3 replies to this topic

[shifter]

http://antiagingguid...none-CoQ10.html

Is this just from a company trying to flog off their inferior wares or is there truth to it. I get that ubiquinone may be more cost effective per mg but to say ubiquinol is a useless by product that does not deliver energy into the cells.... Do we spend money on ubiquinol or ubiquinone?

[pamojja]

Can't speak for anyone else, but for myself, having a condition which both forms of CoQ10 directly affect, and therefore making them comparable.

 

Years ago I at times suffered stress related (mental or physical) angina-like chest pain. When starting to supplement Ubiquinone found that at a dose above 160 mg/d these chest pain didn't come back. Later experimented with Ubiquinol, where half that dose had the same effect. Still holds true years later. With the only difference that now, if I only discontinue either form of CoQ10, such chest pains are back even without any stress. I'm hooked

 

So if the ubiquinol is only up to double the price for ubiquinone, it's worth because of it's double efficacy. Usually take a combination.

Edited by pamojja, 10 January 2017 - 12:02 PM.

[William Sterog]

I took a bottle of Ubiquinol once, but I discontinued it due to the high prices and the contradictory research I was finding. I never felt anything noticeable from it in terms of energy or well-being, I was 22 back then, but it gave me the hardest, most sensitive erections I've ever had. Sex was crazy, I just have a boner remembering it. I have also tried a lot of so-called aphrodisiacs and, except maca in really large doses, none did shit. So my guess is that Ubiquinol works.

[shifter]

I'm looking at one of the research sources provided by the company in that link... It seems, looking at the format as if whoever wrote it was 'working for' the company to write a favourable reason for ubiquinone which this company is peddling. I notice they talk about absorption rates of the powdered form. Given it is fat soluble this would be expected if someone took the supplement without any fatty food. (eg take with water on an empty stomach). So it looks like research could be 'geared' toward whatever outcome they want by not following common sense ie taking the supplement (if in powdered form) with a fat source. Which means anyone who would take it with fat, that the research is totally irrelevant.

 

I have noticed myself (having worked in medical research fields) that throughout experiments, the goal posts always seem to shift and procedures are geared toward getting what ever desired outcome is chosen.