Re: A question to Dr. Cutler about aceptable forms of Lipoic Acid

[Guest guest]

You should search the archives. This has been answered by Andy many times.

TJ

________________________________

From: " a.carly2008@... " <a.carly2008@...>

Sent: Sun, October 17, 2010 7:10:56 AM

Subject: [ ] A question to Dr. Cutler about aceptable forms of

Lipoic Acid

Dr. Cutler,

Could you please clarify your opinion about using stabilized

R-LA (R-Lipoic acid) as part of your protocol?

http://uzzireissmd.com/bin/117-R-Lipoic%20Acid.pdf

Dr. Uzzi Reiss, an ob-gyn with an incredible track record, who practices

anti-aging medicine (but _not_ chelation) recommends R-LA as an antioxidant for

the general _non-toxic_ population because of its higher antioxidant effect

compared to ALA. Some people with heavy-metal toxicity would like to use R-LA in

place of racemic ALA for chelation using your protocol (a small dose every three

hours, three days on three days off, with appropriate supplementation).

The underlying reasoning is this: In nature, our bodies encounter almost

entirely R-LA and only trace amounts of S-LA. However, the synthetic version of

ALA contains about 50% of the R-LA isomer (which is not stable in this formula)

and 50% of the S-LA isomer.

R-LA is available in a stabilized form which is delivered as a potassium salt of

R-LA, but NOT in racemic ALA formulations. It might be reasonable to conclude

that ALA supplements which contain the non-stabilized version of R-LA mainly

deliver the S-LA isomer. S-LA is believed to oppose some effects of R-LA.

from the link:

The S-LA isomer cannot bind with critical mitochondrial enzymes and inhibits ATP

production.

R-LA has both chelating, anti-oxidant, anti-glycating and neuroprotective

properties. R-LA recycles 38 times faster than S-LA and has up to 85% higher

total absorption. This would warrant an adjustment of the dose.

The question is why try something new if there is a chelator proven to work

(ALA). I am the last person to disagree. It has worked for me so far. However,

it appears to me that people who have experienced some of the most extreme

damage caused by long-term exposure to heavy metals may want to recover

completely regardless of how much of a low point their health had hit. R-LA

appears to be more suited for this, at least on paper. In animal studies, the

intake of R-LA resulted in an up to 7 fold higher uptake or R-LA versus S-LA in

the lens content of lipoic acid and reduced the development of experimentally

produced cataract by half. I think you can agree that someone who almost lost

their eyesight as a result of metal toxicity (as I have, thanks to the idiots

who put mercury, lead and arsenic in people's mouths while being licensed and

getting paid for it) can be forgiven for trying to restore their damaged

eyesight using R-LA if that's what it takes.

What is your opinion about R-LA as a chelator? Thank you so much.