4.5 Article

Concentration response to the coenzyme Q10 supplement Q-Gel in human volunteers

Journal

NUTRITION RESEARCH
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages 307-312

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nutres.2007.04.011

Keywords

coenzyme Q(10); ubiquinone; human; concentration response; supplementation; absorption

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Coenzyme Q(10) (CoQ(10)) is essential for every cell in the body, and deficiency has been implicated in many diseases. Studies to confirm the benefit of supplementation require efficacious supplementation. Previously we found Q-Gel to be highly bioavailable. The objective of the present study was to identify the most efficacious dose of Q-Gel for use in supplementation studies. In a randomized crossover design, 8 young healthy male volunteers received single doses of 60, 150, and 300 mg CoQ10 via Q-Gel 30-mg capsules, and of 300 mg via 100-mg Q-Gel capsules. Doses were given after a 10-hour overnight fast, a week apart. Plasma was analyzed for CoQ(10), total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triacylglycerols at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 hours after supplement ingestion. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were calculated for each participant at each dose and compared by I-way analysis of variance. AUC increased significantly between 60- and 150-mg doses (P <.001), but not between 150- and 300-mg doses (P =.198). A plateau in absorption occurs near 200 mg. AUC for the 300-mg dose via 100-mg capsules was significantly lower than that for 300 mg via 30-mg capsules (P <.001), which may be due to the lower ratio of CoQ10 to oil in the 30-mg capsules or to the higher vitamin E content in the 100-mg capsules. We conclude that the most efficacious single dose of Q-Gel is 200 mg, and higher absorption is obtained using multiple smaller capsules. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available