ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Nutrition and Supplements
Keto Diet (GOOD OR BAD) just when I was almost convinced...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Blackhawk" data-source="post: 86675" data-attributes="member: 16042"><p>Ubiquinol is more expensive and as such is always labeled as ubiquinol. Surely that is ubiquinone. </p><p></p><p>There is debate over which form is better, and some people respond better to one or the other. Generally Ubiquinol is marketed as better biovailability.</p><p></p><p>The real reasons to take CoQ10 are not so much about lipid balance, but it is a co-factor that needs to be present for every cell's metabolism. Like so many other things we produce less as we age, and statins stop our endogenous production of it. It is at the same point in the cell's production of cholesterol that CoQ10 is produced (mevalonate pathway) and this process is shut down by statins. </p><p></p><p>If you're on Red rice yeast which is a source of lovastatin, I'd up the dose of CoQ10. I take 200 of CoQ10 ubiquinone in the morning and 100 of Ubiquinol in the evening. That's after discontinuing Lipitor 3 years ago.</p><p></p><p>BTW, it is quite arguable these days whether 137 LDL is anything to worry about, Total cholesterol and total LDL have become VERY controversial. It seems the going trend is that these numbers are largely irrelevant. More important are particle counts and sizes, LpA, genetics etc. Vince has this info dialed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Blackhawk, post: 86675, member: 16042"] Ubiquinol is more expensive and as such is always labeled as ubiquinol. Surely that is ubiquinone. There is debate over which form is better, and some people respond better to one or the other. Generally Ubiquinol is marketed as better biovailability. The real reasons to take CoQ10 are not so much about lipid balance, but it is a co-factor that needs to be present for every cell's metabolism. Like so many other things we produce less as we age, and statins stop our endogenous production of it. It is at the same point in the cell's production of cholesterol that CoQ10 is produced (mevalonate pathway) and this process is shut down by statins. If you're on Red rice yeast which is a source of lovastatin, I'd up the dose of CoQ10. I take 200 of CoQ10 ubiquinone in the morning and 100 of Ubiquinol in the evening. That's after discontinuing Lipitor 3 years ago. BTW, it is quite arguable these days whether 137 LDL is anything to worry about, Total cholesterol and total LDL have become VERY controversial. It seems the going trend is that these numbers are largely irrelevant. More important are particle counts and sizes, LpA, genetics etc. Vince has this info dialed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Nutrition and Supplements
Keto Diet (GOOD OR BAD) just when I was almost convinced...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top