Comment · Fri, March 15, 2019 · Natrium Health & Nootropics Depot
Prolonged Intake of Coenzyme Q10 Impairs Cognitive Functions in Mice
What they were answering
antifda · 1 points
The redox state of CoQ10 has almost no effect on the efficacy of the supplement when taken regularly.
Based on what? It's the reduced form that is not oxidized and requires an electron from an antioxidant to be restored to its active state. This taxes the redox status in the body. Using the reduced form does not which is why it's a superior antioxidant by comparison.
According to a 2 weeks study it was superior in raising CoQ10 levels.
CoQ10 is constantly changing from ubiquinone, to semiquinone, to ubiquinol, then back again. It participates in a redox cycle, and acts as an electron carrier in the electron transport chain. You need it to be reduced, semi-oxidized, and fully oxidized in different areas of the body. Each state has its own effects and benefits to the body. No one is objectively better/worse than the others.
We don't take oxidized vitamin C or oxidized fish oil for a reason.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Natrium Health & Nootropics Depot
CoQ10 is not just an antioxidant... It participates in the electron transport chain. This means that it not only accepts electrons, but it donates them as well. You need that shift in electrons for your body to work properly. Nobody should be taking CoQ10 as strictly an antioxidant. Even vitamin C is also a cofactor in many enzymatic reactions. It's not just an antioxidant. To treat them as such is to vastly oversimplify their actions in the body.
It's very similar to methylcobalamin and hydroxocobalamin. Your B12 is constantly shifting from a methylated to a non-methylated state. This is used as a cofactor in many processes. Some benefit from increased methyl donors, while others benefit from decreasing them. It's a complex process. To say that methylcobalamin is the only one that works, and hydroxocobalamin is useless, would be vastly oversimplifying things.
You should also be a bit skeptical of the ubiquinol studies out there. They are all funded by the patent holder Kaneka. Try to find some unbiased research showing ubiquinol is "better" than ubiquinone. It's almost impossible, since Kaneka pushes their patented (and double the price) version very hard.
Does ubiquinol work faster as an antioxidant in the body? Sure, that seems reasonable. However, both with act as antioxidants and pro-oxidants throughout the redox cycle. Is there independent and unbiased scientific research showing that ubiquinol is significantly more effective enough to justify a doubling of price? I just don't think so.