ImmInst.org Forums: Geronova rebuttal re: lipoic acid - ImmInst.org Forums

The only part of the post that could be considered a rebuttal is a single sentence with no references:

Quote

I guess we'll have to wait for the whole thing.

Geez. I should have referred to what is up as an intro which is what the geronova folks called it. Be patient. There were proofing the long document when I talked to them earlier.

Wow. I will have to read this -- thanks Scott.

What the AOR article I read seemed to say was that R-DHLA might do something great; but the evidence isn't up to par to even close to R-Lipoic acid...if it turns out to be all that, well cool. But what if it isn't?

Article is posted to my blog now. Thanks for everyones patience. You will understand the delay after you see it.

Comments are opened on my blog for those that choose to contribute in a constructive and civil fashion.

Cheers,
Pete
www.RelentlessImprovement.com

This is such an interesting paper! I'm about halfway through it... great read so far for anyone interested in lipoic acid.

I have to say I am a little disappointed. They wrote a 26 page paper rebutting the AOR article, and somehow managed to completely skirt any discussion of AOR's most powerful point -- that RLA alone has the ability to effect a shift the NAD+/NADH ratio that will reduce mitochondrial ROS production.

Another thing I'm more than a little curious about. In this paper, Geronova seems to imply that combining DHLA with RLA enhances bioavailability and maintains higher levels in plasma, and is necessary to avoid polymerization of RLA.

Consider this quote from their website:

Quote

So that product contains no DHLA, but is equally as bioavailable as their RLA/DHLA products, has a similar pharmacokinetic profile, and does not suffer from polymerization.

Which one of their contradictory claims is true here?

I have not looked at that paper yet; I have a lot to do today. I am pretty sure R-DHLA is safe. Is there research in animals and/or humans confirming efficacy along the same lines as R-LA? That's the only question I need an answer to.

I also take some other stuff whose effects have not been thoroughly demonstrated in humans; but R-DHLA is *mighty* expensive, so if I am going to break the bank to get it, it better be all that...if there is no real data from clinical trials in humans, I'll stay conservative with R-LA.

[quote name='FunkOdyssey']Which one of their contradictory claims is true here?[/quote]

I am not sure if I see any contradiction. There is a big difference between "similar" and "equal to."

I need to correct myself above. There really are not any human clinical trials using R-lipoic acid, right? They are mostly using racemate. However, several animals trials would support the same effects to be manifest in humans; and the racemate form may in fact be dangerous as the S isomer is synthetic and not naturally found in the mitochondria.

I trust GeroNova's claims about plasma levels in humans. But was their finding based an animals, humans, aged populations, specialized groups, etc?

[quote name='http://aor.ca/magazines/pdf/Advances_10_Ma...lipoic_Acid.pdf']The most exciting research on R(+)-lipoic acid has been a series of groundbreaking animal studies3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 which have shown that supplementing the diet with R(+)-lipoic acid - especially when combined with acetyl-L-carnitine (ALCAR) - dramatically rejuvenates the aging body, restoring youthful activity levels, cognitive performance, and heart function. It also makes the "fires of life" in the cellular "power plants" (mitochondria) burn more brightly and efficiently, thereby relieving age-related oxidative stress. Preliminary human trials have provided evidence that these phenomena translate up into the human case.12,13,14,15 By contrast, we know almost nothing about what supplemental R-DHLA does to the body. Nearly all of the studies being cited to hype the alleged benefits of R-DHLA supplementation - their relative efficacy against superoxide and peroxyl reactive oxygen species,16 repairing damage to the antioxidant enzyme alpha-1 antiprotease,17 the reduction of coenzyme Q10,18 or protecting cortical neurons saturated with iron solution,19 for instance - are experiments performed in test tubes.[/quote]

AOR's references:

3 Liu J, Head E, Gharib AM, et al. Memory loss in old rats is associated with brain mitochondrial
decay and RNA/DNA oxidation: partial reversal by feeding acetyl-L-carnitine and/or Ralpha-
lipoic acid. PNAS. 2002 Feb 19;99(4):2356-61.
4 Hagen TM, Liu J, Lykkesfeldt J, et al. Feeding acetyl-L-carnitine and lipoic acid to old rats significantly
improves metabolic function while decreasing oxidative stress. PNAS. 2002 Feb
19;99(4):1870-5.
5 Hagen TM, Moreau R, Suh JH, Visioli F. Mitochondrial decay in the aging rat heart: evidence
for improvement by dietary supplementation with acetyl-L-carnitine and/or lipoic acid. Ann N Y
Acad Sci. 2002 Apr;959:491-507.
6 Liu J, Atamna H, Kuratsune H, Ames BN. Delaying brain mitochondrial decay and aging with
mitochondrial antioxidants and metabolites. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2002 Apr;959:133-66.
7 Liu J, Head E, Gharib AM, et al. Memory loss in old rats is associated with brain mitochondrial
decay and RNA/DNA oxidation: partial reversal by feeding acetyl-L-carnitine and/or Ralpha
-lipoic acid. PNAS. 2002 Feb 19;99(4):2356-61.
8 Liu J, Killilea DW, Ames BN. Age-associated mitochondrial oxidative decay: improvement of
carnitine acetyltransferase substrate-binding affinity and activity in brain by feeding old rats
acetyl-L- carnitine and/or R-alpha-lipoic acid. PNAS. 2002 Feb 19;99(4):1876-81.
8 Ames BN. Damage to mitochondria. Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. 2000
Oct 1;Children's Hospital of Oakland Research Institute, Oakland, CA. Transcript available at
[url="http://research.mednet.ucla.edu/pmts/sens/transframe.htm"]http://research.mednet.ucla.edu/pmts/ sens/.../transframe.htm[/url]
9 Hagen TM, Ingersoll RT, Lykkesfeldt J, et al. ®-alpha-lipoic acid-supplemented old rats have
improved mitochondrial function, decreased oxidative damage, and increased metabolic rate.
FASEB J. 1999 Feb;13(2):411-8.
10 Hagen TM, Ingersoll RT, Wehr CM, Lykkesfeldt J, Vinarsky V, Bartholomew JC, Song MH,
Ames BN. Acetyl-L-carnitine fed to old rats partially restores mitochondrial function and ambulatory
activity. PNAS. 1998 Aug 4;95(16):9562-6.
11 Hager K, Marahrens A, Kenklies M, et al. Alpha-lipoic acid as a new treatment option for
Azheimer type dementia. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2001 Jun;32(3):275-282.

AOR's article from which the Screenshot attached is derived from:

[url="http://aor.ca/magazines/pdf/Advances_10_May_2006_R+-lipoic_acid_or_R-Dihydrolipoic_Acid.pdf"]http: //aor.ca/magazines/pdf/Advances_10_Ma...lipoic_Acid.pdf[/url]

i read it once and will have to read it several more times to get the most out of it, but i was interested in the fact that they never mentioned RLA-MCT25, which is another GeroNova product, that does not mix RLA and DHLA yet is purported, in their literature, to have many of the same properties. interesting.

I have ADD so I don't have too much of an attention span. I got to about page 5 and lost concentration. I would have to pop a Provigil to read 26 pages of properties of R-lipoic and R-DHLA. Carlson needs to add some color and cool pictures like AOR to summarize the main points for me to get the idea...

A couple of things I noticed:

1. The word "hype" is being thrown around a lot more recently. I like it. Consumers should be really skeptical whenever anyone tries to sell us the key to live extension is a pill.

2. There is a bit of a bit of a scientific fight going on. I don't know if I like that..and it makes me even more skeptical...However, benefits: we have a legitimate scientific argument going back and forth, and we have altered the industry to our intellect.

3. No one is forced to buy anything in this market. If an individual finds AOR's argument more compelling they can take straight R-lipoic acid; and if others find GeroNova's stance to be more solid, no one is going to stop them from taking R-DHLA.

AORsupport addressed many of these issues here in this forum. I would just like to see a quick point by point rebuttal of AORsupport's argument.

Peace.

I e-mailed Geronova and directed them to this thread and there are replies to the questions above in Pete's Blog here:

http://www.relentles...t.blogspot.com/

Quote

As much as I would like to take a scientific stand on the issue of whether or not taking R-DHLA is practical (or effective), I cannot consider myself nor claim to be an expert on the issue. However, unpublished research from a vendor of a product or service might not be considered valid data due to the possibility of bias. Doesn't Carlson work as an employee of GeroNova, and don't they include R-DHLA in one of their products? Couldn't his findings be biased? The first question the scientists I discussed this issue with asked: "Who published the data?"

I have not read AOR's full article nor have I read GeroNova's analytical chemist's 26 page paper. Therefore, being an amateur, I have to resort to the same questions I use to determine whether or not any drug or supplement is effective or worth its cost.

Are there any human studies published on the effects of R-DHLA and what are the findings? If there are such studies, someone please reference them.

Are there any animal studies published on the effects of R-DHLA and what are the findings? If there are such studies, someone please reference them.

If all of the research in animals and humans is in fact using R-lipoic acid or racemate, I think it sounds a lot more practical to just take R-lipoic; since the 50% S isomer is not naturally occurring in the human body. Is/are there any published scientific studie(s) on the effects of R-DHLA in animals or humans? That's all I need an answer to to make up my mind about the more practical supplement to take. Also: R-DHLA is VERY expensive compared to straight R-lipoic acid.

Peace.

This post has been edited by nootropikamil: 02 July 2006 - 08:37 AM

Hey can anyone get LEF to comment on this?

zerodeathrider said:

I wish someone scientific could come in here and analyse all of the data on the R-Lipoic vs. R-dihydrolipoic discussion and sum it all up...I don't think it is really LEF vs. GeroNova vs. AOR. It's more AOR's, GeroNova, and LEF's current scientific understanding of the current data in partial conflict. I must say that LEF does have a panel of MDs on an advisory committee; however, that does not make it such that all of their products are formulated by or approved by an MD. There is that old story about the elephant and the six blind men...all parties have their own understandings of the data probably because they all have different data due to where they are positioned around the elephant.

My opinion on this matter is obviously likely to be highly biased as I sell R-lipoic acid products myself, so I won't offer it anymore. I am just trying to state the little that I knew about this issue before I even knew there was going to be a scientific debate on the topic.

Do we have any unbiased scientists that can come forward to figure this out for us?

From my cursory understanding of the data concerning the R-Lipoic vs. R-dihydrolipoic discussion:

1. R-dihydrolipoic acid is a naturally occurring (in the human body) antioxidant broken down from R-lipoic acid (within the mitochondria, I believe -- correct me if I am wrong).

2. The therapeutic dosage range used in clinical trials was 600-1200mg elemental lipoic acid

3. There might be disagreement about the data, inferences, hypoetheses, and possible conclusions regarding the NAD+/NADH ratio (FO pointed this out)

4. ...

Scott, what else do you see in the R-lipoic or R-dihydrolipoic acid data?

Peace.

Lets ask them to do a study.

What I seem to understand from this article, to put it somewhat bluntly, is:

-R-Lipoic and R-dihydrolipoic acid could be combined for better chemical stability
-Recommended dose is between 600 – 1200 mg
-But it seems that bioavailability depends mainly on individual personal factors given the dose is above 300mg.

Given the high price, it seems to me that money could better be spent elsewhere until more data is available? Did I understand it right?