16 replies to this topic

[JohnDoe999]

^{Please consider the below supplement information from Swanson. Is there any adverse effects with this form of ALA, and is it so much better than "ordinary" ALA as Swanson states? I have read quite a lot information about "regular" ALA, but not the below type.}

 

 

Supplement Facts

Serving Size 1 Capsule

  Amount Per Serving % Daily Value R-Fraction Alpha-LipoicAcid [from Bio-Enhanced® Na-RALA (sodium R-lipoic acid)] 100 mg *

*Daily Value not established.

 

"Conventional alpha lipoic acid supplements feature a 50-50 racemic blend of R and S isomers, but the R isomer is the only form that occurs naturally in the human body, and it's the form responsible for most of alpha lipoic acid's beneficial effects. However, efforts to make an effective supplement containing only the R form have always been hampered by stability problems - until now. This form achieves maximum R-alpha lipoic acid concentrations in plasma after 30 minutes that are up to 8-10 times greater than those reached by regular (racemic) alpha lipoic acid supplements.

• Our most effective alpha lipoic acid supplement to date
• Isolates the R-isomer, the only form found naturally in the body for enhanced benefit
• Stabilized form of R-alpha lipoic acid"

 

 

 

 

[albedo]

JohnDoe999,

 

You migth be interested to one of the articles from LEF:

 

"R-Dihydro-Lipoic Acid The Optimal Form of Lipoic Acid"

http://www.lef.org/M..._lipoic/Page-01

[krillin]

LEF eventually switched to Na-RALA. Here's a PowerPoint describing the advantages.

[Vastmandana]

Long ago AOR was in front of these issues. LEF took much longer to smarten up...and stop selling basic ala, which is 50% inactive. There were big fights...AOR was right and everyone's come on board... However AOR has now gone beyond to deal with the short half life of R+ in the body by developing a sustained released formulation, R+SR, which maintains blood levels throughout the day.

Imo this is the only product making sense if ur pursuing this realm... Google it. They publish periododic journals dealing deeply into their formulations/rationals and I seen to recall one on this when I decided to switch...

Edited by Vastmandana, 19 November 2014 - 11:14 AM.

[krillin]

AOR's sustained release lipoic acid is actually a legacy product, probably just kept around so that they can sell to both sides of the argument. Geronova makes a good case for spike dosing it as a hormetic supplement.

[Dorian Grey]

The old school ALA has produced the bulk of research showing benefit, so it seems to "work" just fine.  

 

Newer form has "stability problems"?  Not much of a track record in research.  More expensive?  

 

I prefer low doses taken more frequently in most everything I take...  Would rather take standard/cheap ALA a couple times per day for more consistent and stable blood/tissue levels.  

 

Perhaps I'm getting old, but I find tried and true methods with historically good results attractive enough to stick with them.  

[krillin]

The old school ALA has produced the bulk of research showing benefit, so it seems to "work" just fine.  

 

Newer form has "stability problems"?  Not much of a track record in research.  More expensive?  

 

I prefer low doses taken more frequently in most everything I take...  Would rather take standard/cheap ALA a couple times per day for more consistent and stable blood/tissue levels.  

 

Perhaps I'm getting old, but I find tried and true methods with historically good results attractive enough to stick with them.  

 

Old school ALA does not activate Nrf2 at the doses people take. It takes a blood level of 50 microM to do this. 600 mg Na-RALA gets you 69 microM while 600 mg racemic-ALA gets you only between 6 and 24. Na-RALA does not have stability problems, only the RALA form does. Read the PowerPoint I linked to above for a lengthy presentation of RALA research. Taking ALA multiple times a day will not give you stable blood levels, it'll just give you multiple half-hour wide spikes that aren't high enough to trigger desired responses. It's not used as an antioxidant in the body so a stable blood level is not necessary. I have yet to find a paper showing that taking it in divided doses provides better results.

[Dorian Grey]

There are 195 pages of studies in PubMed on the beneficial effects of ALA (3900 papers)...  The bulk of them done with the traditional formulation.  

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pha lipoic acid

 

Is all this just rubbish science?  

Edited by synesthesia, 22 November 2014 - 02:14 AM.

[Florian Xavier]

the ra ala is bullshit

[krillin]

There are 195 pages of studies in PubMed on the beneficial effects of ALA (3900 papers)...  The bulk of them done with the traditional formulation.  

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pha lipoic acid

 

Is all this just rubbish science?  

 

You can't find a single reference to justify your regimen? Are you just blindly following some guru's advice?

[Dorian Grey]

Can't find a single reference?!?  There are almost 200 pages of references I link to above...  3900 papers.  Pick one!  

 

I prefer moderate doses taken more often to promote (more) stable blood levels, which seems to be a long standing tradition with most all supplements and medicines.  A gram per day is a good dose for Vitamin-C totaling around 30g/month, but I wouldn't take all 30 grams on the first of the month and then figure I was all set till Christmas.  Even Vitamin-C is best taken in smaller doses more than once per day, as is most everything else I can think of.  

 

I don't take any and all guru's advice, but I do like it when a consensus develops between the many doctors and PhD's who research these things.  I develop my opinion by evaluating the consensus of the experts/guru's.  It's really quite a logical process.  

 

 

Edited by synesthesia, 24 November 2014 - 04:33 AM.

[krillin]

Can't find a single reference?!?  There are almost 200 pages of references I link to above...  3900 papers.  Pick one!  

 

I prefer moderate doses taken more often to promote (more) stable blood levels, which seems to be a long standing tradition with most all supplements and medicines.  A gram per day is a good dose for Vitamin-C totaling around 30g/month, but I wouldn't take all 30 grams on the first of the month and then figure I was all set till Christmas.  Even Vitamin-C is best taken in smaller doses more than once per day, as is most everything else I can think of.  

 

I don't take any and all guru's advice, but I do like it when a consensus develops between the many doctors and PhD's who research these things.  I develop my opinion by evaluating the consensus of the experts/guru's.  It's really quite a logical process.  

 

If you can't cite a single reference, you're acting blindly.

 

Lipoic acid's pharmacokinetics do not match its pharmacodynamics, so the vitamin C analogy is invalid. (And as I mentioned above, lipoic acid's half-life is so short it's impossible to get stable blood levels without a time release product.) Most lipoic acid studies use large, once-daily doses. Smaller doses only exist because supplement companies want their products to be affordable, and frequent lipoic acid dosing is a relic from the past when we ignorantly believed that supplemental lipoic acid acted as an antioxidant in the body instead of the oxidant stressor that it actually is.

[Dorian Grey]

I've cited 3900 references mate (click on the blue text in my post above)...  Which ones do you disagree with?  All of them?  

Edited by synesthesia, 24 November 2014 - 06:50 AM.

[JohnDoe999]

 

Can't find a single reference?!?  There are almost 200 pages of references I link to above...  3900 papers.  Pick one!  

 

I prefer moderate doses taken more often to promote (more) stable blood levels, which seems to be a long standing tradition with most all supplements and medicines.  A gram per day is a good dose for Vitamin-C totaling around 30g/month, but I wouldn't take all 30 grams on the first of the month and then figure I was all set till Christmas.  Even Vitamin-C is best taken in smaller doses more than once per day, as is most everything else I can think of.  

 

I don't take any and all guru's advice, but I do like it when a consensus develops between the many doctors and PhD's who research these things.  I develop my opinion by evaluating the consensus of the experts/guru's.  It's really quite a logical process.  

 

If you can't cite a single reference, you're acting blindly.

 

Lipoic acid's pharmacokinetics do not match its pharmacodynamics, so the vitamin C analogy is invalid. (And as I mentioned above, lipoic acid's half-life is so short it's impossible to get stable blood levels without a time release product.) Most lipoic acid studies use large, once-daily doses. Smaller doses only exist because supplement companies want their products to be affordable, and frequent lipoic acid dosing is a relic from the past when we ignorantly believed that supplemental lipoic acid acted as an antioxidant in the body instead of the oxidant stressor that it actually is.

 

 

Do you have any links to research pointing out that ALA is an "oxidant stressor"?  I have only read favorable research about ALA.

[normalizing]

ALA is bad for you thats why its good for you. it is a cell stressor from what i can gather that somehow stresses and adapts the cells to such extent that you produce an antioxidant like effect.

[krillin]

 

Do you have any links to research pointing out that ALA is an "oxidant stressor"?  I have only read favorable research about ALA.

 

See post #5. Page 4 of the link has a good explanation of how the oxidative stress induces a beneficial hormetic effect. (NAC blocks the effect, so don't take it.)

[krillin]

I've cited 3900 references mate (click on the blue text in my post above)...  Which ones do you disagree with?  All of them?  

 

Nope. To count as a citation you have to link to them individually. If you want us to think that racemic ALA is good enough you're going to need at least one specific paper.

 

I found a good comparison of racemic ALA vs RALA. (Link opens a .ppt.) As I noted above, you need 50 microM RALA to get good activation of Nrf2. However, I erred in assuming that 50 microM of racemic ALA would do the same thing if you could somehow take enough to reach that level. (I'm not saying it's impossible, I've just never seen evidence of it having happened.) 50 microM of racemic ALA is actually only as good as ~15 microM RALA. Achieving those respective levels would require 968-5000 mg racemic ALA or 115-130 mg RALA (from 165-186 mg NaRALA). NaRALA costs $95/100 g and racemic ALA costs $20/90 g. NaRALA's cost/month would be $4.70-$5.30 and racemic ALA's cost/month would be $6.45-$33.33 for equivalent Nrf2 activation.

 

Therefore, racemic ALA is actually less economical than NaRALA, and it is uncertain if it is even possible to take enough racemic ALA to get good activation of Nrf2. The second reference in this post notes that 50 microM RALA was the highest non-toxic dose they used, so it is likely that with racemic ALA you'll reach a toxic level before reaching a level that gives good activation of Nrf2.