R-ALA vs. ALA revisited
- 06-07-2006, 09:08 AM
R-ALA vs. ALA revisited
Everyone knows that ALA is a chiral molecule. And that the R version is supposed to be far better. What is not always clear is whether the greater cost for the R-ALA is worth it. Lots of opinions and tons of studies on this old topic so I wanted to see what the general consensus was now and want your opinions was on my particular situation.
Being diabetic I take ALA regularly, recently I tried 300mg 4 times a day. Worked well but it has become a pain in the ass with my new schedule. So I was looking at trying 600mg twice a day. Then I thought about taking a look at R-ALA again. The price has come down and it is supposed to work better, anywhere from 2 to 12 times with a somewhat general consensus of about 3 times as effective as the ALA. So that comes to 200mg twice a day to maintain the same effectiveness as the ALA, supposedly.
Here are the price breaks; I can get ALA 600mg capsules for 22 cents a gram. That would be 66 cents in “R-ALA terms”. R-ALA 200mg capsules can be had for $1.44 a gram. That is 2.18 times as much as the ALA for the same effective dose.
As for the cost it really isn’t a big issue, I will spend money for a better product provided that there is a clear benefit to doing so. But on the other hand I am a cheap bastard by nature and hate to waste money regardless of circumstances. (I have driven across town to buy shallots just because I wasn’t going to pay the equivalence of 7 dollars a pound vs. 3 even for a half pound.)
So the question here is there a clear benefit to using R-ALA that justifies the cost?
- 06-07-2006, 02:46 PM
I know they are slightly different, but I have had great results with KR-ALA as opposed to just ALA. I tried ALA at 1200mg/day and did not see the results I got from 600mg of KR-ALA.
06-07-2006, 02:52 PM
Yeah, r-ala is supposed to be a lot more effective. I have tried ALA and really saw veins popping. I saw stick with what works. Glucophase did not do much for me, so I guess I would go for the least expensive first, and see...
06-07-2006, 07:19 PM
06-07-2006, 08:15 PM
06-07-2006, 10:24 PM
Skye - try the Na-R-ALA.
Custom has it.
I love it's solubility. That was my major beef with K-R-ALA.
I don't think ALA is "one for one" on a milligram basis with R-ALA.
06-07-2006, 10:56 PM
The S isomer of ALA actually cancels the benefits of theso you are much better of with R-ALA [or K-R-ALA or Na-R-ALA]. At least that's what Poliquin claims.
06-08-2006, 07:11 AM
06-08-2006, 11:00 AM
Seems like a done topic, but just fyi really, the S(-) enantiomer doesn't exist in nature. It is a byproduct of the chemical synthesis for the R(+) enantiomer, leading to racemic ALA (a 50:50 blend of each). A lot of the older research into r-ALA smply referred to the compound as "ALA" because at the time they were not aware of the synthetic byproduct.
Why the S(-) does seem to give stability to the R(+) in this state, there does appear to be some antagonising effects between the two, so the r-ALA route is best to go in my opinion, preferably bonded to a stabilising (the sodium-RALA looks good but my only experience in this regard is with the potassium-RALA in ).
06-08-2006, 09:59 PM
06-09-2006, 05:20 AM
Dunno. I'm not entirely convinced it'd be worth it. Stellar results are had with KR-ALA.
The Na-RALA just seems like it yields more R-ALA but costs a little more (probably balancing out in the end). I'm not sold on it being anymore than that.
Similar Forum Threads
- By sanchezgreg18 in forum SupplementsReplies: 0Last Post: 06-03-2009, 03:19 PM
- By lawnboy246 in forum SupplementsReplies: 6Last Post: 01-02-2007, 12:52 PM
- By Eunisx in forum SupplementsReplies: 3Last Post: 10-30-2006, 11:04 AM
- By houseman in forum SupplementsReplies: 2Last Post: 07-15-2005, 01:18 AM
- By Super Tri's in forum SupplementsReplies: 2Last Post: 03-11-2003, 12:54 AM