@adssx Believing “they cited a ubiquinol study → they must have used ubiquinol” is a misunderstanding of how citations function. I work on the research field and if I tell you that many times when checking studies cited the result are ridiculous… (We have a citation problem that no one addresses.)
But anyways, science is not based on 1 study. Read the ones that are open for the public. Check results along with the form of the molecule used, dose, population, even time of taking it (if with food or not).
Meta-analyses and overviews note ubiquinol (usually 100-200mg) is often 2-4 times better absorbed in older adults or those with health conditions (e.g., cardiac patients), due to better micellarization during digestion, greater cellular uptake, and GSH-dependent mechanisms. If ubiquinone, look for technologies similar to the "Micro-SR™: micronization + sustained-release matrix for better solubility, plasma absorption, and steady levels over time.
What’s your opinion on Ubiquinol/CoQ10? Do you think it has any use cases?
1 Like
If you’re convinced you’re right @Raquel (you might be) you can just buy the article and see for yourself. Will be more useful that your current comments.
Whenever I am back on CoQ10 research, sure I will analyze the published RCTs I hadn’t read yet. Science keeps us way too busy to lose precious time with things not worth the trouble (yet), thanks.
1 Like
Luke, I would say yes. Endogenous production and tissue levels gradually decrease after ~30. I think heart system (mitochondria) benefits from it. (Take it with food)
2 Likes