Peruvian Maca: Does It Really Increase Energy and Sex Drive?

Maca grows in the high altitudes of the Andes. (Photo by kyle simourd)

Maca root is yet another supplement touted as an ancient secret used for centuries by [insert exotic culture here] to cure [insert list of various ailments here] - and, of course, to generally improve your life. It might even help you win the lottery, if the salesmen are to be believed.

Peruvian maca, the story goes, was used by the Incas in the past for a host of health problems. Today maca is prescribed for things like hormonal imbalance, post-menopause syndrome, infertility, lack of libido, impotence and mental clarity. It is still used by the people in the Andean region as an aphrodisiac and to increase physical endurance and energy.

These are impressive claims, but are they true? Fortunately, one doesn't have to rely entirely on the word of the people who sell the stuff, since the revival of this magical root has sparked some actual scientific studies.

Studies on humans

In a 12-week double-blind study, men aged between 21 and 56 years received 1,500 mg or 3,000 mg of maca. After 8 weeks, the maca group reported improvements in sexual desire. The subjects were also asked to evaluate their depression and anxiety to see whether they correlated with the sexual desire evaluations. Neither of these factors however explained the reported improvement in libido.

In another paper by the same authors, hormone level differences between the maca-fed group and the placebo group were analyzed. No changes were noticed in any of the hormone levels studied - including testosterone. Correcting hormonal imbalances with maca, as some doctors apparently do, thus seems useless. The reported improvements in sexual desire appear not to be due to changes in hormone levels but to something else.

When the same amount of maca (1,500 mg or 3,000 mg per day) was given to nine male subjects, seminal volume, sperm counts and sperm motility improved. Again, the results were not due to changes in hormone levels.

Studies on rats

Similar improvements in spermatogenesis were seen on rats when they were exposed to high altitudes. The sperm counts of the maca-fed rats in the high-altitude group were similar to those of the sea-level group fed with maca and better than those of the sea-level group not fed with maca. The authors conclude that the "treatment of rats with maca prevented high altitude-induced spermatogenetic disruption".

In rats, prostate size was reduced when they were fed red maca for 42 days. Serum testosterone and estradiol levels were unchanged. Yellow and black maca, however, had no effect on prostate size. It is unclear which type of maca was used in the human studies.

Extracts of maca seem to work too: when an 5% alcoholic extract was fed to rats, sperm production was increased after 21 days. On days 7 and 14, however, no changes were observed. Maca extracts also improved other sexual parameters in inexperienced male rats.

Is it safe?

To my knowledge, no adverse effects from maca have been reported in either rats or humans. In rats, maca seems to be well tolerated even at high doses. This study showed that maca extract had no toxic effects in doses up to 5 g / kg of body weight. In a 70 kg human male, this would be equal to the intake of 770 g dry maca powder, which is a lot more than you'd be able to eat in one day (unless maybe you're a really big fan of the taste).

The amounts used in the human studies are much less than that. In all three studies the subjects were given between 1,5-3 grams, which is less than a teaspoon. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people usually take up to a few tablespoons, which is about 30 grams.

Does it work?

Seeing as this is an ancient miracle just waiting to be discovered, I feel it's my duty to try this sacred powder myself. I'm going to start off with one tablespoon per day. Signs of success in the experiment would include noticeable increases in sex drive, sperm production or overall energy level. The first two have some science to back them up, but the last one is purely anecdotal and the one I feel most sceptical about.

Go to next post on this experiment

Read More......

MSM for Hair & Nail Growth - Results after Three Months

MSM won't turn your nails blue - in fact, it seems to do nothing. (Photo by scragz)

In my previous post about methylsulfonylmethane, I mentioned I had ran out of my MSM + chondroitin + glucosamine powder and was looking for another product with more MSM and a lower price tag. The only study done on the subject used 3,000 mg per day, while the product I was testing had only 1,000 mg per serving. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I noticed no results.

Since then, I've purchased a jar of pure MSM, made by Natural Balance. This product has 4,000 mg per teaspoon and is therefore better suited for my experiment. I first started out by taking 2,000 mg (half a teaspoon) of the stuff per day for three weeks. Again, I saw no results.

For the past three weeks I've been taking 4,000 mg, as suggested on the label. At first I took the whole teaspoon at once, but then I separated it into two 2,000 mg portions; one taken in the morning and one in the evening. Even at this dose, I've noticed no increase in the rate of hair growth, nail growth or nail thickness.

At this point, I strongly suspect MSM is ineffective at any dose and that the positive results some people have claimed are most likely due to a placebo effect. Subjective evaluations - which the study was based on - are notoriously untrustworthy, and even objectively measured moderate changes in hair growth and thickness can be due to seasonal variation. Note that my experience is only with MSM's effects on hair and nails - I can't comment on MSM's possible effectiveness for joint pains, as I don't have any.

As I still have some of this hideous-tasting powder left, I'm once again going to take it to extreme (so you won't have to) and double the dose to see what happens. That's right, I'm going for a full 8,000 mg dose; 4,000 mg in the morning and 4,000 in the evening. How I'm going to get so much of this stuff down is beyond me at the moment, but the fact that I'm doing all this in the name of science grants me some comfort in these dark and lonely moments.

Read More......

How to Choose Between Different Forms of Coenzyme Q10: Ubiquinone vs. Ubiquinol

Coenzyme Q10 was first extracted from beef heart mitochondria. (Photo by Hamed Masoumi)

Do you know which form of coenzyme Q10 you are or should be taking? If not, read on.

If you've ever taken CoQ10 as a supplement (and if you haven't, see my previous blog posts here and here to see whether you should), you may have noticed that different names are used: sometimes the label says ubiquinone, other times it says ubiquinol. A lot of times it simply says coenzyme Q10, which can make things even more confusing.

So what is the difference between the three? Well, in actuality there are only two real choices: ubiquinone and ubiquinol. Both are forms of coenzyme Q10, which is a general term that encompasses both ubiquinone and ubiquinol (the name "ubiquinone" means "the ubiquitous quinone", by the way).

Ubiquinone is the oxidized form of CoQ10 and is the more common form of commercially available CoQ10. It has been around for ages, and if you've ever bought one of the cheaper CoQ10 supplements, it has most likely been in the oxidized form. If the label doesn't specifically mention which form of CoQ10 the product contains, it's very probably ubiquinone.

This is because ubiquinol, the reduced form of CoQ10, is relatively new and more expensive to produce - so when the supplement does contain ubiquinol, the manufacturer is quick to point it out in big letters. This form of CoQ10 is the antioxidant form which neutralizes free radicals and decreases cellular damage. Ubiquinone does not have this antioxidant effect.

Since the body converts ubiquinone into ubiquinol, there is an extra step involved, and not all of the ingested ubiquinone gets converted into ubiquinol. In healthy people, over 90% of the CoQ10 in the blood is in the form of ubiquinol, but as you get older, both the total level of coenzyme Q10 and the body's ability to turn it into ubiquinol decline.

Note that this doesn't mean that taking ubiquinone is ineffective; all it means is that taking ubiquinol is more effective. If you are in your twenties or thirties, your body can probably convert much of the ubiquinone into ubiquinol, which means that you can save money and get the cheaper form (then again, this also means that you probably don't need supplemental CoQ10 in the first place). If, on the other hand, you are over forty or concerned about your heart health, it may be worthwhile to go for the ubiquinol.

So how much ubiquinone is pure ubiquinol equal to? According to Kaneka, apparently the only manufacturer of ubiquinol, ubiquinol is up to six times as effective as ubiquinone in increasing blood levels of ubiquinol. So to get the same effect, you could take one sixth of the amount as ubiquinol compared to ubiquinone.

As I've mentioned, I've been taking 200 mg of CoQ10 - the ubiquinone form - for some months now to see whether it has a notable effect on, well, anything. I'm down to the last few softgels, and so far I haven't noticed any difference in things like energy level or exercise performance. As CoQ10, regardless of the form, is not one of the cheapest supplements, I don't think I'm going to order another batch just yet. At this age (mid-twenties), my body should be able to convert the necessary ubiquinol from food. If I were approaching forty, however, I would compare the prices between ubiquinone and ubiquinol to see which one proves more cost-effective.

Go to next post on this experiment

Read More......