I started taking: ALCAR, NAC, and Resveratrol. I can't pin point which one, but i feel really exhausted and foggy. Does anyone know if these supplements can cause those symptoms and if i should just power through or stop taking them? Can these supplements cause significant damage?
Herxing on supplements?
- Thread starter skyfall
- Start date
minkeygirl
But I Look So Good.
- Messages
- 4,678
- Location
- Left Coast
Any supplement can probably cause a problem. It's all individual. I recently started NAC again and I had terrible fog. I had taken it before without a problem
I aLso can't take ALCAR or resveratrol.
I suggest you either stop all three and start back one at a time low doses or eliminate one at a time and see if that helps
It's always recommended to only start one thing at a time to avoid this situation. Trying to figure out what is causing problems.
I aLso can't take ALCAR or resveratrol.
I suggest you either stop all three and start back one at a time low doses or eliminate one at a time and see if that helps
It's always recommended to only start one thing at a time to avoid this situation. Trying to figure out what is causing problems.
Thats a tough one. It could be either. I can't do resveratrol, either. NAC can be a problem if you have methylation errors. It you can't methylate NAC gets broken down into its components. One of which is cysteine. Its toxic. If you can methylate you could just be dumping more toxins than you can deal with. I'm not familiar with ALCAR. I'd agree with @minkeygirl and try stopping and restarting with a small amount, one at a time.
To the best of my knowledge, all of these statements are false. How does NAC supposedly break down to cysteine depending on methylation?
Cysteine is an amino acid, essential for people to function. It's in pretty much every natural source of protein. It has no known side effects, unless taken in excess by people who are predisposed to forming cysteine-based kidney stones.
NAC is actually used to prevent liver damage, and is the antidote to a paracetamol overdose. It's also used to loosen phlegm so it can be expelled, and several studies have shown that it protects against the adverse effects of some classes of antibiotics.
minkeygirl
But I Look So Good.
- Messages
- 4,678
- Location
- Left Coast
What's intersting @Valentijn i successfully took 500 mgsx2 NAC for over s year with no problems. I stopped it when I was trying to figure out what was causing me problems
I restarted the same thing months later, 500 mgs, and had a bad reaction after one cap. I know when I started I had no problems.
We be weird.
I restarted the same thing months later, 500 mgs, and had a bad reaction after one cap. I know when I started I had no problems.
We be weird.
While thats true in "normals" if you have a metabolic error, all bets are off. Chemical, and biological compounds in the body are not static. The body constantly breaks them down and reassembles them. The reason NAC works in normals is that its a precursor to glutathione (GSH), "one patient was treated with N- acetylcysteine (NAC), a precursor of GSH." "Glutathione: Systemic Protectant Against Oxidative and Free Radical Damage" Parris M. Kidd, Ph.D.
Just like every other compound in your body, its constantly broken down and reassembled. Metabolic cycles are circular. Your body makes it, uses it, recycles it. If theres an error anywhere in that complex process, it backs up,
"NAC, a cysteine-donating compound, acts as a cellular precursor of GSH and on deacetylation becomes cysteine." Oxidative stress and regulation of glutathione in lung inflammation I. Rahman, W. MacNee, Eur Respir J 2000; 16: 534–554
In order to convert to GSH the NAC must first be converted to cysteine,
"The reduced glutathione molecule con- sists of three amino acids — glutamic acid, cysteine, and glycine — covalently joined end- to-end (Fig. 1)." "Glutathione: Systemic Protectant Against Oxidative and Free Radical Damage" Parris M. Kidd, Ph.D.
Cysteine by its self is toxic. The body is supposed to quickly bind it with glycine. If that happens and theres an error at that part of the metabollic cycle,
"Excessive accumulation of gamma-glutamylcysteine in the absence of its conversion to GSH can lead to its conversion to 5-oxoproline by the enzyme gamma-glutamyl cyclotransferase (Reaction 4). Buildup of 5-oxoproline can have adverse consequences due to metabolic acidosis." "Glutathione: Systemic Protectant Against Oxidative and Free Radical Damage" Parris M. Kidd, Ph.D.
So if you take NAC, have the relevant error, then you end up increasing cysteine, and, if you'll allow me, without hunting down all the citations, homocysteine levels, because thats what the body does with excess cysteine.
Hi Skyfall, it will depend on several factors. The answer can be "yes." Let me share the top three,
One, the purity of the supplement. Many brands are cheaply made and have additives, and impurities. They can also be produced on substrates of petroleum based fibers and can be by-products of toxic molds like aspergillis nigers (black mold).
Two, synthetic or natural? Many synthetic forms are toxic where their natural equivalents aren't. For example, beta-carotene. Several years ago there was a lot of hype about research that said beta-carotene cured cancer. What the media didn't tout was that further trials revealed that the isolated, synthetic form of beta-carotene increased cancer growth. The original tests were done with foods that had high levels of beta-carotene. Its the synergistic co-factors, in conjunction with the natural form of beta-carotene that reduce cancer.
Three, many of our numbers have metabolic errors that block the synthesis of certain compounds, and can cause toxic build up. See my previous post.
In most cases, you don't get permanent damage. I've endured some pretty toxic shi_. The body has an amazing capacity to heal itself. It can take more time. The first thing is to stop poisoning ourselves.
What do you know about detox?
What do you know about detox?
Which metabolic errors? Is there some reason to think that you or others here have those errors?
My medical team, Dr. Amy Yasko, PhD genetisist, ND, and my EI specialist Dr. Stephen SmithMD, Allergy, Autism and Chronic Disease specialist, and my DNA testing say I do. You can read up on it on dramyyasko.com She shares all her research for free. Its complex. Different variances in your DNA, alone or in conjunction with other specific variances, can predispose you to getting different types of chronic conditions. That doesn't mean that you will get them, but if you're overloaded with environmental and/or dietary toxins it increases your risk. The body has "back up plans" so to speak. If however you have or get damage on those alleles, as well, it drastically increases your likelihood of developing adverse outcomes. Many environmental toxins in our everyday lives are tertogenic. That means they damage DNA. Thats why we're seeing the drastically rising rates of chronic illness, that we didn't see before the industrial (chemical) age.
I have read her stuff. I've also looked for the research she bases her claims upon, and read it on the rare occasion that it even exists. She makes mistakes more often than she makes accurate claims, though I can't figure out if her mistakes are profit-driven or due to gross incompetence.
Unfortunately many other practitioners accept her claims at face value, and repeat the same mistakes.
Do you have any real sources?
Well now, thats a pretty blanket, un-substantiated, denial. Ironic, since you challenged me for proof, like a cowboy quickdraw, at a gun fight. And that even included wether I had metabolic errors, or not! You say she makes mistakes... Where's your proof? You say you've looked for the research she bases her claims upon, and that YOU rarely found any.... I don't think thats her fault -that you can't find any. Woman up! How about you substantiate some of your statements?
My proof is the completely lack of research that substantiates some of her claims. Such as her ridiculous claims regarding CBS C699T. She claimed that this rather innocuous SNP causes the CBS gene to be upregulated by a factor of 10-15. The actual research into the very common variation of that SNP, however, shows a tiny and beneficial impact.
Looking at the documents she seemed to be relying upon, there was one where half of the CBS gene was lopped off in a yeast grown in a lab. This resulted in the up-regulation of 10-15x. There is no rational way to use that research to assume that C699T (not even mentioned in that research) would in any way produce the same effect.
If you can produce some research showing that your claims about cysteine are true, I'd love to see it. I cannot provide a link showing that no so research exists, for obvious reasons, just as I cannot produce positive evidence that martians do not exist.
@Valentijn Wow! I'm stunned! You think because you don't know something, it therefore does not exist?!? She was a research geneticist for 11 years! Obviously she knows way more about it than you do, unless you were a research geneticist for 11 yrs, working right next to her in the lab, and you neglected to mention it???
Look, when most of us started down the paths of our illnesses, we were met with unbelief. We had to find ways to substantiate our conditions. So we research. Lots of what doctors we visited or researched said was wrong. I get that you don't trust, until they prove themselves to your satisfaction. However, I don't have to prove myself to you. You can believe me or not, I don't care. I've spent 30 years digging around through obscure peer reviewed papers. I worked my way down to ferreting out what the hell was wrong with my body on a micro-cellular level. I don't claim to be the brightest bulb in the box, just determined. Heck, I don't even enjoy it! I was an elementary teacher and an artist by choice. But, I digress. Some of what I came to realize is:
the pharmaceutical industry (Big Pharma, (same for Big Ag -just another head of the same monster)) controls most medical journals/publishers.
Big pharma funds research.
When my children became biologists, and my daughter took her PhD, I learned:
you don't publish unless you say what Big Pharma wants. Many times work is edited after final submission and the author doesn't know about it...
You don't get research grants unless you say what Big Pharma wants.
Big Pharma will destroy your career if you buck the system, or speak truth that interferes w/their profits, or control.
"Outliers" are truthful results that Big Pharma pressures scientists to 'omit', to protect their profits.
Anything that promotes natural processes, or substances, cuts into Big Pharma's profits. It it discouraged.
Research papers that state important truths are extremely difficult to find. But they are there!
Many scientists aren't allowed to publish all they know.
I'd spent decades researching dietary toxins and their effects on our metabolism when I got pesticide poisoned and was slammed into the bottom of the pit (health wise). It changed, and honed, my focus to environmental toxins and intercellular biology. I've read stacks of research. Stuff I know, but can't remember which of the thousands of research papers I read it from. Because I too have brain fog, and fatigue, and must choose carefully where I use up my energy, I'm not about to waste it on trying to prove something to someone who's already closed her mind. Its become quite obvious to me that you won't believe me no matter how many articles I share. Case in point, I've already shared some very relevant evidence, and you discounted it and/or ignored it. I can't afford to waste anymore of my precious resources on you. Good luck with your research, and your protocols.
Look, when most of us started down the paths of our illnesses, we were met with unbelief. We had to find ways to substantiate our conditions. So we research. Lots of what doctors we visited or researched said was wrong. I get that you don't trust, until they prove themselves to your satisfaction. However, I don't have to prove myself to you. You can believe me or not, I don't care. I've spent 30 years digging around through obscure peer reviewed papers. I worked my way down to ferreting out what the hell was wrong with my body on a micro-cellular level. I don't claim to be the brightest bulb in the box, just determined. Heck, I don't even enjoy it! I was an elementary teacher and an artist by choice. But, I digress. Some of what I came to realize is:
the pharmaceutical industry (Big Pharma, (same for Big Ag -just another head of the same monster)) controls most medical journals/publishers.
Big pharma funds research.
When my children became biologists, and my daughter took her PhD, I learned:
you don't publish unless you say what Big Pharma wants. Many times work is edited after final submission and the author doesn't know about it...
You don't get research grants unless you say what Big Pharma wants.
Big Pharma will destroy your career if you buck the system, or speak truth that interferes w/their profits, or control.
"Outliers" are truthful results that Big Pharma pressures scientists to 'omit', to protect their profits.
Anything that promotes natural processes, or substances, cuts into Big Pharma's profits. It it discouraged.
Research papers that state important truths are extremely difficult to find. But they are there!
Many scientists aren't allowed to publish all they know.
I'd spent decades researching dietary toxins and their effects on our metabolism when I got pesticide poisoned and was slammed into the bottom of the pit (health wise). It changed, and honed, my focus to environmental toxins and intercellular biology. I've read stacks of research. Stuff I know, but can't remember which of the thousands of research papers I read it from. Because I too have brain fog, and fatigue, and must choose carefully where I use up my energy, I'm not about to waste it on trying to prove something to someone who's already closed her mind. Its become quite obvious to me that you won't believe me no matter how many articles I share. Case in point, I've already shared some very relevant evidence, and you discounted it and/or ignored it. I can't afford to waste anymore of my precious resources on you. Good luck with your research, and your protocols.
You are making an appeal to authority - a logical fallacy. The fact remains that there is no research backing up most of her claims, and there is research which directly contradicts several of those claims.