Potassium-R-Lipoic Acid

^ that all makes sense to me. But you haveto be odd to argue and want to ague against stabilized RLA being not much better than just RLA powder or ALA.

ALA is probably better than nothing, but "take 2x as much will even it out" is false. Although I'm not sure I would take it. (see below)
k-rala is better than ALA. (see below) K-rala is VERY peaky, but it's cheap. (Doctor's Best, Stabilized R-Lipoic Acid)
For the record, I use R-Plus.

Took 5 minutes on Google for why to avoid s-ala (figured somebody already did the compilation):

The studies listed below have shown that:

SLA has effects in the body which are different than RLA.

Although SLA is an excellent antioxidant (but RLA is better) none of the other effects of SLA have been shown to be beneficial.

Since SLA does not naturally occur in the body and consequently the body has not developed mechanisms to deal with it, the effects of non-physiological doses of SLA are more likely to be harmful than are non-physiological doses of RLA which does occur naturally in the body and for which it does have mechanisms to deal with it. Therefore, SLA should not be considered as mere filler in the racemic mixture of enantiomers which is widely available on the supplement market, but should be considered potentially harmful until proven otherwise. This not to say that non-physiological doses of RLA may not also be harmful, only that they are less likely to be so. In particular, RLA is likely to be less harmful and more beneficial than the racemate generally used.

The concluding remarks from the chapter on RLA in The Handbook of Antioxidants, aptly summarize these conclusions:

"Since, the popularity and the interest in LA as an antioxidant are rising, there is, therefore, a need for better understanding of the pharmacology of this compound. Frequently, the two enantiomers of LA the R- and the S- forms do not have the same potency and biological efficacy. Occasionally, the biological effects exerted by one enantiomer were contradicted by the other form. However, so far R-LA, which is the natural ofrm of LA, was superior and with more potent phamacological activity than S-LA in all of in vitro models and clinical experiments. The two enantiomers of LA should be looked on as two different pharmacological agents, antioxidants, or drugs."R

"These findings indicate that (i) the activities of the mammalian pyruvate dehydrogenase complex and its catalytic components are affected by lipoic compounds based on their stereoselectivity; and (ii) the oxidation of pyruvate by intact HepG2 cells is not inhibited by R-LA but is moderately decreased by S-LA. The later finding with the intact cells is in support of therapeutic role of R-LA as an antioxidant" and the reduced value of S-LA.R

"Maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) of the R-(+)-enantiomer were about 40-50% higher than those of the S-(-)-enantiomer (50 mg: 135.45 ng/ml R-(+)-TA, 67.83 ng/ml S-(-)-TA; 600 mg: 1812.32 ng/ml R-(+)-TA, 978.20 ng/ml S-(-)-TA; geometric means)."R

"The concentrations of glutathione in normal lenses or lenses incubated with R- or racemic alpha-LA were not significantly different, but the concentration of glutathione in lenses incubated with S-alpha-LA was significantly lower than the R-alpha-LA-incubated lenses."R

"Of particular interest is the observation that the lenses are stereospecifically protected by the R-alpha-lipoic acid, but not S-alpha-lipoic acid. A possible mechanism [for this protection from cataract forming processes] is the hypothesis that the stereospecific protection by R enantiomer, but not the S enantiomer, is due to protection of the mitochondria of the newly differentiated lens fiber cells at the equator."R.

The individual effects of the pure R-(+) and S-(-) enantiomers of alpha-lipoic acid to enhance insulin-stimulated glucose metabolism in skeletal muscle was studied in obese Zucker rats: an animal model of insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, and dyslipidemia. Generally, RLA had major positive effects on all studied parameters. SLA had either no effect on all parameters except: 1) a negative chronic effect on insulin (15% increase versus 17% decrease for RLA), 2) a lesser positive chronic effect on 2-deoxyglucose uptake (65% increase by RLA versus 29% by SLA), 3) glucose transporter (GLUT-4) protein was unchanged after chronic RLA treatment but was reduced to 81 +/- 6% of obese control with SLA treatment. The study conclusion was: "the R-(+) enantiomer being much more effective than the S-(-) enantiomer."R

In a group of 14 immunosuppressed NMRI-mice (nu/nu) raised and kept under germ-reduced conditions, SLA, even at 75 mg/kg body weight per day, increased the 50% survival rate, but did not expand "the total life span of its group"R.

"An intact organ, the isolated perfused rat heart, reduced R-lipoate six to eight times more rapidly than S-lipoate ... On the other hand, erythrocytes, which lack mitochondria, somewhat more actively reduced S- than R-lipoate ... Thus, mechanisms of reduction of alpha-lipoate are highly tissue-specific and effects of exogenously supplied alpha-lipoate are determined by tissue glutathione reductase and dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase activity"R.

"In cultured cells from the mesencephalon of C57BL/6 mice, treatment with lipoic acid resulted in partial restoration of 3H-dopamine uptake and dopamine content after exposure of the cells to MPP+ ...; only the naturally occurring R-enantiomer was effective."R

"In L6 muscle cells and 3T3-L1 adipocytes in culture, glucose uptake was rapidly increased by ®-thioctic acid. The increment was higher than that elicited by the (S)-isomer or the racemic mixture and was comparable with that caused by insulin."R

"Rat lens opacity formation and LDH leakage, resulting from incubation in medium containing 55.6 mM glucose to model diabetes, were suppressed by the addition of 1 mM R-lipoic acid. Addition of 1 mM racemic lipoic acid reduced these damaging effects to the lens by only one-half, while S-lipoic acid only potentiated LDH leakage, consistent with the hypothesis that R-lipoic acid is the active form. Although HPLC analysis demonstrated that both stereoisomers of lipoic acid were reduced to dihydrolipoate at comparable rates by the intact lens, the mitochondrial lipoamide dehydrogenase system is highly specific for reduction of exogenous R-lipoic to dihydrolipoic acid. Therefore, stereospecific protection against this opacity is consistent with specific reduction of R-lipoic acid in mitochondria of the vulnerable cells at the lens equator where the first globular degeneration is seen in glucose cataract."R

This study revealed a marked stereospecificity in the prevention of induced cataract, and in the protection of lens antioxidants, in newborn rats by alpha-lipoate, R- and racemic alpha-lipoate Cataract formation was decreased from 100% to 55% by R-alpha-lipoic acid and 40% by rac-alpha-lipoic acid. S-alpha-lipoic acid had no effect on induced cataract formation. The lens antioxidants glutathione, ascorbate, and vitamin E were depleted to 45, 62, and 23% of control levels, respectively, by the cataract inducing treatment, but were maintained at 84-97% of control levels when R-alpha-lipoic acid or rac-alpha-lipoic acid were administered; S-alpha-lipoic acid administration had no protective effect on lens antioxidants. When enantiomers of alpha-lipoic acid were administered to animals, R-alpha-lipoic acid was taken up by lens and reached concentrations 2- to 7-fold greater than those of S-alpha-lipoic acid, with rac-alpha-lipoic acid reaching levels midway between the R-isomer and racemic form. Reduced lipoic acid, dihydrolipoic acid, reached the highest levels in lens of the rac-alpha-lipoic acid-treated animals and the lowest levels in S-alpha-lipoic acid-treated animals. These results indicate that the protective effects of alpha-lipoic acid against induced cataract are probably due to its protective effects on lens antioxidants, and that the stereospecificity exhibited is due to selective uptake and reduction of R-alpha-lipoic acid by lens cellsR.

"Racemic lipoic acid is therapeutically applied in pathologies in which free radicals are involved. The in vivo reduction of lipoic acid may play an essential role in its antioxidant effect. It was found that mitochondrial lipoamide dehydrogenase reduces the R-enantiomer 28 times faster than the S-enantiomer of lipoic acid. S-lipoic acid inhibits the reduction of the R enantiomer only at relatively high concentrations."R

"Whereas mitochondrial ATP synthesis was increased when the R-enantiomer was previously added to the working rat heart at 0.05-0.1 mumol concentration, with the S-enantiomer ATP synthesis remained within the control range. Mitochondrial membrane fluidity ... revealed a trend towards increase with the R- and decrease with the S-enantiomer."R

"In feeding experiments, however, R lipoate significantly inhibited glucose oxidase-mediated skin inflammation, while S lipoate was only marginally protective."R

RLA "is the naturally occurring cofactor in alpha-ketoacid dehydrogenases. We show both photometrically by NADH+H+ oxidation and by HPLC product analysis that this enantiomer is rapidly reduced by NADH+H+ catalyzed by porcine heart lipoamide dehydrogenase/diaphorase. The racemate exhibits approximately 40% activity as compared to the form while the S(-) enantiomer photometrically shows little activity and yields no detectable reduced lipoic acid."R

The reduction of exogenous alpha-lipoic acid to dihydrolipoate by mammalian cells and tissues confers additional antioxidant protection to the cell. Both (R+) and (S-) isomers of alpha-lipoic acid were analyzed as substrates with glutathione reductase from several sources and with mammalian lipoamide dehydrogenase. Mammalian glutathione reductase catalyzed faster reduction of (S)-lipoic acid (1.4-2.4-fold greater activity) than of ®-lipoic acid, whereas lipoamide dehydrogenase had a very marked preference for ®-lipoic acid (18-fold greater activity) over (S)-lipoic acid"R.

"The hyperglycemic effects of D-glucose [on erythrocyte membrane fluidity] were corroborated with isolated, reconstituted membrane proteins and erythrocyte glucose carrier, indicating that, in general, the observed divergent biochemical/biophysical changes of the red cell membrane are influenced by the glucose transport protein GluT1. The natural R-form and the S-form of alpha-lipoic acid were compared with racemic R-/S-forms for their efficiencies in alterations of red cell membrane fluidity. Decreased fluidities in presence of 10 mM glucose were found to be influenced in differentiated ways: the S-form was highly active in increasing fluidity at 4 nmol/mg and increasingly less active up to 20 nmol/mg protein. By contrast the R-form of lipoic acid was moderately efficient in increasing fluidity through a larger concentration range between 4 and 80 nmol/mg protein"R.

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

rhdrury wrote:

"I think this guy's snorted too much pyritinol or something"

So we have come to ad hominems and nasty personal attacks as a form of debate? It seems ajnast and pete like to play that game too.

"A hypothesis needs no evidence to be made, and cannot be rejected until evidence proves it false."

Cannot be rejected? You have it backwards, a hypothesis can not be accepted until it's proven true.

"There is no positive proof in science. Science can prove hypotheses false, but not prove that one is true "

And where did you come up with that little gem? Many things have been proven true.

kevink, the material you quoted seem to show that the r form does more for you than the s but I don't really see any harm being done by the s. People say probably and so on but haven't shown harm from s or from racemic ala. The only bad thing said about r ala is that it breaks down at high temps. The exact temps are not established. No one has shown that the mixed form of ala is bad for you. In fact, most studies have shown that it is a very good antioxident and has many good properties. Nothing posted in this thread has disputed that. It may be that krala is better than ala but how much better? Is it worth the much higher price? Money seems to be the bottom line here. This reminds me of vitamine sellers who charge exhorbitant prices for fancy forms of vit C with loads of testimonials. It may be that krala is enough better to be worth it. It may be that ala is harmful to you despite the many studies showing the opposite. The proponents of krala haven't shown any harm from ala. If I missed it, point it out to me. Or call a bunch of nasty names, whatever suits your personality.

"There is no positive proof in science. Science can prove hypotheses false, but not prove that one is true "

And where did you come up with that little gem? Many things have been proven true.

Actually, that was always hammered into our heads in every science class at every level that I've taken. Science doesn't prove anything, it just mounts evidence showing that "xxx" isn't false.

If you want to say the laws of physics have not been proven true, merely not proven false, then it's your privilege to say that. I see what you're getting at and maybe some day they will find Einstien was wrong and so on. That is more of a philosophical situation. The guy was saying that the hypothesis must be considered true until proven false which is not the case at all. If evidence mounts that something is true, then we accept it until counter evidence comes along. We don't just accept a statement because it's been made. Many studies have been done on ala and shown it to be valuable. That doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there isn't any hidden harm in it that wasn't found in the studies. I will admit that's possible. I'm just saying that I haven't seen any evidence of that so far. They have shown that pure r ala is better and more effective and that kr ala is more stable. I have never disputed that, I'm just looking for the proof that r ala breaks down at 70f or that racemic ala is bad for you.

Didn't Einstein prove that Newton was wrong? Isn't Stephen Hawking proving that Einstein was wrong?

kevink, the material you quoted seem to show that the r form does more for you than the s but I don't really see any harm being done by the s. People say probably and so on but haven't shown harm from s or from racemic ala. The only bad thing said about r ala is that it breaks down at high temps. The exact temps are not established. No one has shown that the mixed form of ala is bad for you. In fact, most studies have shown that it is a very good antioxident and has many good properties. Nothing posted in this thread has disputed that. It may be that krala is better than ala but how much better? Is it worth the much higher price? Money seems to be the bottom line here. This reminds me of vitamine sellers who charge exhorbitant prices for fancy forms of vit C with loads of testimonials. It may be that krala is enough better to be worth it. It may be that ala is harmful to you despite the many studies showing the opposite. The proponents of krala haven't shown any harm from ala. If I missed it, point it out to me. Or call a bunch of nasty names, whatever suits your personality.

I tried to bold it when i posted it, so let me pull the bolds...

Occasionally, the biological effects exerted by one enantiomer were contradicted by the other form.

I don't want the S getting in the way of the R.

the oxidation of pyruvate by intact HepG2 cells is not inhibited by R-LA but is moderately decreased by S-LA

The R had a beneficial result, the S had a harmful result.

Of particular interest is the observation that the lenses are stereospecifically protected by the R-alpha-lipoic acid, but not S-alpha-lipoic acid.

R did something useful, S did not.

SLA had either no effect on all parameters except: 1) a negative chronic effect on insulin (15% increase versus 17% decrease for RLA), 3) glucose transporter (GLUT-4) protein was unchanged after chronic RLA treatment but was reduced to 81 +/- 6% of obese control with SLA treatment.

Number 1 is another example of a harmful S result. Number 3 is also a harmful S result (although I'm not exactly sure of the GLUT-4 numbers).

only the naturally occurring R-enantiomer was effective

Again, S didn't help.

S-lipoic acid only potentiated LDH leakage

Another harmful S result.

Use whatever you want, but I still say a $10 bottle of k-rala (http://www.iherb.com/rlipoic.html) is a better bet than a $10 bottle of ALA or RLA.

Quote = xanadu
rhdrury wrote:
"I think this guy's snorted too much pyritinol or something"
So we have come to ad hominems and nasty personal attacks as a form of debate? It seems ajnast and pete like to play that game too.

Agreed - you do the job too well by your own hand.

"A hypothesis needs no evidence to be made, and cannot be rejected until evidence proves it false."
Cannot be rejected? You have it backwards, a hypothesis can not be accepted until it's proven true.

No, you have it backwards:
1) a hypothesis can be made without any evidence - a speculation. It's accepted as 'not false', until proven false.
2) a hypothesis with supporting evidence (i.e. a claim) IS accepted (by default) until proven false;
3) it cannot be proven true (unless it's time bounded: 'I hypothesise that the sun will rise tomorrow' - the sun rising tomorrow effectively proves the hypothesis as having been true )

"There is no positive proof in science. Science can prove hypotheses false, but not prove that one is true "
And where did you come up with that little gem? Many things have been proven true.

Such as? Like evolution? Like tectonic plate theory? You believe they're right, but they're not proven.

Quote = xanadu
If you want to say the laws of physics have not been proven true, merely not proven false, then it's your privilege to say that. I see what you're getting at and maybe some day they will find Einstien was wrong and so on. That is more of a philosophical situation.

Newton was not wrong, just not right enough. Possibly the same for Einstein.

The guy was saying that the hypothesis must be considered true until proven false which is not the case at all.

Actually the guy said "A hypothesis needs no evidence to be made, and cannot be rejected until evidence proves it false."
He didn't say that the hypothesis must be considered to be true until proven false. You're mis-stating.

(

If evidence mounts that something is true, then we accept it until counter evidence comes along. We don't just accept a statement because it's been made.

No, but you don't reject it.)

Many studies have been done on ala and shown it to be valuable. That doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there isn't any hidden harm in it that wasn't found in the studies. I will admit that's possible. I'm just saying that I haven't seen any evidence of that so far.

You haven't seeen any evidence of that so far? You haven't seen any evidence of that so far??? Still haven't read anjst's links then.

They have shown that pure r ala is better and more effective and that kr ala is more stable. I have never disputed that, I'm just looking for the proof that r ala breaks down at 70f or that racemic ala is bad for you.

You still haven't told us what you would consider to be proof... Perhaps if you indicate what form this 'proof' would take, and how much of it you would need to consider yourself 'proved to', we might be able to help you.
Would you need 100 chemical decomposition trials, or a 1000? Would 100000000 prove it to you? It shouldn't - tomorrow the physical constants of the universe might change, rendering R-lipoic acid stable up to 100f.

But repeating "I haven't seen any proof" - you're asking for proof, what would prove it too you?

"1) a hypothesis can be made without any evidence - a speculation."

So far, you are correct.

"It's accepted as 'not false', until proven false."

Wrong. A speculation is not accepted until it's backed up with evidence.

"2) a hypothesis with supporting evidence (i.e. a claim) IS accepted (by default) until proven false;"

If the evidence is strong enough, it may be accepted as true but that is a matter of judgement. It is not automatically considered true, at least by most rational people, until it passes some form of peer review. You seem to think that any claim with even a trace of supporting evidence must be accepted as fact until it's disproven. In the real world, we want to see solid proof. The studies on racemic ala are considered solid. That doesn't mean the subject is closed, there may be better forms but it seems fairly clear that ala is good stuff.

"You still haven't told us what you would consider to be proof"

Something solid enough to counteract the published and peer reviewed studies on ala to date. I've looked over ajnast's links but did not see anything solid. I certainly have not seen anything solid that was quoted in this thread. Are you denying that studies have shown benefit from ala? What is your problem?

Quote = xanadu
"1) a hypothesis can be made without any evidence - a speculation."

So far, you are correct.

"It's accepted as 'not false', until proven false."

Wrong. A speculation is not accepted until it's backed up with evidence.

Everyone should read this - a good lesson in basic rational thinking, which requires honesty and clarity of thought:

I didn't write it should be accepted [as true], I wrote that it should be accepted (- considered) to be 'not false'.

Your statement "A speculation is not accepted until it's backed up with evidence." is true in itself, but doesn't refute what I wrote, because I didn't write that a speculation 'is accepted until proven false', I wrote that it 'is [or should be] accepted as 'not false', until proven false'. Do you see the semantic difference?

Therefore your pre-statement "Wrong", is wrong, because you have not refuted mine. Thus, although my statement may not be correct, you have not shown it not to be [that's 'not shown it not to be' correct, rather than 'not shown it not to be' not correct], so stating it to be wrong (which you have not shown) is not correct. Following?

What I wrote was "It's accepted as 'not false', until proven false."
If you read that again, hopefully you will note the semantic difference between that statement, and the statement (which I didn't make) which it seems you were trying to refute.
Unless a hypothesis is accepted (- considered) to be not-false (ie. not-wrong), you are in effect (simple boolean logic) considering it to be false, which would be wrong (a Type I error), unless it were proven to be so.

You seem to think that any claim with even a trace of supporting evidence must be accepted as fact until it's disproven.

You're mis-quoting again...

"You still haven't told us what you would consider to be proof"

Something solid enough to counteract the published and peer reviewed studies on ala to date. I've looked over ajnast's links but did not see anything solid. I certainly have not seen anything solid that was quoted in this thread. Are you denying that studies have shown benefit from ala? What is your problem?

It seems that your problem is your mis-quoting of other's replies. Mine is with people who do that.
I'm not sure if this is due to a lack of clarity of thinking or simple dishonesty. You'd be no good at Hegelian Rationalism.

"Are you denying that studies have shown benefit from ala?" -- Technically, the question contains a valid hypothesis, but if you read everything I've written I don't think you'll find much basis for that question.

The studies show that ALA is good. The studies also so that ALA may (relative [note that - I'm not saying it's necessarily in any way bad in itself] to RLA) be bad, and that RLA is generally better.
Bored with this. I'm sure LifeMirage will clear it up soon. Out of interest, is there anyone else who is actually supporting xanadu here?

Supporting xanadu? What the hell is that supposed to mean? I am looking for the truth, I'm sure many others are as well. They may not wish to be attacked as you have repeatedly attacked me but they want the truth as well.

"I didn't write it should be accepted [as true], I wrote that it should be accepted (- considered) to be 'not false'."

Splitting hairs to make a pseudo point. I have no interest in arguing for the sake of argument so I'll leave it at that.

"The studies show that ALA is good. The studies also so that ALA may (relative [note that - I'm not saying it's necessarily in any way bad in itself] to RLA) be bad, and that RLA is generally better."

More pseudo logic. Now you say r-ala is better than ala but pete told us it wasn't. Yes, I'm bored with this and do not intend to respond to you further unless you actually have something worth replying to.

"I'm sure LifeMirage will clear it up soon."

Doubt it. The jury seems to still be out on this one.

I really don't understand this topic?

And MUCH MUCH MUCH more important to the fate of the free world - what's up with the "no comment" on the list of bad results from the S form? [lol]

Or is this one of those bizarro threads where people just want to argue for no apparent reason?

Here are some more S-ALA conclusions...forgive me if these were already mentioned by someone else...I don't want to spend much time on this reply.

· S-Lipoic acid produces different biological actions than R-Lipoic acid that may be undesirable. (16-18)

· S-Lipoic acid produces limited beneficial effects since it cannot bind with key enzymes. (19)

· S-Lipoic acid is less effective than R-lipoic acid as an antioxidant. (20)

· At high concentrations, S-Lipoic acid inhibits mitochondria metabolism and the antioxidant activity of R-lipoic acid (21)

· S-Lipoic acid is metabolized in the outer cell membrane. This may interfere with R-Lipoic acid’s ability to penetrate the inner mitochondrial membrane and energy production. (22)

· R-Lipoic acid costs slightly more per unit than alpha-Lipoic acid. But it may be 10 times stronger than regular alpha-Lipoic acid at reducing inflammation, a primary cause of aging. And it is free of the problems from the S-form.

16. Streeper RS, Henriksen EJ, et al, Tritschler HJ. Differential effects of lipoic acid stereoisomers on glucose metabolism in insulin-resistant skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol 1997 Jul; 273(1 Pt 1): E185-91

17. Freisleben HJ, Neeb A, Lehr F, Ackermann H. Influence of selegiline and lipoic acid on the life expectancy of immunosuppressed mice Arzneimittelforschung 1997 Jun; 47(6): 776-80

18. Haramaki N, Han D, Handelman GJ, Tritschler HJ, Packer L. Cytosolic and mitochondrial systems for NADH- and NADPH-dependent reduction of alpha-lipoic acid Free Radic Biol Med 1997; 22(3): 535-42

19. Maitra I, Serbinova E, et al. Stereospecific effects of R-lipoic acid on buthionine sulfoximine-induced cataract formation in newborn rats. Biochem Biophys Res commun 1996; 221:422-429.

20. Streeper RS, Henriksen EJ, et al, Differential effects of lipoic acid stereoisomers on glucose metabolism in insulin-resistant skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol 1997 Jul; 273(1 Pt 1): E185-91

21. M.S. Patel, et al, Stereospecific effects of lipoic acids on mammalian pyruvate dehydrogenase complex

22. Packer, L; Tritschler, H; Wessel K, Neuroprotection by the metabolic Antioxidant alpha Lipoic Acid. 1997 Free Rad Biol Med 22, Nos 1/2, 359-378

Seriously, thanks to all who have participated in this topic (at least the ALA parts). It was nice to reconfirm my stack choices (and what I tell other people to take).

Supporting xanadu? What the hell is that supposed to mean? I am looking for the truth, I'm sure many others are as well. They may not wish to be attacked as you have repeatedly attacked me but they want the truth as well.

I think he was more pointing out the flaws in your reasoning.
If you define being attacked as having it pointed out to you that you misquote other's replies, state fallacies, and use flawed logic, then it seems you're not looking for the truth as much as not to be critized.

"I didn't write it should be accepted [as true], I wrote that it should be accepted (- considered) to be 'not false'."

Splitting hairs to make a pseudo point. I have no interest in arguing for the sake of argument so I'll leave it at that.

What's a pseudo point? No such thing, unless you're trying to refer to proxy reasoning. Or perhaps you're defining it as something you don't like because you can't reason it as false but can't admit it's validity as that would be admitting you are wrong (a pseudo point?).

Seeking logical truth is arguing for the sake of argument? Either one's logic is sound or flawed. If you are not capable of logical reasoning at a simple level like this, you aren't capable of reasoning at a higher level.

As a student of the philosophy of logic, I have seen that almost all the human race's problems (or lack of mitigation of them - oh, sorry, you would call that a pseudo point no doubt) can be traced to the pathological inability of humans for consistent rational thinking.
You're a perfect example. Not below average intelligence, but an idiotic inability for logical precision.

"The studies show that ALA is good. The studies also so that ALA may (relative [note that - I'm not saying it's necessarily in any way bad in itself] to RLA) be bad, and that RLA is generally better."

More pseudo logic. Now you say r-ala is better than ala but pete told us it wasn't. Yes, I'm bored with this and do not intend to respond to you further unless you actually have something worth replying to.

Sound logic actually. Obviously too subtle for you. I thought after all my years I could no longer be struck by how unimportant people think logical precision is.
You reaffirm how a person can be both intelligent (in a human sense) and stupid (in a rational sense) in one typical package.

Did pete tell us it wasn't? I must have mis-read his post.

There's little you write that is worth responding to. For you to be arguing your point on this post almost seems like you are arguing for the sake of it.
I'd also like to know - is there anyone else on this forum who would argue xanadu's side in the ALA debate? I suspect not.

"I'm sure LifeMirage will clear it up soon."

Doubt it. The jury seems to still be out on this one.

Well that'll be your little secret then. Or maybe your talking about your personal jury, that can't admit when it's wrong.

If LifeMirage wrote a post to the effect: ALA is better than nothing OK, R-LA is much better, would you then stop arguing your point about S-LA and lack of 'proof' about R-LA?
If so, perhaps we could ask him to add his comments, and settle the matter.
But it's already settled for the rest of us, and with another list of references to the sub-optimality of S-lipoic which you haven't addressed, and still seemingly not convincing you, I doubt anything will, so that would be wasting his time.


Or to put my post in one line - read the references you annoying little prat, and YOU stop arguing pointlessly over the pseudo point of ALA vs RLA. To everyone else it's a moot point.

Im not a great thinker but I've enjoyed the specific explanations on logic. I took me a while to get my head around some of the subtlety but on thinking about it I do appreciate some of the differences being argued, and that, depending on the issue, could be important.

And ifyou have more absolute belief that things are either write or wrong, and that irrational reasoning in the cause of most bad and wrong decisions, I can understand it how some people might care far more about the reasoning than how important the subtle logical differences are in this case.

I had a friend with Asperger's syndrome who was like that. I suspect one or two people arguing here are similar. To them the logical difference between say something causing a problem or the lack of that something being the cause of the lack of mitigation of the problem, or between something being considered to be true or considered to be 'not false', make them fundamentally different situations.

They might be subtle points, and something that most people wouldn't consider important, but technically they're very different situations. Most people don't care because it doesn't effect their everyday lives. But to people where logic is an instinctive need it's like the difference between colors - you might say a color is a color, they would see a fundamental difference between blue and green.

It's a good point about the difference between intelligent and rational people. I know many people who are very intelligent but continually make stupid and irrational choices and reasonings throughout their everyday lives.

But i like the argument about God. It's true, I thought bout it. There's no scientific basis for arguing against the existence of God, because God by definition is not constrained by the physical laws of the universe, and science can only answer questions about the physical universe. It highlights the above quite well. There are very 'intelligent' scientists who falsely argue that point. Are they dishonest, and using false reasoning to argue for their religion of atheism, or just, despite being intelligent, incapable of being consistently rational with their thinking?

I would only take R-LA. ALA (containing S-LA) is, relative to R-LA (although xanadu doesn't like that 'pseudo logic'), bad.
I certainly wouldn't want to take form of a molecule that the body has not been evolutionarily designed to use. That point alone seems like a pretty good basis to me not to take anything with S-LA in it, even if we don't think or yet know for sure whether it's bad (but obviously not to xanadu).
I haven't seen any studies showing D-ascorbic acid to be bad, but would anyone take an L,D-ascorbic mix out of choice when the body is only (through nature) mean to take the L-form?

I've read the logic arguments and they seem good, although maybe pedantic, except for technical correctness, for most things in the real world.

I came here because Iwasn't sure about which lipoic type to take. It's the first thing I've started on.
I've read the references and it now seems clear to me that R-lipoic is the only way to go. I woudn't now touch alpha-lipoic acid, which I have been taking until now.

Not that it's going to be really bad, just that R-lipoic seems much better. I don't know why xanadu is aguing his point. I think that's the biggest waste of time here. It looks like hes started the arguements over logic by being illogical with his attitude, and then just arguing for the sake of it without being very logical.

I thank everyone who's contributed to the R-lipoic debate (especially kevink's summary and links) because it's more than enough 'proof' to convince me not to take alpha-lipoic if there's any choice. Which there is.

alright the logic and all is great and 10 years ago I would have found it interesting and cared.
but I don't have time for this. And those study links are too 'scientific' for me.

Can someone who knows confirm for my peace of mind what Lipoic acid would be best to take. I don't know any more. I thought it was all settled and everyone know and accepted that R-lipoic is the best and worth the extra cost, but xanadu's confused me, so as ALA is much cheaper, I'm no longer sure.
Thanks.

Edited by nalpak, 24 January 2006 - 12:47 PM.

I thought it was all settled and everyone know and accepted that R-lipoic is the best and worth the extra cost, but xanadu's confused me so, as ALA is much cheaper, I'm no longer sure.
Thanks.

everyone does know and accepts this...

dont listen to xanadu, he had no idea what hes talking about.

everyone does know and accepts this...

dont listen to xanadu, he had no idea what hes talking about.

You mean xanadu actually had no idea what hes talking about?
I'm quite glad about that. I was thinking of chucking all my KRala away and going back to ALA.

I find the logic stuff a bit refreshing break. Kind of light relief from all those people here who'll do anything for a couple of years of extra life because they can't face the absolute inevitability of their own death. Surely more psychologically healthy just to deal with it?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's why stupid (= irrational) people who fail to appreciate the distinction say the stupidest things of all like - 'I'm an atheist - there's no scientific evidence for the existence of God'.

surely that means there can be no evidence for the existence of God either? ie. 'scientific' opinion either way is just religious belief?

For what it's worth:

LifeMirage's supps:

R-Lipoic Acid (from krala/rala) 450 mg
R-Dihydrolipoic acid 150 mg

It's interesting how pete told us to beware of anon posters and implied that they were working for a competing vendor. Then up jumps a flock of recently registered anon posters all attacking me. Funny how that is.

cpdmain wrote:

"I think he (kerastasy) was more pointing out the flaws in your reasoning."

He wrote:

"I'm not sure if this is due to a lack of clarity of thinking or simple dishonesty."

Sounds like a personal attack to me. Then you wrote:

"You're a perfect example. Not below average intelligence, but an idiotic inability for logical precision."

Another personal attack. Then you wrote:

"I'd also like to know - is there anyone else on this forum who would argue xanadu's side in the ALA debate? I suspect not."

Almost word for word what kerastasey said to me. Funny how that is. My "side" in this discussion is to find out the truth, that's all. I have pointed out that the studies which showed benefits for ala were using the racemic form which contains equal amounts of s ala. Does anyone dispute that? I questioned the temp that r-ala breaks down at. I have not made any personal attacks against anyone.

"If LifeMirage wrote a post to the effect: ALA is better than nothing OK, R-LA is much better, would you then stop arguing your point about S-LA and lack of 'proof' about R-LA?"

I haven't said anything different than that myself. Far as I can see, there has been no proof showing that ordinary r-ala breaks down at 70f as has been claimed. Info was presented showing that it doesn't start to break down until 104f. I'm looking for proof that:
1. ala is bad for you
2. r-ala is no good
3. kr-ala is worth the extra money

Wonder who will jump up next to attack me for daring to say that?

This is really bad and exactly why I post when I'd rather not. I hate the thought that somebody new will come on here for information and get confused by all the noise of scattered debates.

I think there should be a mandatory "bullet point format" rule for all "debates" that go over a page.

Again - it's really clear...unless new studies come out showing otherwise...the choices in order of benefit are...

1) Geronova's products (RLA-GEL, R-Plus, Gold) (order from Pete's RelentlessImprovement.com or Geronova itself)

2) k-rala (http://www.iherb.com/bestrlipoic.html is pretty cheap ($12 for 100mg x 60 and I think it's the Geronova product, but somebody else can check)

3) ALA (50% S form and 50% R form. Use at your own risk...has some possible benefits, but they may come from the R-LA in the mixture. The S seems to cause problems or at least weaken the R. If you must use this form, ask yourself why are you taking it, is it really needed right now and can it be replaced with something else.)

Just as a reminder - As anything "we" take in the amounts we take it, nobody knows what 10-20 years of taking this stuff will do. All we do is make reasonable presumptions given the data we have at the time. Many things that were "the best" 2 or 3 years ago we now flush and call garbage. Anybody that's not prepared to modify their opinion given the current state of the science should probably pick a good multi (ortho core) and fish oil and wait for the dust to settle.

Far as I can see, there has been no proof showing that ordinary r-ala breaks down at 70f as has been claimed. Info was presented showing that it doesn't start to break down until 104f. I'm looking for proof that:
1. ala is bad for you
2. r-ala is no good
3. kr-ala is worth the extra money

Wonder who will jump up next to attack me for daring to say that?

You're being attacked (and NEVER by me I might add) because you're tone was attacking and argumentative. I should say, the way it came off to ME was like that. It seems it came off that way to a lot of people so you might want to look into why that is. I suggest changing your writing style, and the attacks will stop (most of the time). I've never been attacked.

As to your points.

1. As you are well aware (I hope?) ALA is half R-LA and S-LA. Numerous links to studies have been presented that show detrimental results with S-ALA and beneficial results with R-LA. A couple of references have also been presented that say S-LA either "does" or "might" reduce the effectiveness of R-LA...so your half S-LA may not be inert, but actually reducing the benefit of the R-LA.

2. Did you mean the S form? Nobody has said that the R form is bad. As for the S, if you're asking that question again after the numerous references laid at your feet...then everyone needs to boycot this thread because you're ignoring things presented to you.

3. As I understand it - Geronova was the only vendor to be asked to present at the A4M and that means dropping right into the heart of expert city. That takes confidence that you know what you're talking about. They are "arguably" the leading company on this substance. This gives Geronova "walk the walk" street credibility by any stretch of the imagination so nobody should be able to cry fraud on this board. I believe Pete posted last year or Geronova's website has graphs of bioavailability and all the "why is straight RLA not as good as k-rala" questions can be answered from 10 seconds of looking at that data.

Like all discussion boards, this one runs the danger of becoming a dumping ground for useless, drawn out debates about politics and otherwise. I think all of us need to be careful to keep those discussions in the areas designated to hold them. This board could become almost useless as a learning tool if every useful bit of information was hidden beneath a mountain of dribble.

(timmusi)
For what it's worth:

LifeMirage's supps:

R-Lipoic Acid (from krala/rala) 450 mg
R-Dihydrolipoic acid 150 mg

Thats a good point. I normally always check his list for the right things and forms. I don't know why I didn't this time, it would have saved me a period of xanadu induced doubt.

(xanadu)

I haven't said anything different than that myself. Far as I can see, there has been no proof showing that ordinary r-ala breaks down at 70f as has been claimed. Info was presented showing that it doesn't start to break down until 104f. I'm looking for proof that:
1. ala is bad for you
2. r-ala is no good
3. kr-ala is worth the extra money

Wonder who will jump up next to attack me for daring to say that?

I'll have a go this time, because youre beginning to irritate me too. You systematically ignored other's comments that you don't like, addressing only those parts you can.
You still going on about proof. That's irritating, because although I don't understand all of the logic stuff others have said, I understand more than enough to know that what they say about scientific proof is true. Its changed my thinking on the point. Making you going on asking for it very closed to better opinions than your own.


Someone also made a good point about stomach acid polymerisation making ordinary R-LA pretty useless, whatever temperature its stable up to. To me that would render your "no proof showing that ordinary r-ala breaks down at 70f" arguement pointless anyway. Another point you've ignored.

(xanadu)
It's interesting how pete told us to beware of anon posters and implied that they were working for a competing vendor. Then up jumps a flock of recently registered anon posters all attacking me. Funny how that is.

Sounds like you think Pete's alright now. That seems a bit hypocritical, considering you obviously didn't on a previous post you wrote:

(xanadu)
rhdrury wrote:

"I think this guy's snorted too much pyritinol or something"

So we have come to ad hominems and nasty personal attacks as a form of debate? It seems ajnast and pete like to play that game too.

(kevink)
This is really bad and exactly why I post when I'd rather not. I hate the thought that somebody new will come on here for information and get confused by all the noise of scattered debates.

I was getting a bit confused too. I'm a bit new (been reading five months so haven't just popped up, but it looks like I only made one post before. I know that isn't right, I know I made more than that) but probably wouldnt have believed any of the xanadu's non-fully-supportive R-lipoic arguements (a pseudo point anyway.
What confuses me is why anyone would bother trying to argue the point. And then continue to argue it rather than gracefully retire. No supps for pride.


So who are these pseudo people competitors?

(xanadu)
It's interesting how pete told us to beware of anon posters and implied that they were working for a competing vendor. Then up jumps a flock of recently registered anon posters all attacking me. Funny how that is.

Who are they working for and who are they competing against? Is there an example of this? Are they anti-Pete? Perhaps Pete employs them to be anti-anyone else?
Maybe it's just a smokescreen.
Or is it an xanadu conspiracy theory - as far as I'm aware xanadu doesn't sell anything, so is that relevant anyway? Who's xanadu's competing vendor? (Just so I make sure I buy from him

What confuses me is why anyone would bother trying to argue the point. And then continue to argue it rather than gracefully retire. No supps for pride.

Pride is a losing battle, but many people NEVER learn that lesson so I'm glad you brought it up.

BTW - It wasn't pride on my end and I don't think it was on several of the other posts either. People that know better step up and post on threads like this even though it's a waste of their time. Why? Because baseless opinion and misinformation become fact if left unchallenged. That anti-fact is then propagated across the Internet causing fear, uncertainty and doubt.

If people did not challenge statements, this board would be full of all kinds of garbage advice with no rebuttal. Advices on this board would quickly descend to the level of leeches and bloodletting. [wis]

For altruistic reasons, I'd rather not have anyone hurt themselves or waste their time and money with bad advice.

For selfish reasons, I want as many people as possible in our global "case study" of these supplements and their impact. Whether they realize it or not, almost everyone here has basically signed up as a study participant. The data reported back helps me make better decisions...Do I keep or ditch Idebenone? What's everyone else experiencing? It's really great that "substance X" made a rat swim longer, but if 100 people report back that it gave them explosive bowel movements - I'll pass. If people are taking odd types of things, it shrinks the amount of valid data coming in and makes my job that much harder.

So -- that's why I was posting.

Edited by kevink, 25 January 2006 - 09:23 PM.

I still have not seen anything that shows ala to be bad for you. Sorry if I missed it but all I've seen are statements that s-ala "may" do this and that. I pointed out that the studies done on ala were done on the ordinary form of it which contains 50% s-ala. Are those studies wrong, were they disproven?

nalpak wrote:

"Someone also made a good point about stomach acid polymerisation making ordinary R-LA pretty useless"

This was stated or speculated about but I saw no proof of that either. Sorry to be a drudge but I like to see proof.

"Sounds like you think Pete's alright now."

That was not what I said.

Sorry to be a drudge but I like to see proof.

Come on...I have to call you on that one. Many studies use RALA.

I was looking something else up and even then I stumbled across this EXACT discussion a year ago on this board. And then I went over to Avant - it's got even better stuff with a Geronova person (Karyn) directly participating and clearing things up. And that was at a time when this information was relatively new. I can't even look something up without tripping over the answers to all your questions.

So I have to ask...why was it so hard for you to do your OWN homework?

I thought this next bit might actually put this thread to bed (or am I the only one left here?). This is from Ames and company (you do know who Ames is right?)...

"Stability of Lipoic Acid" (US Application 20040044046, March 4, 2004)

According to Juvenon (the patent holder of Ames ’ ALC / ALA cocktail) RLA is not used in their formulas, even though the research was done with the R-form because,

"The R form can be purified from the S form. However, the major problem with this compound, when separated from the S form, is stability. The compound deteriorates relatively rapidly at room temperature. The R form is also significantly more expensive. Work is ongoing to solve the stability problem, and when we feel this is complete to our satisfaction, Juvenon will offer a product containing only the R form."

The stabilization problems have since been solved by Geronova and others (but it is more expensive than ALA. If it says "K-RALA" it's the Geronova product. Even when it doesn't say that, it can still be the Geronova product.)

The studies I and others have shown you clearly show that S produces harmful effects - not the least of which is reducing insulin sensitivity and stopping the R from doing its job.

ALA will give you more RLA than pure unstabilized RLA because unstabilized RLA has crap bioavailability. From what I've seen, 600mg of ALA will deliver a far greater blood plasma level of RLA than 1G of unstabilized RLA. That's why I said it's better than nothing in some cases. Healthy young adult, I wouldn’t touch it. Diabetic, yes go ahead.

This was my last post in this topic. If I do not respond, it's because "I'm crossing this off my list". (Anybody watch that new NBC show "My name is Earl"). [sfty]

For what it's worth:

LifeMirage's supps:

R-Lipoic Acid (from krala/rala) 450 mg
R-Dihydrolipoic acid 150 mg

I THINK he uses Geronova's r-plus (2x) which gives 150 R and 150 R-di. The rest is k-rala top off. I wonder if the k-rala is a cost saving compromise?

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

(darn, I posted in this thread again!)

kevink, if I understand you correctly, the problem lies in the fact that r-ala deteriorates rapidly when separated from s-ala. This was stated in a patent application. OK, that is some evidence. Another patent application seems to say that it begins to deteriorate at 104f so there is a difference of opinion. Lets say it does go bad right away at room temps. Why would it not do this in the mixed form?

"The studies I and others have shown you clearly show that S produces harmful effects - not the least of which is reducing insulin sensitivity and stopping the R from doing its job."

I saw quotes, not links to studies but quotes, saying it "may" have some bad effects. Are these bad effects found when pure s-ala is used or are the bad effects found in the mixture? I understand that it competes with r-ala for receptor sites.

"Many studies use RALA."

Even though it breaks down right away at room temps? How did they do it? What about the other studies that did use mixed ala?

"I THINK he uses Geronova's r-plus (2x) which gives 150 R and 150 R-di. The rest is k-rala top off. I wonder if the k-rala is a cost saving compromise?"

So Geronova still uses r-ala? How do they keep it from breaking down if it breaks down at room temp? See what I mean about conflicting info? You have raised more questions than you have answered. I don't claim to have the answers, I just ask questions.

Xanadu-

So Geronova still uses r-ala? How do they keep it from breaking down if it breaks down at room temp? See what I mean about conflicting info? You have raised more questions than you have answered. I don't claim to have the answers, I just ask questions.

If you believe there's a giant conspiracy, Geronova is either not using R-ALA or they are but it's worthless.

If you believe they're legit, they're selling various stabilized forms of R-ALA which don't break down rapidly. One is the potassium salt, K-R-ALA. The other is the "stabilized" form in MCT which is effectively time-release.

AOR has also come up with a stabilized, time-release form of R-ALA, but it's not yet available in the US so I haven't looked into it.

-Paul

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

Lets say it does go bad right away at room temps.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I NEVER said it breaks down rapidly at room temperature. I understood the magic number to be 70c. And I never cared about that temp anyway - it's documented that injested unstabalized RLA will not make it into your bloodstream (without taking a ton of it).

So Geronova still uses r-ala? How do they keep it from breaking down if it  breaks down at room temp? See what I mean about conflicting info? You have raised more questions than you have answered. I don't claim to have the answers, I just ask questions.

xanadu, the only conflict comes from your not researching things yourself. That makes people not want to help you. If you didn't know ANY OF THIS BASIC STUFF, why on Earth did you make posts arguing with people demanding they convince you???? Several people answered you that know a TON! more than you on this subject and you dare to argue with them? Ughhh.

Paul was nice enough to answer your question...as many of us could without blinking an eye. It's common knowledge.

Get some basics looking at AOR's product description - http://www.aor.ca/products/r+sr.php
Answer every question you've asked by reading a ton on - http://www.geronova.com

Now I'm really done. I only responded this time because I was "misquoted" about the melting temps.