Hi,
If one is low in glutathione, I wonder if there is any reason NOT to take glutathione and rather, take its precursors instead? Here’s the background. My daughter has taken the Methylation Pathways Panel (Health Diagnostics), and her results showed that she has low active, glutathione, in similar levels to the folks in Rich Van K’s study. I realize that he recommended certain supplements (excluding glutathione), and that after a few months, people’s glutathione levels slowly increased.
However, my daughter’s practitioner recommended that she take glutathione directly because she also tested positive for a mold mycotoxin. In particular, she recommended an acetyl glutathione product for its excellent bioavailability.
I know there are articles on the web that recommend people take glutathione’s precursors rather than glutathione itself. I can see a couple of reasons for this: 1) glutathione itself may not be well absorbed, 2) a glutathione supplement will turn off the body’s own production of this antioxidant.
Regarding Reason #1: I’ve read that simple glutathione is not well absorbed (it doesn’t survive the digestive tract), but both liposomal and acetyl glutathione are well absorbed. So, if that’s the case, I can understand her doctor’s recommendation to give her the acetyl glutathione.
Regarding Reason #2: I saw a posting in which a user questioned if Ben Lynch’s liposomal glutathione product would stop endogenous production of glutathione, and the answer was no. But, I’m not sure if this hold true for ALL types glutathione supplements. Also, I’m not sure if this is true only at certain, low doses of glutathione, or only if glutathione is administered only for short periods of time. If this is the case, then I should really be concerned about the dosage and duration.
As far as giving glutathione directly, perhaps her doctor is trying to bypass her body’s inability to make glutathione (for whatever reason, but presumably methylation related) – i.e. to ensure she has enough “stuff” to detox properly. So, even if her body has all the precursors in the world, I can understand if she may not have the appropriate enzymes and other cofactors to produce it. If that is the case, then the reason to supplement with glutathione makes sense.
Does anyone have any scientific evidence that either supports or refutes the suppositions I’ve listed above. Her doctor’s for giving the glutathione directly was to help with the mold detox, but I just wanted to be aware of any potential issues in turning off the body’s own production of it, just in case this DOES occur.
Thanks,
Scotty81
If one is low in glutathione, I wonder if there is any reason NOT to take glutathione and rather, take its precursors instead? Here’s the background. My daughter has taken the Methylation Pathways Panel (Health Diagnostics), and her results showed that she has low active, glutathione, in similar levels to the folks in Rich Van K’s study. I realize that he recommended certain supplements (excluding glutathione), and that after a few months, people’s glutathione levels slowly increased.
However, my daughter’s practitioner recommended that she take glutathione directly because she also tested positive for a mold mycotoxin. In particular, she recommended an acetyl glutathione product for its excellent bioavailability.
I know there are articles on the web that recommend people take glutathione’s precursors rather than glutathione itself. I can see a couple of reasons for this: 1) glutathione itself may not be well absorbed, 2) a glutathione supplement will turn off the body’s own production of this antioxidant.
Regarding Reason #1: I’ve read that simple glutathione is not well absorbed (it doesn’t survive the digestive tract), but both liposomal and acetyl glutathione are well absorbed. So, if that’s the case, I can understand her doctor’s recommendation to give her the acetyl glutathione.
Regarding Reason #2: I saw a posting in which a user questioned if Ben Lynch’s liposomal glutathione product would stop endogenous production of glutathione, and the answer was no. But, I’m not sure if this hold true for ALL types glutathione supplements. Also, I’m not sure if this is true only at certain, low doses of glutathione, or only if glutathione is administered only for short periods of time. If this is the case, then I should really be concerned about the dosage and duration.
As far as giving glutathione directly, perhaps her doctor is trying to bypass her body’s inability to make glutathione (for whatever reason, but presumably methylation related) – i.e. to ensure she has enough “stuff” to detox properly. So, even if her body has all the precursors in the world, I can understand if she may not have the appropriate enzymes and other cofactors to produce it. If that is the case, then the reason to supplement with glutathione makes sense.
Does anyone have any scientific evidence that either supports or refutes the suppositions I’ve listed above. Her doctor’s for giving the glutathione directly was to help with the mold detox, but I just wanted to be aware of any potential issues in turning off the body’s own production of it, just in case this DOES occur.
Thanks,
Scotty81