I’m indebted to my friend Mark for bringing this load of unsubstantiated twaddle to my attention. I refer you to VitaPulse from Princeton Nutrients. You can find the snake oil brochure via Google, but it’s not very informative except to tell you how much it’s going to cost you to live forever.
What you’re going to be doing is paying through the conk for a dietary supplement. There’s a lot of hot air about the three important sounding main ingredients. These are n-acetyl cysteine, pyrroloquinoline quinone, and CoQ10. All are said to be powerful antioxidants with a role to play in the prevention of CV disease. There’s a lot of pretty old information about the role of antioxidants in the genesis of cardiovascular disease in general, but let’s see what claims are made about these three ingredients.
NAC ‘may be an effective cancer prevention tool, as well as being a precursor to glutathione.’ It is ‘possibly effective’ at reducing levels of homocysteine’ which may be a risk factor for heart disease. You know me. I like some references when people witter on like this.
Apparently, PQQ has ‘shown huge potential in certain studies.’ Sadly the studies have been carried out only in mice (again no references.) Princeton fess up and say it doesn’t have much of a role in prevention, but may help the heart to recover after a heart attack, which is pretty much admitting that VitaPulse is crap as a preventative.
CoQ10 is the current hot ticket in the anti-ageing skincare products market, which should raise some warning flags. Then terrifyingly Princeton again put their hands on heart and state this. ‘CoQ10 has indicated conflicting results when it comes to heart benefits.’ That’s bothersome, don’t you think? ‘Some studies…suggest that it boosts metabolism (Is that a good thing? Just asking.), while other studies indicate that CoQ10 have no heart health benefits whatsoever… but we add it anyway so we can rip off the gullible.’ I made that last bit up, by the way. Once again, I’d like some links to the actual data, not something the copywriters have pulled out of the air.
In summary, the ingredients may or may not be individually effective, no research ahs been performed on them in combination, and none in humans. There’s also a question mark over the dose levels that I’ll not tax you with.
As I’ve pointed out before, antioxidants have a question mark over them full stop. The Scandinavians are preternaturally skilled at clinical research on cardiovascular disease. Their studies are well designed, well controlled, well analysed, well reported, and have huge patient cohorts. Working on the principle that antioxidants are a good thing, they went down the route of finding out if even more would be even better.
They had to stop the study when they found disease levels in the treatment group exceeding those in the control group.
For a mere $49 + $6.95 shipping, Princeton will bung you a one month supply. Apparently it’s good for boosting your ‘mitochondrial health’ as well. That reassuring. Or it would be if your mitochondria are a bit peaky.
If you go to the website, don’t be misled by the ‘happy customer’ testimonials. Scroll to the bottom of the pages, and you’ll find this.
‘These statements have not been verified by the Food and Drug Administration. The products and services found on the website are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease of any kind.’
Even Princeton don’t believe what they claim.