Ubiquinone vs Uiquinolposted by Dr Dee on July 17th, 2015
Ubiquinone vs Uiquinol
Co Q 10 was discovered in 1957. And its ability to be fermented from bacteria was not far behind.
Both ubiqinone and ubiquinol ( the reduced form of ubiquinone) are natural. They are BOTH naturally fermented from bacteria. One is not superior due to synthetic vs natural arguments.
There is no evidence of; either better bioavailability or benefit when taking one over the other. In fact the literature shows both oral forms are sufficient to double coQ10 stores ( when measured in serum) and show improvement in Vo2 Max. In fact the only real evidence showing one superior over the other was when one was taken in a powdered form instead of a lipid soluble form. Lipid forms copy the nature of the molecule and therefore are superior regardless of the reduced nature of coQ10.
Both age and statin drug use deplete coQ10. It is necessary with advancing age or statin use to take a larger amount of coQ10 to meet the increased requirements of body function under the stress of age and environment. Since ubiquinol, the reduced form, is much more expensive commercially vs ubiquinone it does seem not just medically appropriate, but financially as well to take ubiquinone in higher amounts with age or statin use.
The production of ubiqinol COMES FROM the reduction of NATURAL ubiqinone. It looks like this: Acetyl CoA–HMG-CoA—Mevalonic Acid—farnesyl Pyrophosphate—UBIQUINONE–exchange of electrons due to NADH+ and there you have it… Ubiquinol. Considering the most abundant form, in the foods we consume, is also ubiquinone it is easy to support the -one form as beneficial. In the absence of evidence of better bioavailability or clinical benefit it is still reasonable to use ubiquinone.
1. Litarru, G. P. and L. Tiano . Bioenergetic and antioxidant properties of coenzyme Q10: recent developments. Mol Biotechnol 2007. 37:31–37.
2. Constantinescu, R. , M. P. McDermott , R. DiCenzo , et al. A randomized study of the bioavailability of different formulations of coenzyme Q10 (ubiquinone). J Clin Pharmacol 2007. 47 (12):1580–1586. Epub 2007 Oct 9.
3. Littarru, G. P. and P. Langsjoen . Coenzyme Q10 and statins: biochemical and clinical implications. Mitochondrion 2007. 7 (suppl):S168–S174. Epub 2007 March 27.
4. Lamperti, C. , A. B. Naini , V. Lucchini , et al. Muscle coenzyme Q10 level in statin-related myopathy. Arch Neurol 2005. 62 (11):1709–1712.
5. Paiva, H. , K. M. Thelen , R. Van Coster , et al. High-dose statins and skeletal muscle metabolism in humans: a randomized, controlled trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2005. 78 (1):60–68.
6. Rosenfeldt, F. L. , S. Pepe , R. Ou , et al. Coenzyme Q10 improves the tolerance of senescent myocardium to aerobic and ischemic stress: studies in rats and in human atrial tissue. BioFactors 1999. 9 (2–4):291–299.
7. Cooke, M. , M. Iosia , T. Buford , et al. Effects of acute and 14-day coenzyme Q10 supplementation on exercise performance in both trained and untrained individuals. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2008. 5:8.
8. Mizuno, K. , M. Tanaka , S. Nozaki , et al. Antifatigue effects of coenzyme Q10 during physical fatigue. Nutrition 2008. 24 (4):293–299. Erratum in: Nutrition. 2008;24(6):616. Epub 2008 Feb 13.
9. Ylikoski, T. , J. Piirainen , O. Hanninen , and J. Pentinnen . The effect of coenzyme Q10 on the exercise performance of cross-country skiers. Mol Aspects Med 1997. 18 (suppl):283–290.
10.Amadio, E. , R. Palermo , G. Peloni , et al. Effect of CoQ10 administration on VO2max and diastolic function in athletes. In: Folkers, K. , G. P. Littarru , and T. Yamagami . Biomedical and Clinical Aspects of Coenzyme Q10. New York, NY Elsevier Science. 1991. 513–520.
11. Aksonen, R. , M. Fogelholm , J. J. Himberg , J. Laakso , and Y. Salorinne . Ubiquinone supplementation and exercise capacity in trained young and older men. Eur J Appl Physiol 1995. 72 (1–2):95–100.