Comment · Tue, August 8, 2023 · ND Owner
A stabilized sulforaphane ND supplement
Original post in this thread
_Sunburstie · 25 points
I am unfamiliar with the chemistry required to create such a supplement and only know 1 or 2 companies that have managed to do it which makes me believe that its quite complex but the studies and research on this regarding Nrf2 pathway activation are very promising for a vast array of conditions. Anyone else hoping to see it in the future?
What they were answering
Direct reply to the original post — see the thread post above.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · ND Owner
We've been working on one for a while. I've actually beta tested a few. The issue right now is there is a broccoli shortage. I know, it sounds silly. However, due to the massive drought we are having out here in the west, there is a big shortage of broccoli. So we are trying to work through that. We are actually exploring other Brassica species.
The other issue with the whole thing is the testing. Everyone is testing sulforaphane differently. The people behind BROQ do a big comparison of products on the market. However, their testing methods use hydrolysis in the sample prep, I assume to mimic what would happen in the body. Then they measure the sulforaphane. Then they give some stupid conversion metric for what they feel is the bioavailability. That's not how it works... They read a number in a study, then use that number as a conversion factor to say how much sulforaphane is getting into everyone's bodies after a dose of everyone's products. That's not valid nor scientific. Just look at their claims.
https://www.broq.life/pages/compare
They just say "70% bioavailability" then use that as a multiplier for products with free sulforaphane. Then they use a 30% multiplier for products with glucoraphanin and myrosinase. Then they use a 10% multiplier for products with just glucoraphanin. People really don't understand bioavailability. Unless you are giving standard doses to people, then measuring the content in their blood, you can't know the bioavailability of a specific product. It's too complex to just see a number in a study, then use that number as a multiplier for products. Let's look at the actual results.
The numbers are all based on a theoretical mass of the capsule after hydrolysis. Why didn't they do a USP capsule weight test to get the actual weights and variances capsule-to-capsule? Moreover, how did they validate this hydrolysis method? What were the conditions? They say it was a 2hr hydrolysis without enzyme addition. What was the pH? Was it simulated gastric fluid, intestinal fluid, or did they just use water?
So first off, the lab results they posted don't show assay for glucoraphanin and myrosinase, so where are they getting those numbers? Second, you can't just use a lower multiplier for other people's products because a single study said some numbers... The whole thing seems off to me. I have not personally tried to replicate any of these numbers in our lab, but I would be hesitant to take those results at face value.