Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

L-Glutamine and N-Acetyl-L-Glutamine


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 noobie

  • Registered User
  • 122 posts
  • 5

Posted 22 September 2010 - 12:50 PM


Out of the two, which is more beneficial for the brain?

Thanks.
  • 0

#2 NR2(x)

  • Registered User
  • 253 posts
  • -54
  • Location:USA

Posted 23 September 2010 - 08:19 AM

Acetyl groups dramatically increase uptake into the brain, very quick uptake.
Which i personally would be concerned about, possiable excitoxicity. Acetyl-glutamate/amine has important roles in biochem, i cant remmeber tho.
  • 0

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#3 noobie

  • Registered User
  • 122 posts
  • 5

Posted 23 September 2010 - 09:39 AM

Acetyl groups dramatically increase uptake into the brain, very quick uptake.
Which i personally would be concerned about, possiable excitoxicity. Acetyl-glutamate/amine has important roles in biochem, i cant remmeber tho.


So, would you recommend L-Glutamine over N-Acetyl?
  • 0

#4 babcock

  • Registered User
  • 299 posts
  • 73
  • Location:USA

Posted 23 September 2010 - 12:35 PM


Acetyl groups dramatically increase uptake into the brain, very quick uptake.
Which i personally would be concerned about, possiable excitoxicity. Acetyl-glutamate/amine has important roles in biochem, i cant remmeber tho.


So, would you recommend L-Glutamine over N-Acetyl?


He's suggesting the N-Acetyl due to it's quick uptake to the brain via the acetyl. However he's warning you about supplementing with Glutamate as studies have shown intake of Glutamate is potentially bad for you. MSG for example.

The benefit you would derive from supplementing glutamate is it's a precursor to GABA. GABA doesn't cross the BBB. However, supplementing glutamate to synthesize GABA in the body might prove to yield higher GABA levels in the brain.
  • 0

#5 noobie

  • Registered User
  • 122 posts
  • 5

Posted 23 September 2010 - 02:46 PM

He's suggesting the N-Acetyl due to it's quick uptake to the brain via the acetyl. However he's warning you about supplementing with Glutamate as studies have shown intake of Glutamate is potentially bad for you. MSG for example.

The benefit you would derive from supplementing glutamate is it's a precursor to GABA. GABA doesn't cross the BBB. However, supplementing glutamate to synthesize GABA in the body might prove to yield higher GABA levels in the brain.


Ok, so N-Acetyl would be the choice over L- Glutamine but there could be a potential danger in consuming too much?

How much would be too much? I was thinking of 1-2g 1-2 times a day of N-Acetyl Glutamine.
  • 0

#6 babcock

  • Registered User
  • 299 posts
  • 73
  • Location:USA

Posted 23 September 2010 - 03:02 PM


He's suggesting the N-Acetyl due to it's quick uptake to the brain via the acetyl. However he's warning you about supplementing with Glutamate as studies have shown intake of Glutamate is potentially bad for you. MSG for example.

The benefit you would derive from supplementing glutamate is it's a precursor to GABA. GABA doesn't cross the BBB. However, supplementing glutamate to synthesize GABA in the body might prove to yield higher GABA levels in the brain.


Ok, so N-Acetyl would be the choice over L- Glutamine but there could be a potential danger in consuming too much?

How much would be too much? I was thinking of 1-2g 1-2 times a day of N-Acetyl Glutamine.


We discussed a few of the dangers in a thread a few weeks ago. IMO (and according to scientists) Glutamate, although potentially dangerous to ones health, would only be bad if you were consuming ridiculous levels of it (say a cup a day). See the thread for more info.

Edit: Added space.

Edited by babcock, 23 September 2010 - 03:02 PM.

  • 0

#7 noobie

  • Registered User
  • 122 posts
  • 5

Posted 23 September 2010 - 08:41 PM

We discussed a few of the dangers in a thread a few weeks ago. IMO (and according to scientists) Glutamate, although potentially dangerous to ones health, would only be bad if you were consuming ridiculous levels of it (say a cup a day). See the thread for more info.

Edit: Added space.



Thank you.
  • 0

#8 NR2(x)

  • Registered User
  • 253 posts
  • -54
  • Location:USA

Posted 24 September 2010 - 05:57 AM

I personally would not take acetyl-glutAMINE because of concerns regarding uncontrolled conversion to glutamate.

Glutamate, although potentially dangerous to ones health, would only be bad if you were consuming ridiculous levels of it (say a cup a day). See the thread for more info.


Definitly dont agree with this. Theres alot of research showing strong damage, but the scientific community is rather divided in there concensus, with alot of research showing little or no damage. I wonder how many of the scientist who advocate its use, actually use it. My bet is none
  • 0

#9 bobman

  • Registered User
  • 258 posts
  • 6

Posted 26 September 2010 - 02:57 AM

I personally would not take acetyl-glutAMINE because of concerns regarding uncontrolled conversion to glutamate.

Glutamate, although potentially dangerous to ones health, would only be bad if you were consuming ridiculous levels of it (say a cup a day). See the thread for more info.


Definitly dont agree with this. Theres alot of research showing strong damage, but the scientific community is rather divided in there concensus, with alot of research showing little or no damage. I wonder how many of the scientist who advocate its use, actually use it. My bet is none


Glycine should have similar effects as glutamate, since increase in either one would cause rate limitation by the other, and has been prescribed long term with no obvious negative effects. At the same time there is some information suggesting aspartate induced damage in connection with aspartame, and msg-induced neurotoxicity, so it may be that glycine rate limits itself, via its co-function as an inhibitory amino acid.
  • 0

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#10 NR2(x)

  • Registered User
  • 253 posts
  • -54
  • Location:USA

Posted 26 September 2010 - 06:36 AM

Glycine functions very differently to glutamate. Glycine only actives the NR1A(to the best of my knowledge) which does not allow calcium entry and furthermore doesnt transfer large quantities of Na,K. Very different, i wouldnt be drawing conclusions.

There could be concern with glycine in that the NR1a does facilitate the calcium passing NR2(x) NMDARs, this doesnt worry me

Edited by NR2(x), 26 September 2010 - 06:38 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users