What is the difference in bioavailability between Potassium-R-Lipoic Acid and R-ALA ?
L
onge
C
ity
Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
Posted 11 January 2006 - 08:15 PM
Posted 11 January 2006 - 08:46 PM
Posted 11 January 2006 - 09:29 PM
Posted 11 January 2006 - 10:42 PM
Is R-Lipoic acid as potassium-R-lipoate the same thing?
Would it be adviced to store R-ALA in the fridge?
Posted 12 January 2006 - 12:07 AM
Posted 12 January 2006 - 05:07 AM
There is nothing wrong with most r-ala and I'll go so far to say there is nothing wrong with ordinary ala. You just need twice as much of it.
Posted 12 January 2006 - 05:53 PM
Posted 12 January 2006 - 06:20 PM
Edited by humanoidnoise, 15 January 2006 - 10:44 AM.
Posted 13 January 2006 - 01:28 AM
OK, ajnast, if it's incorrect show us the proof. If most r-ala is no good, where are the coa's or research results showing that? If taking twice as much ala isn't as good as taking r-ala, explain why and give some evidence supporting your belief. It seems likely you will not be able to offer any such proof. It's nice to have beliefs but better if they are fact based. I only use fact based information. Unsupported beliefs are of no use to me when deciding on my health.
“Stability of Lipoic Acid” (US Application 20040044046, March 4, 2004)
[0011] LA suffers from certain disadvantages, however. In particular, the natural form R-LA is unstable above 40° C., so it can degrade under some warehousing conditions. Also LA is hygroscopic. What is needed is stabilization of this natural form of LA with a natural salt.
Alpha-Lipoic Acid with Novel Modification. (US Patent 5,994,393 Nov 30, 1999 )
“The melting range of the pure enantiomers of thioctic acid (47-49° C) is lower compared to the racemic compound (58-61° C). In the production of solid galenic formulations, the use of pressure on the material is indispensable so that on the one hand a heating and on the other hand a melting of thioctic acid takes place. Concentrated solutions of thioctic acid or its melts polymerize immediately and can no longer be converted into a crystalline form by cooling.”
According to “Dosage Forms containing thioctic acid or solid salts of thioctic acid with improved release and bioavailability” ( US Patent 6,348,490)
“In contrast with dosage forms prepared from free R-thioctic acid, the dosage forms prepared from salts of R-Thioctic acid have not only the advantage of better release and bioavailability of the active ingredient, but are moreover more easily produced.”
According to the article "Disulfide Polymers of DL-alpha-lipoic Acid" by Thomas and Reed (JACS 78, 6148 (1956)
“The ease with which ALA polymerizes has been noted. The several lipoic acids described in this paper polymerized to various extents during their distillation and recrystallisation. The liquid esters of lipoic acid polymerized with extreme ease”.
Posted 14 January 2006 - 06:42 PM
Posted 15 January 2006 - 12:40 AM
Granted that if stored at high temps it will degrade. That does not back up your statement that most ala or r-ala is no good. You are assuming it's kept at high temps for a long time. You also have not shown any evidence that ordinary ala is not good. All you have shown is that it's a good idea to keep it in a cool place. If someone didn't have a fridge and was force to store their supplements in the heat, they should get krala.
R-Lipoic acid was found to be more bioavailable than S-lipoic acid when taken orally in a human study. (2a)
R-Lipoic Acid was more effective than the S form in a battery of metal chelation tests. One hypothesis of the cause of diabetic complications involves overloading by transition metals which could explain the stereospecific effect of the R-form. (4)
R-Lipoic acid was more effective than racemic alpha-lipoic acid and S -alpha-lipoic acid in preventing cataracts in rats. (5b).
S-Lipoic acid produces different biological actions than R-Lipoic Acid that may be undesirable. (16-22)
S-Lipoic acid is metabolized in the outer cell membrane or cytoplasm. This may interfere with R-Lipoic Acid's ability to penetrate the inner mitochondrial membrane , thus limiting energy production.
At high concentrations, S-Lipoic acid inhibits mitochondria metabolism. (7)
S-Lipoic acid cannot bind with critical mitochondrial enzymes and inhibits ATP production. (16)
S-Lipoic acid is less effective than R-Lipoic Acid as an antioxidant. (16)
Posted 15 January 2006 - 11:45 PM
Posted 16 January 2006 - 03:37 AM
Lets look at your statement that "ALL regluar r-ala polymerizes at 70F" If that's true, then you certainly are correct. However, I have yet to see any proof of that. Now lets take a look at the material you posted from the US Application 20040044046
"LA suffers from certain disadvantages, however. In particular, the natural form R-LA is unstable above 40° C., so it can degrade under some warehousing conditions."
Fedex trucks don't get that hot.
Also, just because r ala is absorbed better than s ala does not mean pure r ala is worth a lot more money than ordinary ala which has a mix of the two. I'd like to see some evidence that s ala is bad for you. I mean besides your belief.
Posted 16 January 2006 - 03:38 AM
OK, ajnast, if it's incorrect show us the proof. If most r-ala is no good, where are the coa's or research results showing that? If taking twice as much ala isn't as good as taking r-ala, explain why and give some evidence supporting your belief. It seems likely you will not be able to offer any such proof. It's nice to have beliefs but better if they are fact based. I only use fact based information. Unsupported beliefs are of no use to me when deciding on my health.
Posted 16 January 2006 - 10:06 PM
Posted 17 January 2006 - 04:40 AM
kerastasey, what you seem to fail to realise is that making a statement and giving a website saying "go look it up for yourself" does not prove anything. I'm still waiting for some proof, any proof at all. I have never said I was convinced of any position, I merely have not seen the evidence to back up the assertions made. If there is proof on one of those websites then ajnast can copy the proof and give the link to back it up. All I've seen out of you is sarcasm. Sorry, but that doesn't prove it either.
aj, the statement you posted yourself says it only begins to break down at temps above 104. This is from the patent application you quoted from. You seem to be running away from it now. You take the statement by someone selling a competing product as proof. How many times have we gone into a vitamin shop and heard the propriator say all his competitors stuff was junk? I've seen that many times. Even if they never heard of the company they will tell you it's junk. You say the ups driver tells you it gets over 90 in there in the summer. That still is less than 104.
Posted 17 January 2006 - 04:53 PM
Posted 18 January 2006 - 01:26 AM
Posted 18 January 2006 - 01:32 AM
Posted 18 January 2006 - 02:41 AM
I see all kinds of contradictory information. If you can't even sum up why krala is supposed to be the only good kind, maybe you weren't able to pin it down either? Your info said that r-ala started to break down at 104f. You now refuse to discuss that any further. That contradicts your statement that it all breaks down at 70f. See what I mean by contradictory info?
Posted 18 January 2006 - 04:54 PM
Didn't you mean "ala is not as good for you as stabilized r-ala?"we are passed the point of understanding that plain ala is not good for you.
Posted 18 January 2006 - 06:34 PM
Didn't you mean "ala is not as good for you as stabilized r-ala?"
Posted 18 January 2006 - 06:50 PM
Posted 18 January 2006 - 10:58 PM
I haven't seen the info showing that s ala is bad. There was a quote saying it may be bad but lots of things may be. I'd like something stronger than a maybe. If we avoided all things that might possible be bad for us, we'd eat no food and drink no water. I'm still searching for solid info.
Posted 18 January 2006 - 11:05 PM
Posted 19 January 2006 - 06:20 PM
Posted 19 January 2006 - 07:07 PM
Posted 19 January 2006 - 08:48 PM
As near as I understand, the main problem with S-ALA is that it clogs up the receptors needed for R-ALA. Essentially, half of your ALA does nothing, and the other half (R-ALA) may be absorbed less efficently. But the R-ALA that you *do* absorb is still heathful...There seem to be legitimate arguments that s-ala might actually cause some problems.
Posted 19 January 2006 - 11:18 PM
Indeed, one would have to have some sort of pathological aversion to finding them if they wanted to argue otherwise. The same with the polymerization issue.
Posted 20 January 2006 - 03:23 AM
There is no positive proof in science. Science can prove hypotheses false, but not prove that one is true - just so likely to be true that arguing against it wastes everyone's time.Quote Xanadu:
kerastasey, what you seem to fail to realise is that making a statement and giving a website saying "go look it up for yourself" does not prove anything. I'm still waiting for some proof, any proof at all. I have never said I was convinced of any position, I merely have not seen the evidence to back up the assertions made. If there is proof on one of those websites then ajnast can copy the proof and give the link to back it up. All I've seen out of you is sarcasm. Sorry, but that doesn't prove it either.
I think this guy's snorted too much pyritinol or something.Quote Xanadu:
Once again aj says go look around and it must be out there somewhere. You are the one who made the claim about ordinary ala or rala being no good. The one who makes the claim has to give proof. Saying go look around is not giving proof. I already looked around and found no such proof. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it.
Edited by rhdrury, 24 January 2006 - 01:04 PM.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users