CoQ10 - Ubiquinol or Ubiquinone? | Pharma Nord
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- Which form of CoQ10 is better absorbed in the body? Ubiquinol or Ubiquinone. Have a look at what occurs in the body after taking a CoQ10 supplement. Prefer a Q10 supplement that is more stable and has better documentation, get Pharma Nord’s CoQ10 Gold here: www.pharmanord...
.
Buy vegan CoQ10 capsules here: www.pharmanord...
.
#PharmaNord #Supplements #Health #Healthcare #HealthyLifestyle #HealthandWellness #SupplementRoutine #BalancedLifestyle #Q10 #CoQ10 #CoenzymeQ10 #OriginalQ10 #Testing #Bioavailable #Q10Capsule #BetterAbsorption #ScientificStudies #Quality #QualitySupplement #Ubiquinone #Ubiquinol
Wow ...You guys are the only supplement makers I have seen which advices customers to spend less and provide accurate explanation ...and that too when you yourself make the expensive version of the product . I salute you guys for your honesty and will insist on your products whenever I visit a health store .
They recommend it because they sell it. Don't be so naïve..
@@DK-pr9ny They also make the expensive version and yes several manufacturers make both BUT all suggest to buy the reduced version of CoQ10 as they claim its better . Normally manufacturers can claim almost double the price for reduced CoQ10 and the hype around it being ' better ' is a lie .
Not exactly. Their production method for Ubiquinone, which seems to be the most bioavailable, is the most expensive there is.
I read that 95% of the ubiquinone is changed into ubiquinal anyways so it's not worth the extra cost. I'm sticking with it.
Id say take both in which case
@ Pharmanord: My reading of the research has led me to understand that the order of absorption is (typically recrystallizing) Clumped Ubiquinone = worst. Then Ubiquinol= 2x better and Crystal dispersed Ubiquinone= best, 2x better still. The quote I have from the paper is:
AUC for CoQ10 in ubiquinol form was approximately twice of that for ubiquinone, which had NOT been subjected to thermal crystal dispersion (sample 02), but was only 52% of that for ubiquinone that HAD been subjected to thermal crystal dispersion (sample 01).
Is my understanding inaccurate ? If efficacy of Ubiquinone form is highly dependent on process (pharmaNord invented) , why is there no mention in the video of the huge variability of Ubiquinone depending on crystallization? Perhaps all forms of Ubiquinone are now DE crystallized in stable manner?
Hi. To shed some light on your question:
The research that you refer to is the comparative bioavailability test of seven different supplement formulations each containing 100 mg of CoenzymeQ10. The test participants were 14 young, healthy individuals. Bioavailability was measured as area under the curve of plasma CoQ10 levels over a 48-hour period after ingestion of a single dose [Lopez-Lluch].
The comparative test showed that the CoQ10 absorption and bioavailability varied according to the choice of carrier oils in the formulation and according to the the choice of heating and cooling processes, i.e., according to how well the Coenzyme Q10 in the capsule would be dissolved from crystals to single molecules at body temperature. This is important because the human body cannot absorb CoQ10 crystals; it can absorb only CoQ10 molecules [Judy 2021].
The assertionbthat the Coenzyme Q10 in a ubiquinol product was approximately two times more bioavailable than the Coenzyme Q10 in a ubiquinone product containing recrystallized Coenzyme Q10 and was approximately two times less bioavailable than the Coenzyme Q10 in a properly formulated and dissolved ubiquinone product is taken from the comparative study conducted by Lopez-Lluch et al [2019]. It is confirmed by analysis presented by Mantle & Dybring [2020].
As you write, the video should perhaps make it clearer that there is great variability in ubiquinone bioavailability according to the extent of the dissolution of the CoQ10 crystals into single molecules. There is no evidence that all ubiquinone products on the market today contain de-crystalized Coenzyme Q10. Purchasing a less expensive CoQ10 product with no documentation of its absorption and/or clinical efficacy would be a gamble. One risks paying for a product without any effect.
There is considerable scientific documentation for the ”Pharma Nord-invented” product that you refer to [Lopez-Lluch 2019; Mortensen 2014; Alehagen 2013].
Kind regards
Pharma Nord
References:
López-Lluch G, Del Pozo-Cruz J, Sánchez-Cuesta A, Cortés-Rodríguez AB, Navas P. Bioavailability of coenzyme Q10 supplements depends on carrier lipids and solubilization. Nutrition. 2019 Jan;57:133-140.
Judy WV. The Instability of the Lipid-Soluble Antioxidant Ubiquinol: Part 3-Misleading Marketing Claims. Integr Med (Encinitas). 2021 Dec;20(6):24-28.
Mantle D, Dybring A. Bioavailability of Coenzyme Q10: An Overview of the Absorption Process and Subsequent Metabolism. Antioxidants (Basel). 2020 May 5;9(5):386.
Mortensen SA, Rosenfeldt F, Kumar A, et al; Q-SYMBIO Study Investigators. The effect of coenzyme Q10 on morbidity and mortality in chronic heart failure: results from Q-SYMBIO: a randomized double-blind trial. JACC Heart Fail. 20142(6):641-649.
Alehagen U, Johansson P, Björnstedt M, Rosén A, Dahlström U. Cardiovascular mortality and N-terminal-proBNP reduced after combined selenium and coenzyme Q10 supplementation: a 5-year prospective randomized doubleblind placebo-controlled trial among elderly Swedish citizens. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(5):1860-1866.
@@pharmanordus Thank you for providing the reference studies. Those ar e the ones I saw. I believe that you are saying that yes, the studies support my simplified summary above and that yes, your video could be more accurate if it pointed out that well-formulated ubiquinone products can be absorbed as well or better than Ubiquinol, but poor formulations may not due to crystals. I suspect that when venders assert that their Ubiquinol is better absorbed, their studies are using a poorly formulated form of Ubinquinone for comparison.
This is just not true because aging process prevents ubiquinone conversion.
Hello and thanks for your comment.
The assertion that ”the aging process prevents ubiquinone conversion” is not based on scientific evidence. Judy [2021] has addressed this misleading marketing claim made by manufacturers of ubiquinol products.
1) Judy’s PubMed search showed that the marketing claim that people older than age 40 years need to take the ubiquinol form of Coenzyme Q10 is not documented in the biomedical journal literature. Neither the claim itself nor the choice of age 40 years and older has been documented. The claim seems to be a marketing ploy [Judy 2021].
2) The claim seems to be based on the fact that the gene that codes for the NQO1 oxidoreductase enzyme is polymorphic in humans. However, even if this were a problem, there are other multifunctional enzyme systems in the body-cytochrome b5 reductase, lipoamide dehydrogenase, glutathione reductase and thioredoxin reductase-that readily convert ubiquinone to ubiquinol as needed [Mantle & Dybring 2020].
3) Note especially that the evidence from the best ubiquinone clinical trials belies the contention that people older than age 40 years need a ubiquinol supplement.
In the Q-Symbio study of Coenzyme Q10 adjuvant treatment in patients with chronic heart failure, the study participants were 63 years old on average [Mortensen 2014].
In the KiSel-10 study of supplementation of senior citizens, the study participants were 78 years old on average [Alehagen 2013].
In the Italian study of adjuvant treatment in patients with congestive heart failure, the study participants were 67 years old on average [Morisco 1993].
In all three studies, the elderly study patients benefited significantly from daily supplementation with the ubiquinone form of Coenzyme Q10.
Kind regards
Pharma Nord
References:
Judy WV. The Instability of the Lipid-Soluble Antioxidant Ubiquinol: Part 3-Misleading Marketing Claims. Integr Med (Encinitas). 2021 Dec;20(6):24-28.
Mantle D, Dybring A. Bioavailability of Coenzyme Q10: An Overview of the Absorption Process and Subsequent Metabolism. Antioxidants (Basel). 2020 May 5;9(5):386.
Mortensen SA, Rosenfeldt F, Kumar A, et al; Q-SYMBIO Study Investigators. The effect of coenzyme Q10 on morbidity and mortality in chronic heart failure: results from Q-SYMBIO: a randomized double-blind trial. JACC Heart Fail. 20142(6):641-649.
Alehagen U, Johansson P, Björnstedt M, Rosén A, Dahlström U. Cardiovascular mortality and N-terminal-proBNP reduced after combined selenium and coenzyme Q10 supplementation: a 5-year prospective randomized doubleblind placebo-controlled trial among elderly Swedish citizens. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(5):1860-1866.
Morisco C, Trimarco B, Condorelli M. Effect of coenzyme Q10 therapy in patients with congestive heart failure: a long-term multicenter randomized study. Clin Investig. 1993;71(8 Suppl):S134-6.
@@pharmanordus thank you
informative
Oh thanks for the explanation.
If this is case why cardiologists are recommending taking ubiqunol due to higher absorbtion and all pharma grade coq10 is 1000 mg and more as absorbtion is less???
Hello, thank you for your comment
To our knowledge, there is no CoQ10 supplement as potent as 1000 mg, typically they are around 100 mg.
Many years of research has shown a higher absorption of Ubiquinone, although initially we suspected it would be Ubiquinol that took the number one spot. But it was not.
If you'd like, we can send you some references for the research behind these claims.
Kind regards
Pharma Nord
@@pharmanordus please send me the information
@@user-vk5so2mc1c Hello
Please see this article from our affiliated website: www.q10facts.com/index.php/labstudies/
It is quite a comprehensive article about the differences in CoQ10 absorption between Ubiquinol and Ubiquinone and will give you links to many of the most relevant studies on the subject matter.
Kind regards
Pharma Nord
@Pharma Nord Based on your research, what do you think of dissolving 100 g of pure ubiquinone powder in 16 oz of slightly heated, liquified extra virgin coconutl oil and consuming 1 teaspoon of this once a day with with a meal?
Hello
The amount of oil should be 5 times higher than the amount of Q10. But that alone is not enough. The problem with Q10 powder is the high melting point of the crystals. (118-126°F.)
The Q10 powder must be dissolved into free molecules to be absorbed from the intestine. Q10 crystals will quickly recrystallize with your method, but at least some Q10 will be absorbed.
Pharma Nord has developed a patented manufacturing technique, where the crystalline Q10 raw material undergoes a special preheat treatment in a mixture of oils with different viscosities, which causes the Q10 crystals to dissolve at body temperature.
Kind regards from Pharma Nord
@@pharmanordus Thank you for the response! Any reason why you use soybean oils instead of something more healthy?
@@VishalRaoOnCZcams
Yes, we have tested a wide range of oils and fats. The current mix of soy oils has simply given the best absorption.
Now it is not cooking oil that we use either, but purified oils in a pharmaceutical quality.
From beef????
From plant????
I am getting conflicting information on ytubers. As I understood, Coq10 is basically raw, then next step converts into Equinol a reactive form, and then oxidized to Equinone, end product and the best form for benefits. Therefore, some are noting to take Equinol, ready molecule without the first step of body converting it into Equinol. And others are suggesting to take oxidized form Equinone. Here you are describing CoQ10 and Equinone as same molecule. What's the deal?
Hello. A bit unsure what you mean by "Equinol" and "Equinone", however CoQ10 and Ubiquinone (active/oxidized form of Q10) are the same thing. QH is what is referred to as Ubiquinol (reduced form of CoQ10).
Both are forms of CoQ10 and in the body it constantly changes from one form to the other. However, Ubiquinone is the one that starts the cellular energy production in the body, which is why we recommend taking CoQ10 in that form. Ubiquinol on the other hand is a by-product of the same process and is an important antioxidant.
Whether you prefer one or the other form is definitely a personal choice, however here at Pharma Nord we're strong advocates of the Ubiquinone form as it has been proven to have better bioavailability and efficacy, once absorbed.
All this is is a competitive arguement against Kaneka.
if that were true the uptake on ubiquinol supplement vs a CoQ10 would be negligible, and studies show this is not the case.. the net effect is an enhanced uptake across several studies. In fact from your diagram it should be reduced due to the added conversion burden! So.... why the discrepancy?
Dear Leonel
Thank you for your question.
Pharma Nord tends to follow the thinking of Professor Lopez-Lluch's 2019 journal article that the formulation (composition of the carrier lipids, heating/cooling process) of the CoQ10 supplement is much more important for absorption than the form (ubiquinone or ubiquinol) of the CoQ10 supplement.
Pharma Nord is very proud of the Dr. Mortensen study (2014) and the Dr. Alehagen study (2013), both done using a ubiquinone formulation, both showing clinical improvement with ubiquinone supplementation.
Pharma Nord has always been much influenced by the study by Drs. Mohr, Bowry, and Stocker (1992) showing that daily supplementation with a ubiquinone preparation will result in significantly increased levels of ubiquinol in plasma and in lipoproteins as well as in increased resistance of LDL-lipoproteins to lipid peroxidation. (The ubiquinone formulations have improved since 1992.)
The Zhang study (2018) of 2-week supplementation of 10 older men with, alternately, ubiquinone and ubiquinol shows that both forms increased plasma ubiquinol significantly and that the difference in the increases was not statistically significantly.
Note too that a different formulation of the ubiquinone supplement used in this study - a formulation closer to the formulation tested in the Lopez-Lluch study - quite possibly would have given an even better result for the ubiquinone supplement.
The Evans study (2009) compared the absorption of a powder ubiquinone product with a soft-gel ubiquinol product. That seems to be a dubious comparison.
The Miles study (2002) did not show any statistically significant difference between the ubiquinone form and the ubiquinol form in raising plasma ubiquinol levels.
The Langsjoen study (2014) shows that QH2 supplementation increased total plasma CoQ10 significantly better than Q10 supplementation did; however, in this study the Q10 supplementation did significantly increase plasma CoQ10 levels, i.e. ubiquinol levels.
Dr. Langsjoen’s study shows that both Q10 and QH2 supplementation resulted in 99% ubiquinol in plasma, so, it seems plausible that the ubiquinone supplementation increased plasma ubiquinol significantly and that the difference between the ubiquinol increase with QH2 supplementation is not significantly better than the ubiquinol increase with Q10 supplementation. Just like in the Zhang study.
The frustrating thing in the Langsjoen study (2014) is that exactly the same excipients were used in both the ubiquinone and the ubiquinol supplements, and, knowing how important the composition of the CoQ10 supplement is, we wonder if the QH2 supplement was compared with a Q10 supplement that had a less than optimal formulation.
The Vitetta study (2018) did not show any significant difference in the effect of ubiquinone and ubiquinol supplement.
So, where does one see that “the net effect is an enhanced uptake across several studies”?
Best regards
Pharma Nord
Sources:
1. Alehagen U., Johansson P., Björnstedt M., Rosén A., Dahlström U. Cardiovascular mortality and N-terminal-proBNP reduced after combined selenium and coenzyme Q10 supplementation: A 5-year prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial among elderly Swedish citizens. Int. J. Cardiol. 2013;167:1860-1866.
2. Evans M., Baisley J., Barss S., Guthrie N. A randomized, double-blind trial on the bioavailability of two CoQ10 formulations. J. Funct. Foods. 2009;1:65-73.
3. Langsjoen PH, Langsjoen AM. Comparison study of plasma coenzyme Q10 levels in healthy subjects supplemented with ubiquinol versus ubiquinone. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2014 Jan;3(1):13-7.
4. López-Lluch G, Del Pozo-Cruz J, Sánchez-Cuesta A, Cortés-Rodríguez AB, Navas P. Bioavailability of coenzyme Q10 supplements depends on carrier lipids and solubilization. Nutrition. 2019 Jan;57:133-140.
5. Miles M.V., Horn P., Miles L., Tang P., Steele P., Degrauw T. Bioequivalence of coenzyme Q10 from over-the-counter supplements. Nutr. Res. 2002;22:919-929.
6. Mohr D., Bowry V.W., Stocker R. Dietary supplementation with coenzyme Q10 results in increased levels of ubiquinol-10 within circulating lipoproteins and increased resistance of human low-density lipoprotein to the initiation of lipid peroxidation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA) Lipids Lipid Metab. 1992;1126:247-254
7. Mortensen S.A., Rosenfeldt F., Kumar A., Dolliner P., Filipiak K.J., Pella D., Alehagen U., Steurer G., Littarru G.P. The Effect of Coenzyme Q10 on morbidity and mortality in chronic heart failure. JACC Hear. Fail. 2014;2:641-649.
8. Vitetta L, Leong A, Zhou J, Dal Forno S, Hall S, Rutolo D. The Plasma bioavailability of Coenzyme q10 absorbed from the gut and the oral mucosa. J Funct Biomater. 2018 Dec 15;9(4):73.
9. Zhang Y , Liu J , Chen XQ , Oliver Chen CY . Ubiquinol is superior to ubiquinone to enhance Coenzyme Q10 status in older men. Food Funct. 2018 Nov 14;9(11):5653-5659.
Subscribed!