 2-3 doses"

Ideal dose for what? that is a ton. Are we speaking of diabetics or people with heart failure?

I think most companies put out a lot of hype. That's how you make money in today's market. I take only a small amount of q 10, the smallest caps I can find. My reasoning is that it seems to do some good but I see no reason to take a large or megadose of the stuff. Whatever good it will do is likely done for the most part with a small dose.

BTW, cellfighter, try putting the [/quote] on the next line down from the text you are quoting and it will work. Putting it on the same line as the text often fails. The first [quote] can be on the same line but not the unquote.

I have not looked closely at CoQ10. Why are ImmInst members taking this supplement?

CoQ10 benefits IMHO are not related to lifespan increasing. Main benefits are twofold:
1) kidney protection
2) energy improvement
Both of which improve the quality of life.

I dont have references at hand but I think you should find something looking into pubmed.

I noticed high doses, like the ones you quoted earlier of 2-300mg/day, split in 2-3 doses alsop reduced DOMS quite a bit. Once I started taking over 500mg/day(split into 2 doses) there was noticeable reduction in next day DOMS. It was reduced nearly 50% but would still persist for nearly two days albeit at much lesser degrees. I was not taking the lyposomal delivery but merely caps made by NOW and Source Naturals I believe.

I'm now using Idebenone since a few people said it was more effective for DOMS. 100mg once a day provides the same reduction in DOMS as >500mg coQ10 did. Thus it's much cheaper to dose, maybe USD$ 0.10/day as opposed to ~$2/day for coQ10.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

I'll comment just on conventional coenayme Q10:

LEF has some good information, and lots of hype.

Powders are not well absorbed--I agree.

There are many many different companies each with their own proprietary better absorbed form of coenzyme Q-10. If you can show me comparisons among any of these, I am certainly willing to look i.e. I know any of them will be better then powder, is there any evidence that any are better then any others, or any are better then powder in an oil base?

"the ideal dose of CoQ10 is 2-300mg/day, split in 2-3 doses"

Ideal dose for what? that is a ton. Are we speaking of diabetics or people with heart failure?

Yes, that's the problem - All improved delivery systems used for CoQ10 have no scientific proof on how much bioavailable they are, respect powder or liposomal CoQ10. Which one should you take? You probably go for the cheaper with oil like NOW. Your choice makes sense.

2-300mg is the *minimum* dose used in clinical studies, yes we are not talking about healthy people. That's why I added that there is anectodatal reference of some effect of tiny doses.