• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

folate


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
11 replies to this topic

#1 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2009 - 01:14 AM


original thread

current suggestions are folinic acid and methylfolate... perhaps even plain folic acid. does anyone have any reasons why?

my only concert about methylfolate is that we could be ingesting much much higher amounts of methylfolate than would be normally converted from food folate of folic acid. does anyone know how much ends up as mf?

#2 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 05 November 2009 - 05:47 AM

Some interesting manufacturer claims:
http://www.cerefolin...m/Lmethylfolate

#3 Pike

  • Guest
  • 517 posts
  • 6

Posted 05 November 2009 - 06:31 AM

wouldn't 5-mthf be super expensive compared to good old folic acid? i'm sure that the idea sounds nice, but when it comes to b-vitamins, folic acid is probably on my lower list of concerns seeing as so many flour/grain products come pre-fortified with folic acid.

#4 shazam

  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:39 AM

My choice would be folinic acid, as folic acid is sythentic folate, but folinic acid is found naturally in food just by itself. There are probably other (minor) benefits to it over folic acid, and they're probably pretty similar.

www.bioconcepts.com.au/pdf/products/DVPI/folinic_acid.pdf Manufacturer claims regarding folinic, citing several studies. It also will probably not have the potential legal issues and large expense associated with it in addition to being more natural than folic acid.

#5 pycnogenol

  • Guest
  • 1,164 posts
  • 72
  • Location:In a van down by the river!

Posted 12 November 2009 - 11:29 PM

Yes. My choice is L-methylfolate 400 micrograms daily.

Edited by pycnogenol, 12 November 2009 - 11:29 PM.


#6 shazam

  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 November 2009 - 02:22 AM

Yes. My choice is L-methylfolate 400 micrograms daily.


That's a pretty aggressive dose.

If the legal and expense issues are not out of line, I'd be good with the same form at 100-200mg.

If they are, folinic acid will be fine.

#7 pycnogenol

  • Guest
  • 1,164 posts
  • 72
  • Location:In a van down by the river!

Posted 13 November 2009 - 04:16 PM

Yes. My choice is L-methylfolate 400 micrograms daily.


That's a pretty aggressive dose.

If the legal and expense issues are not out of line, I'd be good with the same form at 100-200mg.

If they are, folinic acid will be fine.


Aggressive dose? How so? I take 400 micrograms [mcg] which is 100% of the RDA.

#8 ajnast4r

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 13 November 2009 - 07:30 PM

Yes. My choice is L-methylfolate 400 micrograms daily.


That's a pretty aggressive dose.

If the legal and expense issues are not out of line, I'd be good with the same form at 100-200mg.

If they are, folinic acid will be fine.


Aggressive dose? How so? I take 400 micrograms [mcg] which is 100% of the RDA.



400mcg is the rda for food folate... the rda for synthetic folic acid is 200mcg. methylfolate is likely significantly more potent than folic acid so who knows how that works out in folate equivalents.

#9 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,039 posts
  • 2,001
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 17 November 2009 - 06:34 PM

400mcg is the rda for food folate... the rda for synthetic folic acid is 200mcg. methylfolate is likely significantly more potent than folic acid so who knows how that works out in folate equivalents.


Maybe we should find out.

#10 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 17 November 2009 - 06:39 PM

If the legal and expense issues are not out of line, I'd be good with the same form at 100-200mg.


The legal issues are a potential problem.

There must be some reason there are comparatively few methylfolate supplements out there.

#11 Tithonus

  • Guest
  • 30 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Vancouver, BC
  • NO

Posted 06 March 2011 - 06:15 PM

If the legal and expense issues are not out of line, I'd be good with the same form at 100-200mg.


The legal issues are a potential problem.

There must be some reason there are comparatively few methylfolate supplements out there.



Having access to several supplement companies, I asked them about this. It seems it's mostly just about profitability. It's far more profitable to sell pharmacies and go via the drug channel than it is to sell it as a nutritional supplement.

I would back folinic acid, as it bypasses a few steps in the conversion process to L-Methylfolate.

#12 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 06 March 2011 - 07:31 PM

If the legal and expense issues are not out of line, I'd be good with the same form at 100-200mg.


The legal issues are a potential problem.

There must be some reason there are comparatively few methylfolate supplements out there.



Having access to several supplement companies, I asked them about this. It seems it's mostly just about profitability. It's far more profitable to sell pharmacies and go via the drug channel than it is to sell it as a nutritional supplement.

I would back folinic acid, as it bypasses a few steps in the conversion process to L-Methylfolate.

Those with the MTHFR genetic polymorphism cannot convert folic acid to methyl folate efficiently, and do not benefit from folic acid supplements.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users