ubiquinone vs ubiquinol

Over the past four years, in combination with magnesium, potassium, taurine, L-carnitine fumarate, D-Ribose and fish oil, I have taken Coenzyme Q10 (oxidized form, Healthy Origins Kaneka 200 mg) as part of my supplementation protocol directed towards good heart health. CoQ10’s value as a standalone supplement is well founded in Jackie’s “The Strategy,” amongst other documents, but also in combination with the aforementioned group the resulting synergy delivers even greater value to heart functions. Coenzyme Q10 is made up of three active forms – oxidized ubiquinone, partially reduced semiubiquinone, and reduced ubiquinol. Each of those three has different functions but no “one” is more bio-active than the others and one cannot exist without the others. One of the nice characteristics of ubiquinol and ubiquinone is that during transport within the body, they convert back and forth between ubiquinone and ubiquinol based on body requirements at any given time

The industries’ marketing push expounding increased benefits of ubiquinol (reduced form of CoQ10) over ubiquinone has not gone unnoticed these past few years. Though many participants of this forum have accepted ubiqinol as the form of choice and recommend it as such, I am yet to reach that certainty. I find ubiquinone versus ubiquinol to remain a divided and opinionated topic.

Central to the claims of ubiquinol’s superiority to ubiquinone is its absorption, bioavailability and antioxidant capabilities, as well as the realized benefits as one ages and less CoQ10 is synthesized by the body. However, a void in solid documentation to support the degree of any gained value for dollar invested still seems to remain elusive. Other than a few single dose human studies of measured value, human studies appear scarce. Many discussions seem to bounce from one study to another where trial criteria differed between them. I have yet to find consistent conclusive results from ubiqinol and ubiquinone direct head-to-head competitive trials. With ubiquinol now having been on the market for twelve years, one would reasonably think third party peer reviewed scientific results would be more readily available. If return on investment is to be a factor for those of us who attempt to budget our monies wisely, product cost must be a consideration as pricing between ubiquinone and ubiquinol differs significantly. Whether we are taking supplements, pharmaceuticals, or both, in totality most of us consume many, and the cost can be concerning. It would be nice if I were not on fixed income and could purchase the best (and usually most expensive) of all which is offered, but for me that is not the case. Much consideration is given. I am assuming others on the forum face similar challenges.

I may be viewed as spending too much time concerning myself with this issue, but delving further for clarification is not a bad thing. As a result of an opinionated recent discussion with some friends, I have over the past few weeks revisited this subject and have been reading and note taking on ubiquinone versus ubiquinol, still looking for the convincing consistent studies that will support such a switch of forms. The web is full of presentations for and against a shift to ubiquinol. Some very distinguished and educated authors take a position that ubiquinone supplementation is sufficient, even for seniors. It’s all in the delivery system. Motives become blurred here, for many of these authors have their own lines of ubiquinone which they market. Some equally notable authors with ties directly to manufacturing/marketing make the case for ubiquinol. In light of this forum’s recent findings regarding misleading information concerning Albion Laboratories’ Magnesium Glycinate and Bioenergy Life Science’s formulated D-Ribose, I feel it reasonable to be asking questions regarding the value gained by any increased absorption and bioavailability ubiquinol brings. We have recently witnessed, not small players but large reputable companies, mislead with their marketing approach. Should we think they are the only two?

Many of the CoQ10 articles focused on health benefits, explanation of ATP production and free-radical scavenging and other capabilities, along with discussion of the transport process. I will not address the in-depth clinical aspects, for much of it is beyond my comprehension, and what is not, most likely is already minimally understood by anyone reading this. I will share some of the authors and the articles which present compelling arguments in the ubiquinone versus ubiquinol discussion.

Dr. William Judy, retired professor of Physiology and Biophysics at Indiana University School of Medicine with forty plus years mostly dedicated to the study of CoQ10, and one who closely collaborated with Dr. Karl Folkers in identifying the CoQ10 chemical structure, has some interesting insights regarding ubiquinol in his article titled UBIQUINONE and UBIQUINOL (Active forms of Coenzyme Q10), and his article Coenzyme: Facts and Fabrications (articles provided below). Dr. Judy notes, among many observations, that both the ubiquinol and ubiquinone form are lipid, not water soluble, and absorption controls bioavailability. He suggests to not get caught up in the “active form” hype referenced in much ubiquinol literature, for all three forms are equally active. Ubiquinone is the only form “involved in synthesis of energy in all cell mitochondria while ubiquinol is important as an antioxidant, but is only one of many antioxidants that we ingest in our diets or manufacture in our bodies.” As I think about it, on any given day many of us incorporate into our diet vitamin E, vitamin C, tomatoes, berries, peaches, kale, bell peppers, cherries, red beans, apples, nuts especially pecans, dark chocolate, turmeric, and the list of anti-oxidants just goes on.

Following a discussion on head-to-head comparison of ubiquinone to ubiquinol regarding absorption, Dr. Judy sums up with “The major point of the comparison is that there is no obvious advantage in selecting the reduced form of CoQ10 for supplementation. This is because the oxidized form is rapidly converted to the reduced form in vivo. The absorption of the reduced form is not higher, is less stable, and costs approximately three times as the oxidized form, which has been clinically proven to raise blood levels to a greater extent than the reduced form.”

In a TotalHealth Magazine article titled Is Ubiquinol All It’s Cracked Up to Be? A Frank Comparison of Ubiquinol to a New, High-Bioavailability Form of Ubiquinone (article provided below) During the discussion about a new delivery system for ubiquinone the following statement is made. “Similarly, ubiquinol taken as a supplement is quite unstable in the stomach and is converted back to ubiquinone before absorption. This means that no matter which form of CoQ10 the consumer chooses to ingest its Ubiquinone that is absorbed into the body.”

Regarding ubiquinol specifically, though there were common themes across the varying publications, findings and conclusions drawn by the authors differed greatly. Authors included Dr. Fred Crane, discoverer of CoQ10, and Dr. Stephen Sinatra, a leading educator on CoQ10 and cardiovascular health, among other knowledgeable contributors. Opposing findings and opinions towards enhanced value of ubiqinol surfaced quickly. While authors such as Drs. Crane and Sinatra found agreement with many points brought forth, neither were swayed, and Drs. Crane and Sinatra each continue with a recommendation of ubiquinone over ubiqinol. Of course, authors aligned with industry promote ubiqinol with much fervor.

It troubles me that in both the pro and con camps the use of so many inconclusive words and statements were used, such as: probably enable, which might result, it may be possible, it would theoretically tend, might account, this may offer, could, preliminary testing, possible limitations, etc. Even complete phrases such as “Future clinical studies (designed specifically to compare the absorption of these forms) are required to more accurately quantify ubiquinol’s enhanced absorption, and what effect patient’s age or medical condition may have on this value.” I did not find such language definitive and certainly for me, was unconvincing. Also, when trying to seek out important data to support claims being presented by authors aligned with industry, upon trying to follow references I often found “unpublished data”. Many trials touting ubiquinol's or ubiquinone’s greater absorption and bioavailability bench-marked against the powdered form of ubiquinone, which use is seldom recommended due to its well known low absorption rate (as little as 1%).

I selected two brands offering both ubiquinone and ubiquinol forms just for some quick math:

Healthy Origins Kaneka Q10 Ubiquinone 200 mg 150 softgels 1 per serving on iHerb at $46.99 or 0.3132 per unit
Healthy Origins Kaneka Q1 Ubiquinol 200 mg 150 softgels 1 per serving on iHerb at $117.98 or 0.7865 per unit
Difference per unit = 0.4733 at 1 unit per day; times 365 days per year = $172.76 Ubiquinol over ubiquinone

Doctor’s Best High Absorption CoQ10 200 mg 180 veggie caps on I-Herb at $48.50 or 0.2694 per unit
Doctor’s Best Best Kaneka QH Ubiquinol 200 mg 120 softgels on I-Herb at $94.99 or 0.5221 per unit
Difference per unit = 0.5221 at 1 unit per day; times 365 days per year = $190.56 more Ubiquinol over Ubiquinone

Is there compelling evidence for a switch to ubiquinol from ubiquinone or does an improved delivery system to ubiquinone equal any benefits that ubiquinol is supposed to deliver? Would a reduction from 200 mg ubiquinone to 100 mg ubiquinol be of value? Factoring in all supplements or pharmaceuticals which one consumes over the period of a year, as well as those of one’s spouse, cost consideration versus return on the investment is a reality.

Several articles offering different conclusions regarding ubiquinol versus ubiquinone are provided below. Their arguments might give cause for further CoQ10 forum discussion. As I have already expressed, I am not convinced of the return on investment resulting from a transition from ubiquinone to ubiquinol. At this time I continue with the Healthy Origins CoQ10 Kaneka Q10 offered as non-GMO with other ingredients and allergens which are acceptable to me.

Recommendations of reading materials on this topic would be welcome. I have come to know forum participants to be a vocal group with their opinions, so I welcome comments regarding where I may be seeing all of this incorrectly.

UBIQUINONE and UBIQUINOL (Active Forms of Coenzyme Q10)
Author: William V. Judy Ph.D
[search.yahoo.com]

Coenzyme Q10 Facts or Fabrications
Authors: Ph.D., Willis W. Stogsdill, M.D., Daniel S. Judy, M.D., and Janet S. Judy, R.N. CRC
[r.search.yahoo.com]-

An Interview with Drs. Fred Crane, Gian Paolo Littaru and Stephen Sinatra
Author: Richard A. Passwater, Ph.D
[www.drpasswater.com]

Choosing a CoQ10 Supplement: Ubiquinol or Ubiquinone
Author: Dr. Stephen Sinatra
[www.drsinatra.com]

Is Ubiquinol All It’s Cracked up to Be? A Frank Comparison of Ubiquinol to a new, High-Bioavailability Form of Ubiquinone
Author: TotalHealth Magazine
[www.totalhealthmagazine.com]

Increased Bioavailability of Ubiquinol Compared to that of Ubiquinone is Due to More Efficient Micellarization during Digestion and Greater GSH-Dependent Uptake and Basolateral Secretion by Caco-2 Cells
Author: Human Nutrition Program, The Ohio State University & Kaneka North America LLC
[pubs.acs.org]

Ubiquinol-10 ameliorates mitochondrial encephalopathy associated with CoQ deficiency
Author: Laura Garcia-Corzo, Marta Luna-Sanchez, Carolina Doerrier, Francisco Ortiz, Germaine E Scames, Dario Acuna-Castroviejo, Luis C. Lopez
[www.sciencedirect.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2014 06:24PM by Larry.

Hi Larry – thanks for this important discussion. I agree with you that as consumers, we should try to learn factual information so we buy the most affordable version and still have predictable and beneficial results but also to know why the ubiquinol form may be important for those with specific health disorders.

For instance, because of my mitochondrial dysfunction as well as my age and my continual focus to reduce inflammation, I use 100 mg of the Ubiquinol form and 200 mg of the Ubiquinone; sometimes 300 mg.

In 2007, a post on an interview with Dr. Judy was offered here which may help shed some light on the actually process of absorption and benefits of CoQ10 along with reader questions and responses.
Read here: [www.afibbers.org]

The interview mentioned the Designs for Health professional grade products and since that time, DFH has added a ubiquinol form to their product line… CoQnol which is a stabilized, reduced non GMO CoQ10 product (as Kaneka QH Ubiquinol® reduced form of CoQ10).

These clips are from the DFH product data sheet:

The body uses two forms of CoQ10. Ubiquinone, also known as the oxidized form, is better known and is used primarily for energy production in the electron transport energy cycle inside the cell. Ubiquinol plays a primary role in decreasing oxidative damage caused by lipid peroxidation within mitochondria. According to research, plasma ubiquinol is decreased in patients with hyperlipidemia.

There is evidence that suggests that the ability to convert ubiquinone to ubiquinol may diminish with age, resulting in diminished protection against oxidative stress and reduced energy levels. CoQnol™ (ubiquinol) may provide a strong initial stage defense against cellular oxidative damage and requires supplementing to maintain optimum health.

Researchers at East Texas Medical Center found that patients with advanced congestive heart failure taking high doses of ubiquinone CoQ10 were not able to achieve adequate improvements in blood serum CoQ10 levels. However, when switched to ubiquinol, blood CoQ10 levels improved dramatically with a consequential improvement in clinical symptoms and left ventricular function.

CoQ10 is also being studied for its effects on TNF alpha, and therefore on inflammation.
Consider taking CoQnol™ along with Q-Avail™ -highly absorbable ubiquinone.

CoQ10 Demystified
CoQ10 exists in both Ubiquinone and ubiquinol forms, its names derived from the word “ubiquitous” because it is present everywhere in the human body. In the mitochondrial electron transport system CoQ10 undergoes continuous reversible oxidation and reduction. It is converted to ubiquinol (reduced form) when it accepts electrons and to ubiquinone (oxidized form) when it donates electrons.1

In its ubiquinol form, CoQ10 functions as a potent antioxidant due to its ability to donate electrons, thus serving as a primary scavenger of free radicals. 1,2

Ubiquinol is the only known lipid-soluble antioxidant present in all membranes that can be synthesized endogenously (from within) by animal and human cells with an enzymatic mechanism for regeneration from ubiquinone. 3,4

Research indicates that ubiquinol is more efficient in inhibiting lipid peroxidation than alpha tocopherol, lycopene or beta-carotene.5

Ubiquinol regulates membrane fluidity, recycles radical forms of vitamins C and E and protects membrane phospholipids against peroxidation (the process whereby free radicals "steal" electrons from the lipids in cell membranes which can result in cell damage).

In addition, ubiquinol is the only known lipophilic antioxidant (having an affinity for lipids) found to be decreased in patients with liver disease.

CoQnol™ - Stablilized Reduced CoQ10

Until recently the ubiquinol form of CoQ10 was not available in a supplement. The only way to increase ubiquinol levels was to convert it from ubiquinone within the body. New technology has allowed scientists to create a stabilization process by which ubiquinol remains in its reduced form outside of the body.

Supplementing with ubiquinol, as with Designs for Health’s CoQnol,™ is an excellent way to increase levels of this wonderful antioxidant, offering superior absorption with no safety concerns. 15

Who Should Take CoQnol ™

Supplementation with CoQnol™ is ideal for those who cannot efficiently convert ubiquinone into ubiquinol, and may help support the following:

• Older individuals /People over 50

• Hyperlipidemia, including those on statin therapy (statin drugs are known to lower CoQ10 levels)

• Liver disease

• Mitochondrial disorders

• Congestive heart failure

• Aging

• Genetic CoQ10 deficiencies

• Exercise intolerance

Recommended Use:
As a dietary supplement, take one softgel per day (100 mg) with a meal, or as directed by your health care practitioner

Older individuals or anyone who suspects they have decreased CoQ10 due to oxidative stress or disease (such as those with cardio-vascular, neurological, liver- and diabetes-related conditions or those recovering from stroke) may benefit from supplementing with
CoQnol™.

Consider initially supplementing with 200-300 mg of CoQnol™ per day. After two weeks, 50-100 mg per day is recommended as a good maintenance dose.

Consider taking CoQnol™ along with QAvail™, highly absorbable ubiquinone, for comprehensive intake of CoQ10.

CoQnol™ can be taken along with Mitochondrial NRG™ for additional mitochondrial support and improvement in overall cellular and tissue vitality and health

References
Biochemical functions of coenzyme Q10. Crane FL. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Dec;20(6):591-8.
2. Ubiquinol-10 is an effective lipid-soluble antioxidant at physiological concentrations. Frei B et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Jun;87(12):4879-83.
3. Ubiquinol: an endogenous antioxidant in aerobic organisms. Ernster L, Forsmark-Andrée P. Clin Investig. 1993;71(8 Suppl)60-5.
4. The antioxidant role of coenzyme Q. Bentinger M et al. Mitochondrion. 2007 Jun;741-50.
5. Ubiquinol-10 protects human low density lipoprotein more efficiently against lipid peroxidation than does alpha-tocopherol. Stocker R et al. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Mar 1;88(5):1646-50.
6. Plasma ubiquinol-10 as a marker for disease: is the assay worthwhile? Kontush A et al. Biofactors.1999;9(2-4):225-9.
7. The emerging role of coenzyme Q-10 in aging, neurodegeneration, cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes mellitus. Dhanasekaran M, Ren J. Curr Neurovasc
Res. 2005 Dec;2(5):447-59.
8. Dietary supplementation with coenzyme Q10 results in increased levels of ubiquinol-10 within circulating lipoproteins and increased resistance of human low-
density lipoprotein to the initiation of lipid peroxidation. Mohr D et al. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1992 Jun 26;1126:247-54.
9. Plasma coenzyme Q10 response to oral ingestion of coenzyme Q10 formulations. Bhagavan HN, Chopra RK. Mitochondrion. 2007 Jun;7 Suppl78-88.
10. Age-related changes in the lipid compositions of rat and human tissues. Kalén A et al. Lipids. 1989 Jul;24(7):579-84.
11. Coenzyme Q10 in the human retina. Qu J et al. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009 Apr;50(4):1814-8.
12. Supplementation with the reduced form of Coenzyme Q10 decelerates phenotypic characteristics of senescence and induces a peroxisome proliferator-activated
receptor-alpha gene expression signature in SAMP1 mice. Schmelzer C, Kubo H, Mori M, Sawashita J, Kitano M, Hosoe K, Boomgaarden I, Döring F, Higuchi
K. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2010 Jun;54(6):805-15.
13. Reduced coenzyme Q10 supplementation decelerates senescence in SAMP1 mice.
Yan J, Fujii K, Yao J, Kishida H, Hosoe K, Sawashita J, Takeda T, Mori M,
Higuchi K. Exp Gerontol. 2006 Feb;41(2):130-40. Epub 2006 Jan 4.
14. Supplemental ubiquinol in patients with advanced congestive heart failure. Langsjoen PH, Langsjoen AM. Biofactors. 208;32(1-4):119-28.
15. Study on safety and bioavailability of ubiquinol (Kaneka QH) after single and 4-week multiple oral administration to healthy volunteers. Hosoe K, Kitano M,
Kishida H, Kubo H, Fujii K, Kitahara M. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007 Feb;47(1):19-28. Epub 2006 Aug 21


Jackie

Jackie,

Thanks for your comments. I feel, however, you have missed what I am seeking. Most everything in the information you have provided supports the conclusion which I have come to over these past few years, in that ubiquinone is an acceptable form over ubiquinol, it just needs the appropriate delivery system. The information in the Dr. Judy link you provided clearly supports the CoQ10 (ubiquinone) form which I have been taking. What I am looking for is not random references to Ubiquinol's supposed enhanced values, but links to some head to head studies of ubiquinol vs ubiquinone. There is much market hype. Trials with findings and conclusions would be great.

Happy New Year

Hi Larry - I understand what you would like, but as we know, it's not typically common to have extensive studies which are costly. I know of a source I can try to contact to learn if there is more definitive data available.

Check out the results Dr. Sinatra observed from a mini, informal study he did with 12 of his patients... (I've been tested and my levels are good so my combo is working for me)

[www.drsinatra.com]

Quote:

CoQ10 with Ubiquinone vs. Ubiquinol

Most supplement manufacturers push the ubiquinol form of CoQ10 telling consumers its better because it’s what your body makes naturally. But quite frankly, the marketing claims surrounding ubiquinol aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.

Ubiquinol has become commercially available in the past few years, and some distributors are calling it a "major improvement" in CoQ10 supplementation. That’s because it’s identical to the CoQ10 your body makes naturally, so they feel it’s faster and easier for your body to use

The biggest claim is that ubiquinol can be absorbed up to eight times better than other forms of CoQ10. Yet, I haven’t seen solid evidence to back up that claim. In fact, for years I’ve used the ubiquinone form of CoQ10 with great success.

There have been some absorption problems with the ubiquinone form of CoQ10, primarily when taken as a powder-filled capsule. However, the type of ubiquinone that I use—and have recommended to patients—is a high-quality hydrosoluble form that has superior absorption.

Facts and Fiction About CoQ10

I performed an informal 12 person study of CoQ10 with Ubiquinone vs. Ubiquinol. Half of the participants took either 200 mg of ubiquinol or 200 mg of ubiquinone for the first month. In the second month, I had them take nothing. In the third month, the participants switched to the other form of CoQ10.

I checked their CoQ10 blood levels each month and found that both groups achieved excellent results, with ubiquinol resulting in only slightly higher levels in most people—making it not worth the higher cost. Plus, in one person, ubiquinol actually resulted in a significantly lower CoQ10 blood level when compared to ubiquinone.

More importantly, I was disturbed by feedback from several volunteers who complained of fatigue when they took ubiquinol. I also heard about complaints of fatigue from two respected colleagues who are nutrition experts.

One said she felt considerable fatigue after starting ubiquinol—something I’ve never heard from anyone taking ubiquinone. On the contrary, the usual feedback from ubiquinone takers is that they feel they have more energy, not less.

The Bottom Line About CoQ10...

Based on this feedback, the fact that all of my study participants had approximately equal blood levels of CoQ10—not to mention the fact that ubiquinone costs less than ubiquinol—I see no reason to switch. I’m sticking with hydrosoluble ubiquinone as the best kind of CoQ10 supplement.

So, how much should you take? I suggest that healthy people under age 60 take a minimum daily dose of 50 to 100 mg of hydrosoluble CoQ10 to improve the metabolic efficiency of their cardiovascular system. If you’re over 60 or on a statin drug, I recommend increasing your CoQ10 intake to 100 to 200 mg daily. If you had recent heart surgery, heart attack or congestive heart failure, I recommend 200 to 300 mg daily.

A general rule of thumb with CoQ10 is the sicker the individual, the more CoQ10 is required. One of the mysteries, and highly beneficial qualities of CoQ10, is that it will help to “rescue” any tissue in need.

I also recommend dividing the dosages, taking half of your daily CoQ10 in the morning and the rest in the afternoon. That’s because when CoQ10 is taken twice a day, as opposed to one, the blood levels are much higher.

There’s no question that CoQ10 is an absolutely essential nutraceutical for most medicine chests. And remember, when CoQ10 is converted to hydrosoluble form, it provides even greater energy and helps you maintain heart health.

Unquote

Then go to the website of Kaneka and read their supporting data for their Ubiquinol formulation. They offer a list of study results... I haven't had the time to go through those.

[ubiquinol.org]

Then go to naturopathic physician, Michael T. Murray's website and read his commentary on this topic. Dr. Murray has extensive experience formulating supplements for Enzymatic Therapy (years ago) and currently is Director of Product Development for Natural Factors.

He says:

Is it True that Ubiquinol is 8 Times Better Absorbed Than Ubiquinone?

No, this marketing statement is taking data out of context. It involves comparing the absorption of 300 mg of ubiquinol in the aforementioned absorption study with blood levels achieved in studies of Parkinson’s disease in which dosages of 2,400 mg of ubiquinone were given along with 1,200 IU of vitamin E. The problem with this comparison is that high-dosage vitamin E interferes with CoQ10 absorption, and when dosages of ubiquinone exceed 300 mg, the percentage of CoQ10 absorbed declines significantly. Plasma CoQ10 levels at a dosage of 2,400 mg per day are not significantly greater than those at a 600 mg per day dosage. So a more accurate approximation is that ubiquinol is only slightly better absorbed than CoQ10 in soft gel capsules emulsified with rice bran oil at dosages of 100 mg per day, and about two times better absorbed at 300 mg per day (as shown in the tables above).

Source: [doctormurray.com]

Jackie



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2014 10:09AM by Jackie.

Jackie,

Thanks again.

The Dr. Sinatra link and quote which you provided is one which I have already read and offered for reading in my original thread. Comments from the article clearly support the ubiquinone choice which I have made.

I have read the Kaneka link and viewed the trial extracts which are offer on their web site. I come away still unsatisfied. I came across a clinical trial last evening which I find interesting and weighs favorably to the ubiquinol form. The study appears to be a genuine head on comparison between between ubiquinol and ubiquinone, both forms being of Kaneka TM. [onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

The study as a whole found increased benefit of ubiquinol over ubiquinone but does note in the content language that previous head to head studies by others were flawed, and further studies should be undertaken. Unfortunately, at the end of this trial the acknowledgements, declaration of conflicting interests, and funding all tie back to Kaneka Corporation.

I know you to be committed to a couple projects of importance as well as extending yourself to many on the forum with more urgent needs, so please direct your time to where most needed. Thanks again.

Thanks Larry - I think ultimately, determining the most reliable, pure formula is both the challenge and the goal so we, as consumers, feel confident in our choice and that we aren't wasting our money. It's a large challenge to distinguish reliability from marketing hype.... and as you point out...most studies are funded by the formulator.

The same funding/results complication is true in pharmaceutical arena... and insiders there indicate those very costly studies are manipulated to show only favorable results.

Jackie