Coenzyme Q10 supplementation raises plasma levels without improving mitochondrial function in older adults

#18

But guys, do you suffer from heart failure, or are on the way to heart failure? No? Then of what relevance is any study, especially small or janky ones maybe showing beneficial effects of CoQ10 on heart failure patients? Honestly, this is just straight up bizarre.

Again, lets look at specific benefits of supplementing with CoQ10 if you have no heart disease. If there are, I can’t find any, but maybe I’m not searching hard enough.

There are literally thousands of drugs and supplements out there. You can’t take them all. You have to have some criteria for which ones you are going to privilege enough to make the cut into your stack. That’s a very, very, very, elite group, where each compound has to justify its place under rigorous scrutiny - like if there are 30,000 supps and drugs out there, and your stack ends up being 30 in total number (still pretty high!), that’s 1 in a 1000! That’s a very high bar to pass, seems to me?

Now ask yourself, why would you take a supp like CoQ10, which has no documented benefits (unless you have heart failure), and for the sake of that you picked it over 999 others? Has it really made the cut? Why?

All the years that I’ve been aware of CoQ10, I’ve never seen a single reason to bother with it. Not one.

Null findings, like the OP study linked to by Antoine, do nothing to change my mind - I still see no reason to take it. I guess I’m extremely resistant to hype and “fashionable moments”. I never took resveratrol for the same reason: where’s the solid evidence of benefits? For resveratrol all they had was some benefits for mice on terrible high fat diets; zero evidence of impact on lifespan in normal mice. And that was literally all - the rest was just a stream of empty hype about red wine and suspicious blabber by Sinclair (that was the moment - all those years ago - when I declared on the CR list that David Sinclair was a huckster in my view, based on his MO - he acted like a huckster, so duck, walk, quack, Quack). What’s the hurry? If a compound has benefits, time will tell - I’m not jumping on it, I am happy to wait. And if decades pass and still no clear evidence of benefits, I’m not wasting any time on it. So to me CoQ10 is a nothingburger. But of coursse to each their own, if you feel it helps you, more power to you. YMMV.

4 Likes
#19

Well cardiovascular disease is the #1 risk of death. Many of us take drugs/supplements/exercise/etc in order to prevent something like heart failure. When we have a supplement where its direct purpose is to improve heart failure, it would serve as a good choice for people who are concerned with getting it to begin with. Prevention is the name of the game.

Now if someone gets full heart work-ups and their heart is in great shape with an ejection fraction of 65%, then yes they are probably better off saving their money. For others, it is a decent insurance policy.

If a supplement showed promise for something else like improving hearing loss or something, then yes that might not be worth it since that’s not exactly fatal like heart failure is.

2 Likes
#20
  1. There’s very weak evidence that it might help in heart failure. And I would guess that even in heart failure, on top of SGLT2i it’s probably useless.
  2. There’s 0 evidence that it helps to prevent heart failure. Similarly, all drugs for diabetes might not prevent diabetes in people who are not pre-diabetic (SGLT2i seem to, though).
4 Likes
#21

I think CoQ10 is probably an important molecule that the body normally makes enough of. There does not seem to be any good guide to the category of people that don’t make enough CoQ10.

Now rather than ubiquinone (aka CoQ10) some of the menaquinones are potentially really important supplements.

1 Like
#22

I previously took 80 mg of atorvastatin and developed muscle soreness, along with increased discomfort after exercise. I started taking Q10 in an attempt to reduce these side effects, possibly with some benefit (or placebo). I have now switched to 40 mg of rosuvastatin and continued with Q10, and I’m feeling better. In a few weeks, the first part of the experiment will be completed, and I plan to stop taking Q10 to see whether I can observe any changes in muscle soreness.

3 Likes
#23

This idea of plasma level not related to function likely applies to other supplements I.e. NMN etc.

4 Likes
#24

I appreciate this conversation. A test showed I was deficient and I have CVD, but I’ve also read here not to bother. It’s always hard to know what is good for insurance or a waste of time.

#25

I think I posted some things that show there is much more than zero evidence for heart failure but I’ll let everyone decide for themselves

1 Like
#26

I wrote “zero evidence” for prevention. That’s a fact.

For heart failure, Cochrane concludes: Coenzyme Q10 for heart failure

The included studies provide moderate‐quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 probably reduces all‐cause mortality and hospitalisation for heart failure. There is low‐quality evidence of inconclusive results as to whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on the risk of myocardial infarction, or stroke. Because of very low‐quality evidence, it is very uncertain whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on either left ventricular ejection fraction or exercise capacity. There is low‐quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 may increase the risk of adverse effects, or have little to no difference.
There is currently no convincing evidence to support or refute the use of coenzyme Q10 for heart failure. Future trials are needed to confirm our findings.

There’s a 2024 Chinese meta-study that found benefits: Efficacy and safety of coenzyme Q10 in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 2024

In total, 33 studies were included in this meta-analysis, which showed that all-cause mortality [RR = 0.64, 95% CI (0.48, 0.85), P = 0.002; GRADE: moderate quality], hospitalization for heart failure [RR = 0.50, 95% CI (0.37, 0.67), P < 0.00001; GRADE: moderate quality], New York Heart Association classification [MD = − 0.29, 95% CI (− 0.39, − 0.19), P < 0.00001; GRADE: low quality], and brain natriuretic peptide level [MD = − 91.97, 95% CI (− 103.11, − 80.83), P < 0.00001; GRADE: low quality] were lower in the coenzyme Q10 group than in the control group.

That’s massive! Looks too good to be true to me. Indeed, as shown in Fig. 5C, most studies were small and lasted less than 3 months. Only two studies lasted 3 months or more: Feng 2010 and Zhang 2015. What are those?

Feng 2010 is: Feng Z, Bai T, Zhang L, Li X, Wang H, Wu R, Liu Y. Clinical Observation on 206 cases CHF treated with CoQ10 combined with routine therapy. Hebei Med. 2010;16(10):1184–7. => There’s NO TRACE of that paper on the internet. It just doesn’t seem to exist. In any case it’s from the Hebei Med Journal = trash.

Zhang 2015 is Zhang Q. Observations on the efficacy of coenzyme Q10 in chronic heart failure. Med Front. 2015;5(35):131.. Same, it doesn’t seem to exist. And single author = weird. Probably a trash paper as well.

Are those AI hallucinations? I’ll write to the journal. In any case, evidence in favor of Q10 in heart failure is very weak.

2 Likes
#27

Correction:

#28

Wouldn’t the part about the studies not lasting a while actually have some more merit since the results were found in a short span of time? Even if a lot of those studies were small, they add up since we are talking about 33 studies that were included in a meta analysis (in 2024). I know it’s not perfect but that’s still enough of a signal in my opinion.

#29

The summary says “In total, 33 studies were included in this meta-analysis” but the text says “Ultimately, 32 RCTs were included after reviewing the full-text of the remaining 386 records”. This already shows the authors’ amateurism.

They only analyzed duration for the 6MWT (6-min walk test). For whatever reason, they didn’t look at that for all-cause mortality. Anyway, 12 studies evaluated 6MWT. Eleven studies reported all-cause mortality.

#30

Real Facts…

Quick AI Overview

In 1978, British biochemist

Dr. Peter Mitchell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for formulating the chemiosmotic theory. His groundbreaking work identified the crucial role of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) in energy production (ATP synthesis) within the mitochondria of cells. This discovery established CoQ10 as essential for cellular respiration.

Key details regarding this award and CoQ10:

  • The Discovery: While CoQ10 was discovered in 1957 by Dr. Frederick Crane, it was Dr. Peter Mitchell who, in the 1960s, determined how it facilitates electron transport and proton movement across the inner mitochondrial membrane to generate energy.
  • Nobel Recognition: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1978 was awarded for his contributions to the understanding of biological energy transfer.
  • Importance of CoQ10: CoQ10, or ubiquinone, is vital for cellular energy (95% of the body’s energy needs), with high concentrations in the heart.
  • Impact: Mitchell’s work demonstrated that CoQ10 is crucial for the electron transport chain, which is foundational to understanding cellular function and bioenergetics.

Review posting below

#31

Thanks for the useless AI slope, Joseph. Indeed, 0 evidence that CoQ10 supplementation can prevent heart failure as of today.

1 Like
#32

Yes, You are not going to like my reply.

In Your view NOT other.

How many medical published have you?

#33

That’s an easy thing to test. I agree with Antoine. His view is not unique. To be honest if you had read the thread you would know.

The problem is that if the body is maintaining sufficient levels of something supplementing is pretty useless.

2 Likes
#34

Indeed.
BTW It’s pretty easy to have a blood test for CoQ10 in the blood and to supplement if it’s too low and you want it to be at normal values.

Like for vitamin D, all the studies that only look at supplementation and not actual levels are going to give widely inconsistent results.

#35

Unfortunately, CoQ10 blood levels are not very reliable.

From Vera AI
“A blood CoQ10 test can be analytically reliable only if it is performed by a laboratory using a validated HPLC/LC-based method with strict pre-analytical handling; otherwise (especially for “ubiquinol/ubiquinone ratio”) results are often not reliable enough for clinical decision-making.“

#36

I used Labcorp’s Coenzyme Q10, Total which uses Liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS-MS).
Difficult to know if it’s accurate but at least it gives an idea.

#37

I looked into it. It really isn’t the best lab test. Supplementation raises the level, but it doesn’t seem like the baseline level prior to supplementation really says much about intracellular CoQ10 levels.

1 Like