Paul Saladino· MD
it has a little more coenzyme q-10 than peripheral muscle meat
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
it has a little more coenzyme q-10 than peripheral muscle meat
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
coenzyme q10 2.55 way above the reference range lots of coenzyme q10 heart and liver and all kinds of the organs most cardiologists would be so stoked to see a cones on q10 of 2.55 they're going to use supplements but we are getting it from organs here's kurt's folate 7.5 b12 889 vitamin d 56
heart is an amazing source of coins on q10 which you need for your mitochondria and energy as well as riboflavin answering taurine and carnitine
Why would something like red meat that is full of myriad nutrients, right? Whether it's creatine or carnitine or answerine or torine or co-enzyme Q10 be bad for us. Like if you just eat more red meat and heart, your co-enzyme Q10 will go through the roof and that's better than any supplement you're going to get on Amazon.