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.
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.
This idea of plasma level not related to function likely applies to other supplements I.e. NMN etc.
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.
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
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.
Correction:
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.
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.
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:
Review posting below
Thanks for the useless AI slope, Joseph. Indeed, 0 evidence that CoQ10 supplementation can prevent heart failure as of today.
Yes, You are not going to like my reply.
In Your view NOT other.
How many medical published have you?
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.
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.
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.“
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.
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.