Posted by Larry Hoover on July 4, 2003, at 11:26:08
In reply to Re: Cyanocobalamin » Larry Hoover, posted by Ron Hill on July 4, 2003, at 10:37:21
> Larry,
>
> As always, thanks much for posting high quality information. I've seen these recommendations of yours in previous posts (and I implement them), but one thing you said confuses me.
>
> > B-12. There are two more common forms of this coenzyme, cyanocobalamin (the more common), and methylcobalamin ... Methylcobalamin is better, but either one is good. 1 mg a day is a good start.
>
> I thought that you had recently come to the conclusion that the cyanide component of cyanocobalamin rendered it unfit for human consumption <slight exaggeration>. Did I misunderstand your previously stated position, and if not, how is it consistent with your statement that "either one is good"?
>
> Thanks Lar!
>
> -- RonEither one is good, when compared to the deficiency state.
Cyanocobalamin places stress on the sulphur-based antioxidant system, by depleting glutathione. Notwithstanding that stress, oral cyanocobalamin has positive effects, and has been used quite successfully to treat overt B-12 deficiency. I myself obtained substantial benefit from the cyano- form, long before I knew of the different types, or the glutathione stress.
Methylcobalamin is more expensive, and may be harder to obtain. It is better (in all probability) than cyanocobalamin, but I wouldn't turn someone away from the latter.
So.....cyanocobalamin good, methylcobalamin better.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:238892
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030701/msgs/239224.html