10 replies to this topic

[ajnast4r]

original thread

my original suggestion was standard thiamine... i was unable to find info on the pharmacodynamics of supplemental thiamine pyrophosphate. quite a few of the fat soluble thiamines were suggested but would they have any benefit at low dose over standard thiamine?

[rwac]

original thread

my original suggestion was standard thiamine... i was unable to find info on the pharmacodynamics of supplemental thiamine pyrophosphate. quite a few of the fat soluble thiamines were suggested but would they have any benefit at low dose over standard thiamine?

"Thiamine ... 5 mg is the maximum quantity that can be absorbed from a given dose."

Sets an upper limit on the dosage of thiamine. I guess bioavailability of thiamine is poor.
This might be enough to suggest a fat soluble thiamine.

Is improved absorption really the only way fat soluble thiamines work better ?

I hope this link works ...

http://books.google....STL..."&f=false

Edited by rwac, 05 November 2009 - 07:05 PM.

[Blue]

Is there any evidence that any fat soluble vitamin except benfotiamine is better or as safe as thiamine? Again, since there has been worry raised in this forum regarding possible pro-cancer effect from high dose b1 and in the absence of any good effects in non-diabetics, I see no reason for a high-dose, especially from unknown experimental forms.

Edited by Blue, 05 November 2009 - 07:11 PM.

[rwac]

Is there any evidence that any fat soluble vitamin except benfotiamine is better or as safe as thiamine? Again, since there has been worry raised in this forum regarding possible pro-cancer effect from high dose b1 and in the absence of any good effects in non-diabetics, I see no reason for a high-dose, especially from unknown experimental forms.

I'm not suggesting a high dose.
I'm just suggesting that absorption of the low dose thiamine may be impaired, so do we need a better form ?

[Pike]

before i put in my 2 cents, i'll just throw out the forms of thiamine available to the consumer market:

thiamine - good, old fashioned b1
allithiamine - a naturally occurring thiamine derivative present in garlic, made when thiamine hits allicin, where it gets its name: ALLIcin+THIAMINE = allithiamine
fursultiamine (aka thiamine tetrahydrofurfuryl disulfide, TTFD) - the synthetic form of allithiamine
sulbutiamine - nootropic allithiamine
benfotiamine - AGE-inhibiting thiamine (fat soluble, but not considered an allithiamine)

now for my $0.02:

- despite the exciting AGE-inhibition property of benfotiamine, it doesn't cross the BBB. incorporating it into the multi would only necessitate the incorporation of another thiamine to compensate for that little flaw it has.

- standard allithiamine could be a possibility as it's dirt cheap to produce. allows for more than 5mg of absorption because it can pass through the intestinal wall a lot easier and allows for way higher blood levels (ref: http://jb.oxfordjour...t/41/2/273.pdf), and is about twice as potent as regular thiamine when it comes to tissue distribution in the liver, kidney, stomach, and small intestine.

- fursultiamine, although only a synthetic version of allithiamine, seems to have actions independant of its natural form. It can inhibit the activation of omega-6 fatty acids (ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/3912571) which could be beneficial to americans as we typically have a way higher than normal o-6 intake in our diets. it also seems to potentiate the cartilage preserving effects of glucosamine and chondroitin (ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/3912571)

- sulbutiamine would be interesting to put in a multi, however, seeing as it is a DRUG in europe branded under the name Arcalion, it would be a bad idea to put this in the multi.


so, my vote goes to fursultiamine. If it's like it's better-absorbed cousin, then maybe a dose in the ballpark of 15-20mg could be warranted?

[shazam]

before i put in my 2 cents, i'll just throw out the forms of thiamine available to the consumer market:

thiamine - good, old fashioned b1
allithiamine - a naturally occurring thiamine derivative present in garlic, made when thiamine hits allicin, where it gets its name: ALLIcin+THIAMINE = allithiamine
fursultiamine (aka thiamine tetrahydrofurfuryl disulfide, TTFD) - the synthetic form of allithiamine
sulbutiamine - nootropic allithiamine
benfotiamine - AGE-inhibiting thiamine (fat soluble, but not considered an allithiamine)

now for my $0.02:

- despite the exciting AGE-inhibition property of benfotiamine, it doesn't cross the BBB. incorporating it into the multi would only necessitate the incorporation of another thiamine to compensate for that little flaw it has.

- standard allithiamine could be a possibility as it's dirt cheap to produce. allows for more than 5mg of absorption because it can pass through the intestinal wall a lot easier and allows for way higher blood levels (ref: http://jb.oxfordjour...t/41/2/273.pdf), and is about twice as potent as regular thiamine when it comes to tissue distribution in the liver, kidney, stomach, and small intestine.

- fursultiamine, although only a synthetic version of allithiamine, seems to have actions independant of its natural form. It can inhibit the activation of omega-6 fatty acids (ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/3912571) which could be beneficial to americans as we typically have a way higher than normal o-6 intake in our diets. it also seems to potentiate the cartilage preserving effects of glucosamine and chondroitin (ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/3912571)

- sulbutiamine would be interesting to put in a multi, however, seeing as it is a DRUG in europe branded under the name Arcalion, it would be a bad idea to put this in the multi.


so, my vote goes to fursultiamine. If it's like it's better-absorbed cousin, then maybe a dose in the ballpark of 15-20mg could be warranted?

You forgot Thiamine pyrophosphate (cocarboxylase). I don't know much about it, though.

[Blue]

The original b1->cancer? thread.
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=26175

Edited by Blue, 05 November 2009 - 09:02 PM.

[Blue]

so, my vote goes to fursultiamine. If it's like it's better-absorbed cousin, then maybe a dose in the ballpark of 15-20mg could be warranted?

There have been almost no research on fursultiamine during the last years. You cite some animal studies but is there any evidence regarding effects and safety in humans? Especially for a high-absorption, highly active substance? Or that the non-benfotiamine forms have the anti-glycation properties of that form?

Edited by Blue, 05 November 2009 - 09:17 PM.

[ajnast4r]

I guess bioavailability of thiamine is poor.

where did you read that?

supplemental thiamine mononitrate is more bioavailable than food source thiamine (1) and food source thiamine is almost to totally bioavailable depending on the food (2)


i think 150% dri as standard thiamine is still the best route

[Mortuorum]

so, my vote goes to fursultiamine. If it's like it's better-absorbed cousin, then maybe a dose in the ballpark of 15-20mg could be warranted?

There have been almost no research on fursultiamine during the last years. You cite some animal studies but is there any evidence regarding effects and safety in humans? Especially for a high-absorption, highly active substance? Or that the non-benfotiamine forms have the anti-glycation properties of that form?

Blue,

I was curious, what is your personal stance regarding the benfotiamine form relative to the controversial cancer studies and as well to benfotiamine's purported efficacy in humans to retard the ravages of glycation? Many thanks!


M.

Edited by Mortuorum, 06 November 2009 - 09:11 PM.

[shazam]

*CLEAR!!!!* LIVE!! LIVE DAMN YOU!!!

Anyway, having heard a nice summary of most of them (except pyrophosphate), I'm in favor of allithiamine, since it is both a good option and will not up the cost significantly, therefore making this vitamin less likely to be horrifically expensive ala orthocore/multibasics.