$11 (56% OFF) Strong CoQ10 400mg (60 capsules) Vitacost (Plus $10 Shipment)

Related Stores

Vitacost

• 

  smurfinaus on 12/07/2014 - 19:38

  Their lowest shipping option is $9.99 DHL (heard varying stories about them) however.

  • 

    terahammer on 12/07/2014 - 21:47

    +1

    It is actually pretty fast.

    Not the usual 2 weeks + from US delivery.

    More like ~ 1 week.

• 

  tanastra on 12/07/2014 - 19:47

  thanks OP, and other options for those interested, i just bought cenovis 75mg x 90 pcs for $10.00, and blackmores 150mg x 30 pcs for $14.99 at chemist warehouse (probably Nationwide)

  • 

    Msx on 12/07/2014 - 20:27

    +1

    If you will convert 75mg X 90 to 400mg X 60, it's 3.5.
    So your need to pay $10 X 3.5 = $35 for the same "quantity" of CoQ10.

    If you will convert 150mg X 30 to 400mg X 60, it's 5.3
    So your need to pay S14.99 X 5.3 = $79 for the same "quantity" of CoQ10.

• 

  Harry Krishna on 12/07/2014 - 21:49

  Maths

  • 

    terahammer on 12/07/2014 - 22:03

    Is everywhere.

• 

  GnarlyKnuckles on 12/07/2014 - 22:43

  +1

  There is no peer-reviewed/reputable evidence that taking co-enzyme-Q is of any benefit whatsoever. And that's despite a great many studies commissioned by drug companies, designed to show that there was. Ergo, it's a waste of money.

  • 

    pyr0maniac on 13/07/2014 - 15:40

    -1

    Wrong on both counts. There exists both peer-reviwed studies and reputable evidence that taking q10 is beneficial. Even if you were right you can't equate that to being a waste of money.

  • 

    mingofmongo on 13/07/2014 - 15:44

    I wouldn't say that entirely. I'm a hospital pharmacist and would like to think I'm fairly sceptical of most Complementary/Alternative Medicines. (Sceptical of all medicines, I guess, but I have more faith in the efficacy & safety requirements of actual TGA approved medicines [which need to demonstrate safety & efficacy to be registered], as opposed to complementary medicines where they can be sold on the basis of almost no evidence). In the case of CoQ10 I think there is a solid amount of evidence for some uses. However, the use for which CoQ10 is most associated (statin-induced myopathy) is much less robust.

    The US National Institute of Health classifies it as "Likely effective" for some conditions (admittedly conditions you're unlikely to suffer from) "Possibly effective" for many others.

    Cf. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/938.html
    and http://nccam.nih.gov/health/supplements/coq10

    In addition I think the evidence is now clearly in favour of CoQ10 being useful in protecting heart muscle from damage caused by some chemotherapy medications (doxorubicin among others), but again, pretty niche market.

    So while I don't entirely agree with you that it is a waste of money, I would go further and say that for 70% of people it's a waste of money and for the remaining 30% it may be money well spent.

    • 

      GnarlyKnuckles on 14/07/2014 - 00:14

      Actually mingers, the NIH don't classify it as you have stated above; they merely state that that is how some other entity, called the 'Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database' has classified it. Big difference. Also, 'possibly effective' is essentially meaningless. My attempts to drum some sense into pyrO so he/she saves some money will be 'possibly effective', but frankly, the odds are way against it; too far gone methinks (and I'm not talking chemo-related organ dysfunction).

      • 

        mingofmongo on 16/07/2014 - 10:28

        Good point; yes they do say that the NMCD classify it that way. Having said that, I have "faith" that PubMed & NIH would only reference sources they felt had some level of plausibility. ("Faith" because I haven't seen the source documents that provide the evidence).

        "Possibly effective" isn't entirely devoid of meaning; I take it to mean "at least one study has shown a benefit, but we don't place too much faith in it because it was either a) a study with too many limitations; or b) published in a single journal that may not meet the standards of NEJM, JAMA, etc)

        Our hospital subscribes to the Natural Standard rather than the NMCD (and as an aside, I think it is wrong to suggest that because reference costs money, it must be invalid; after all, our hospital's subscription to NEJM costs $15,000 per year and it is at the acme of medical journals)

        Natural Standard classifies the evidence for each indication as being Grade A,B,C,D,E with their usual meanings. (A = statistically valid findings from at least two well-designed placebo-controlled RCTs, etc).

        For CoQ they have one indication meeting Grade A - unsurprisingly, CoQ10 deficiency.

        The remainder have C or D. (Improving athletic performance = Grade C, "Evidence
        Two conditions have Grade B evidence - heart failure and hypertension
        of benefit from >1 small RCT(s) without adequate size, power, statistical significance, or quality of design by objective criteria" or conflicting evidence from multiple RCTs.)

        They have a list of about 40 conditions for which CoQ10 is used but there is absolutely no evidence of benefit (nothing in this list that I'd heard of it being used for)

        So as I alluded before, there is excellent reason to be skeptical of the benefits of CoQ10 in a great many uses; but there is also strong evidence that the drug itself should not be outright dismissed.

        The other 99% of supplements/complementaries/etc on the other hand…

    • 

      GnarlyKnuckles on 14/07/2014 - 01:34

      UPDATE:

      In an attempt to ascertain what the “Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database” had based their claims on, I was met with an invitation to:

      “Subscribe Now [<- their capitalisation, not mine] for single-user access”

      Upon clicking on that link, I was directed to the following options:

      Single-user Subscription:
      One Year: $299.00 Two Years: $525.00 Three Years: $725.00

      Enough said, really.

• 

  cristobaljamesy on 13/07/2014 - 02:12

  Hi OP,
  Not sure if its only me but the link for the $10 credit dosent work.
  Is anyone able to confirm that this works as Im having issues on both IE and my mobile phone browsers.

• 

  montemaj on 13/07/2014 - 17:07

  I am a longtime customer of vitacost. My favorite is their Alive Multi-vitamins. I just cannot understand some of their supplements cannot be shipped to Australia lile Phytosterols or plant sterols but I can buy from other U.S. sites like iHerb and Amazon. iHerb.com actually has lower shipping fees to australia. Something like $3.99 but the Vitacost home brand seems to be the cheapest specially the big volume units.

• 

  GnarlyKnuckles on 13/07/2014 - 23:48

  Hey pyrO, re:
  "Wrong on both counts. There 'exists both peer-reviwed' [sic] studies and reputable evidence that taking q10 is beneficial."
  Please cite the peer reviewed evidence you are alluding to. And note that that was not the sole statement I based my advice that it was a waste of money on. I also mentioned that many entities with a commercial interest have attempted to generate such evidence, but failed, at the 'peer-review' stage. That's the really telling thing. It's not like it's an unexplored enigma. The fact is millions of dollars have been poured into trials that quite overtly were "attempting to prove it works" (despite the fact that that is not how real science/trials are undertaken), and even then, the trials failed to prove that.
  These are clinical trials, published on PubMed. Would you like me to PM you some links to them, or are you capable of taking off your blinkers for a minute, and looking them up yourself?

  • 

    pyr0maniac on 14/07/2014 - 16:16

    Hey Gnarly,

    I apologise; the peer-reviewed study I was referring to was in fact an article and not a study. Maybe they do exist but tbh I can't be bothered to go digging.

    Being a weights nut I am a proponent of q10 for its ergogenic benefits; as a source of information I use ergo-log (http://www.google.com/custom?domains=ergo-log.com&q=q10&sa=+…)

    They usually only discuss studies from reputable studies, but there is always a disclaimer if it is not.

    Additionally, there are many reputable personalities in the sports supplement industry who have no financial interest whatsoever in q10 who extol it's virtues. As well as hordes of anecdotal evidence on various bodybuilding forums.

    How about we agree to disagree?

• 

  GnarlyKnuckles on 14/07/2014 - 19:31

  +1

  Agreed then pyrO, and I must say it's mighty good of you to provide that update. Good luck with the weights training :)

  • 

    pyr0maniac on 14/07/2014 - 19:59

    Cheers mate.

    • 

      mingofmongo on 16/07/2014 - 10:32

      A few quotes from Natural Standard in relation to exercise performance:

      Summary: Overall, the evidence does not suggest a strong role for CoQ10 in improving exercise performance. Lacking in these trials were large numbers of participants. The patient population that most likely could benefit from CoQ10 for exercise performance appears to be those with chronic lung diseases (such as asthma and COPD), and future randomized controlled trials should address this population to clarify clinical indications.
      Systematic review: Rosenfeldt et al. conducted a systematic review to assess the effects of coenzyme Q10 on physical exercise (N=188) (219). Eleven studies were reviewed (705;706;707;708;280;709;277;279;281;710;711).
      Individuals trained in sports, cyclists, skiers, and untrained individuals were included in the studies. Participants received coenzyme Q10 90-100mg daily for 4-8 weeks. Information regarding standardization, allergies, adverse effects, toxic effects, dropouts, and interactions was lacking in this review. Outcome measures included oxygen consumption and exercise capacity. Of the 11 studies reviewed, six displayed improvements in exercise capacity and oxygen consumption following coenzyme Q10 supplementation (705;706;707;708;280;709). A statistically significant improvement was observed in four studies for oxygen consumption (3-7%; p<0.05 (705;709) and 11-18%; p<0.01 (706;707)). A statistically significant improvement was observed in five studies for exercise capacity (5-33%; p<0.05 (705;708;280) and 5-10%; p<0.01 (706;709)). The remaining five studies were lacking a statistically significant effect in improving exercise capacity; however, one study had a statistically significant effect in decreasing exercise capacity by 6% (p<0.01) (711). Limitations of this review include small number of participants in each of the studies reviewed, variations in study design, and inconsistency in results. The authors noted that the publication of the studies lacking significant results were in peer-reviewed journals, while five of the six studies with positive effects were published as conference proceedings. The authors of the review concluded that there may be a role for coenzyme Q10 in physical exercise; however, further research is needed.

      PubMed links for some of the articles referenced:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1844568?dopt=Abstract
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8241703?dopt=Abstract
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8550248?dopt=Abstract
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18843432?dopt=Abstract
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10822909?dopt=Abstract
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9286743?dopt=Abstract
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1790550?dopt=Abstract
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23306418?dopt=Abstract

• 

  mingofmongo on 16/07/2014 - 10:38

  My final post on this topic, I promise; some information that applies to all potential consumers of this product.

  Natural Standard has some comments in relation to dosage:

  It is considered "Likely safe" when up to 3,000mg is taken daily for up to 8 months in people with no other health conditions (two references quotes). Nanoparticle CoQ10 is likewise safe but only up to 300mg daily.

  It is considered "Possibly UNsafe" when taken daily in high doses for long periods, or in patients with liver impairment or taking blood-thinners and some other medications/conditions.

  This shouldn't dissuade anyone from buying this product, just need to know your limits and seek advice if you have any other medical condition or take any medications, as the high dose in this product may worsen any such interactions.