Comments on: Glutathione http://www.custommedicine.com.au/health-articles/glutathione/ Just another WordPress weblog Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:07:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: michael http://www.custommedicine.com.au/health-articles/glutathione/comment-page-1/#comment-103 michael Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:49:52 +0000 http://www.custommedicine.com.au/blog/2006/08/11/glutathione/#comment-103 In regards to using precursors (of any kind) it is very unpredictable as to weather or not there will be any significant conversion of it into the desired end compound. As we all vary greatly the degree of conversion of any precursor will vary greatly due to a whole variety of reasons such as presence of cofactors, protein intake, enzyme efficiency and numbers, to name but a few. The more conversion steps required to achieve the end product the more chance of failure to produce sufficient amounts of it to produce a therapeutic effect therefore making the use of precursors ineffective in many cases. In addition the more conversion steps required a far greater dose of precursor is required to produce a relatively small amount of end product as a great deal of loss will occur through side reactions, alternative reaction pathways, liver metabolism and elimination, etc, etc. With this unpredictable nature I feel it is more effective to use the compound in question so you know for a fact that you are actually getting a therapeutic dose of the desired end product rather than assuming you may be getting it through conversion of a precursor. A great error is to assume anything including that there will be significant conversion. If you can measure the end product through some form of accurate and proven testing method such as blood tests, say, then you will know for sure if the end compound in question is being formed from the precursor and if proven to be so well and good. However in this example glutathione cannot be practically measured due to its reactivity so you have no way of knowing if significant amounts of conversion is occuring to produce a therapeutic effect. Therefore the use of precursor therapy is questionable in individual cases. In addition what is the difference in the end if you use a precursor or the compound itself? In this example assume you take N-acetylcysteine to increase glutathione and assume it actually works in this particular individual. The end result is an increase in glutathione levels. If you use glutathione itself the same end result occurs without any assumptions or guess work. As both these agents are considered safe I do not see any benefit using a precursor for a therapeutic effect. In addition if several conversion steps are required then you will need to take a far greater amount of N-acetylcysteine to produce only a small amount of glutathione as you will never get 100% conversion (or anywhere close to it) so in fact you could argue that it would be a disadvantage to use a precursor in most cases as a greater dose is required and arguably placing more pressure on your liver and system in general. As most of the information I present is for the treatment of various disease states and as such the treatments suggested must achieve a therapeutic effect I prefer to use predictable and reliable treatments that I can confidently say will work in a majority of cases. Hence I do not generally recommend prescursors. Obviously in cases where achieving therapeutic doses is not as critical, such as supplements for well being, precursors may be used because if insufficient amounts of the end product is produced it will no have any major detrimental effects on the patient. I hope this explains my reasons for doing so. In regards to using precursors (of any kind) it is very unpredictable as to weather or not there will be any significant conversion of it into the desired end compound. As we all vary greatly the degree of conversion of any precursor will vary greatly due to a whole variety of reasons such as presence of cofactors, protein intake, enzyme efficiency and numbers, to name but a few. The more conversion steps required to achieve the end product the more chance of failure to produce sufficient amounts of it to produce a therapeutic effect therefore making the use of precursors ineffective in many cases. In addition the more conversion steps required a far greater dose of precursor is required to produce a relatively small amount of end product as a great deal of loss will occur through side reactions, alternative reaction pathways, liver metabolism and elimination, etc, etc. With this unpredictable nature I feel it is more effective to use the compound in question so you know for a fact that you are actually getting a therapeutic dose of the desired end product rather than assuming you may be getting it through conversion of a precursor. A great error is to assume anything including that there will be significant conversion. If you can measure the end product through some form of accurate and proven testing method such as blood tests, say, then you will know for sure if the end compound in question is being formed from the precursor and if proven to be so well and good. However in this example glutathione cannot be practically measured due to its reactivity so you have no way of knowing if significant amounts of conversion is occuring to produce a therapeutic effect. Therefore the use of precursor therapy is questionable in individual cases.

In addition what is the difference in the end if you use a precursor or the compound itself? In this example assume you take N-acetylcysteine to increase glutathione and assume it actually works in this particular individual. The end result is an increase in glutathione levels. If you use glutathione itself the same end result occurs without any assumptions or guess work. As both these agents are considered safe I do not see any benefit using a precursor for a therapeutic effect. In addition if several conversion steps are required then you will need to take a far greater amount of N-acetylcysteine to produce only a small amount of glutathione as you will never get 100% conversion (or anywhere close to it) so in fact you could argue that it would be a disadvantage to use a precursor in most cases as a greater dose is required and arguably placing more pressure on your liver and system in general.

As most of the information I present is for the treatment of various disease states and as such the treatments suggested must achieve a therapeutic effect I prefer to use predictable and reliable treatments that I can confidently say will work in a majority of cases. Hence I do not generally recommend prescursors. Obviously in cases where achieving therapeutic doses is not as critical, such as supplements for well being, precursors may be used because if insufficient amounts of the end product is produced it will no have any major detrimental effects on the patient.

I hope this explains my reasons for doing so.

]]> By: Earl Conroy DC, ND http://www.custommedicine.com.au/health-articles/glutathione/comment-page-1/#comment-102 Earl Conroy DC, ND Wed, 04 Jul 2007 05:17:32 +0000 http://www.custommedicine.com.au/blog/2006/08/11/glutathione/#comment-102 Dr Serafin: I have just found your web site and have downloaded a number of your articles. I am always on the look for people who understand physiology/biochemistry...and are not married to the medical model. With that said, in the article on glutathione.... You only suggest taking some form of formed glutathione. Would it not be a better idea, cheaper, more readily available to take the pre-cursors?? With precursors the body can make what it needs as it needs it, with no hassles of breaking down. I think that some writers have a tendency to cater to the pharmaceutical/supplement approach rather than...how can we synthesize this hormone or compound from readily available materials. yes? With best wishes, Earl Conroy Dr Serafin:
I have just found your web site and have downloaded a number of your articles. I am always on the look for people who understand physiology/biochemistry…and are not married to the medical model.
With that said, in the article on glutathione….
You only suggest taking some form of formed glutathione.
Would it not be a better idea, cheaper, more readily available to take the pre-cursors??
With precursors the body can make what it needs as it needs it, with no hassles of breaking down.
I think that some writers have a tendency to cater to the pharmaceutical/supplement approach rather than…how can we synthesize this hormone or compound from readily available materials. yes?
With best wishes,
Earl Conroy

]]>