GSH/NAC

S

sue35

New member
I know this has been talked about to death but my computer won't let me go to any old blogs or any old messages for some reason. It has before but not now.

Who is on GSH or NAC. Which one do you take and why do you take that one?

Also where did you get it.

Once again I know that I have asked the second one many times but now I can't search to find it.

Thank you so much guys and sorry I am a pain<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
 
S

sue35

New member
I know this has been talked about to death but my computer won't let me go to any old blogs or any old messages for some reason. It has before but not now.

Who is on GSH or NAC. Which one do you take and why do you take that one?

Also where did you get it.

Once again I know that I have asked the second one many times but now I can't search to find it.

Thank you so much guys and sorry I am a pain<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
 
S

sue35

New member
I know this has been talked about to death but my computer won't let me go to any old blogs or any old messages for some reason. It has before but not now.

Who is on GSH or NAC. Which one do you take and why do you take that one?

Also where did you get it.

Once again I know that I have asked the second one many times but now I can't search to find it.

Thank you so much guys and sorry I am a pain<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
i sent an email to Jeanne asking what's up with the search engine. I can't seem to pull up any of the old threads either....

But as you know I take NAC because the body utilizes it more efficiently than Glutathione itself.

Also, this is what Warwick recommends and what Stanford is studying. To me Warwick + Stanford = strong endorsement for NAC <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
i sent an email to Jeanne asking what's up with the search engine. I can't seem to pull up any of the old threads either....

But as you know I take NAC because the body utilizes it more efficiently than Glutathione itself.

Also, this is what Warwick recommends and what Stanford is studying. To me Warwick + Stanford = strong endorsement for NAC <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
i sent an email to Jeanne asking what's up with the search engine. I can't seem to pull up any of the old threads either....

But as you know I take NAC because the body utilizes it more efficiently than Glutathione itself.

Also, this is what Warwick recommends and what Stanford is studying. To me Warwick + Stanford = strong endorsement for NAC <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
ok maybe there's nothing wrong with the search engine.

here are a few links of past threads:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://forums.cysticfibrosis.com/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=15042&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
">http://forums.cysticfibrosis.c...R_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
</a>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://forums.cysticfibrosis.com/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=15669
">http://forums.cysticfibrosis.c...atid=5&threadid=15669
</a>
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
ok maybe there's nothing wrong with the search engine.

here are a few links of past threads:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://forums.cysticfibrosis.com/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=15042&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
">http://forums.cysticfibrosis.c...R_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
</a>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://forums.cysticfibrosis.com/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=15669
">http://forums.cysticfibrosis.c...atid=5&threadid=15669
</a>
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
ok maybe there's nothing wrong with the search engine.

here are a few links of past threads:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://forums.cysticfibrosis.com/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=15042&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
">http://forums.cysticfibrosis.c...R_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
</a>
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://forums.cysticfibrosis.com/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=15669
">http://forums.cysticfibrosis.c...atid=5&threadid=15669
</a>
 
E

Ender

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>sakasuka</b></i>

i sent an email to Jeanne asking what's up with the search engine. I can't seem to pull up any of the old threads either....



But as you know I take NAC because the body utilizes it more efficiently than Glutathione itself.



Also, this is what Warwick recommends and what Stanford is studying. To me Warwick + Stanford = strong endorsement for NAC <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"></end quote></div>


I think in oral form, NAC is better then GSH because GSH is said to get destroyed in the gut. However, it's the export of GSH which could be causing problems, so while NAC is great for increasing GSH on the inside of cells, it does nothing for the extracellular enviornment.

I take NAC sustain by jarrow formulas (just started it) and I am again starting on inhaled GSH. It seems like a good combo for me...
 
E

Ender

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>sakasuka</b></i>

i sent an email to Jeanne asking what's up with the search engine. I can't seem to pull up any of the old threads either....



But as you know I take NAC because the body utilizes it more efficiently than Glutathione itself.



Also, this is what Warwick recommends and what Stanford is studying. To me Warwick + Stanford = strong endorsement for NAC <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"></end quote></div>


I think in oral form, NAC is better then GSH because GSH is said to get destroyed in the gut. However, it's the export of GSH which could be causing problems, so while NAC is great for increasing GSH on the inside of cells, it does nothing for the extracellular enviornment.

I take NAC sustain by jarrow formulas (just started it) and I am again starting on inhaled GSH. It seems like a good combo for me...
 
E

Ender

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>sakasuka</b></i>

i sent an email to Jeanne asking what's up with the search engine. I can't seem to pull up any of the old threads either....



But as you know I take NAC because the body utilizes it more efficiently than Glutathione itself.



Also, this is what Warwick recommends and what Stanford is studying. To me Warwick + Stanford = strong endorsement for NAC <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"></end quote></div>


I think in oral form, NAC is better then GSH because GSH is said to get destroyed in the gut. However, it's the export of GSH which could be causing problems, so while NAC is great for increasing GSH on the inside of cells, it does nothing for the extracellular enviornment.

I take NAC sustain by jarrow formulas (just started it) and I am again starting on inhaled GSH. It seems like a good combo for me...
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
Kiel I totaly see what you're saying about the extracellular environment. What you're saying makes sense.

Help me understand how Moss at Stanford got these results then when giving oral NAC?

"in 18 CF patients with stable disease, blood neutrophils were readily deficient in the pivotal antioxidant glutathione (P = 0.003, compared with 9 healthy controls). In a phase 1 study, <b> this deficiency was improved (P = 0.025) </b> by the glutathione prodrug N-acetylcysteine, given orally in high doses (0.6 to 1.0 g three times daily, for 4 weeks). This treatment was safe and markedly <b> decreased sputum elastase activity (P = 0.006), </b> the strongest predictor of CF pulmonary function. Consistently, <b>neutrophil burden in CF airways was decreased upon treatment (P = 0.003), </b> as was the number of airway neutrophils actively releasing elastase-rich granules (P = 0.005), as measured by flow cytometry. "

Placebo effect?????
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
Kiel I totaly see what you're saying about the extracellular environment. What you're saying makes sense.

Help me understand how Moss at Stanford got these results then when giving oral NAC?

"in 18 CF patients with stable disease, blood neutrophils were readily deficient in the pivotal antioxidant glutathione (P = 0.003, compared with 9 healthy controls). In a phase 1 study, <b> this deficiency was improved (P = 0.025) </b> by the glutathione prodrug N-acetylcysteine, given orally in high doses (0.6 to 1.0 g three times daily, for 4 weeks). This treatment was safe and markedly <b> decreased sputum elastase activity (P = 0.006), </b> the strongest predictor of CF pulmonary function. Consistently, <b>neutrophil burden in CF airways was decreased upon treatment (P = 0.003), </b> as was the number of airway neutrophils actively releasing elastase-rich granules (P = 0.005), as measured by flow cytometry. "

Placebo effect?????
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
Kiel I totaly see what you're saying about the extracellular environment. What you're saying makes sense.

Help me understand how Moss at Stanford got these results then when giving oral NAC?

"in 18 CF patients with stable disease, blood neutrophils were readily deficient in the pivotal antioxidant glutathione (P = 0.003, compared with 9 healthy controls). In a phase 1 study, <b> this deficiency was improved (P = 0.025) </b> by the glutathione prodrug N-acetylcysteine, given orally in high doses (0.6 to 1.0 g three times daily, for 4 weeks). This treatment was safe and markedly <b> decreased sputum elastase activity (P = 0.006), </b> the strongest predictor of CF pulmonary function. Consistently, <b>neutrophil burden in CF airways was decreased upon treatment (P = 0.003), </b> as was the number of airway neutrophils actively releasing elastase-rich granules (P = 0.005), as measured by flow cytometry. "

Placebo effect?????
 
C

Chaggie

New member
If I remember, of the cells that produce GSH are far fewer than the ones that would normally produce because of the CF mutation. therefore the cells that produce GSH, that are fewer in number, are constantly depleted of GSH. The NAC replenishes that and increasing the overall levels.
 
C

Chaggie

New member
If I remember, of the cells that produce GSH are far fewer than the ones that would normally produce because of the CF mutation. therefore the cells that produce GSH, that are fewer in number, are constantly depleted of GSH. The NAC replenishes that and increasing the overall levels.
 
C

Chaggie

New member
If I remember, of the cells that produce GSH are far fewer than the ones that would normally produce because of the CF mutation. therefore the cells that produce GSH, that are fewer in number, are constantly depleted of GSH. The NAC replenishes that and increasing the overall levels.
 
D

dasjsmum

New member
Amy

Do you take 600mg once or twice daily? Do you know of a mg to kg/lb ratio (for NAC)? I'm trying to get some NAC for Sam, but have had him on GSH for a few months...it's hard to know whether it is making a difference or not. Where did you get your NAC in Europe? Do they post overseas?
As far as the GSH goes, I get it from Theranaturals which also sells the buffered type for inhalation. I havent been nebulising GSH for Sam at present, only on oral.
 
D

dasjsmum

New member
Amy

Do you take 600mg once or twice daily? Do you know of a mg to kg/lb ratio (for NAC)? I'm trying to get some NAC for Sam, but have had him on GSH for a few months...it's hard to know whether it is making a difference or not. Where did you get your NAC in Europe? Do they post overseas?
As far as the GSH goes, I get it from Theranaturals which also sells the buffered type for inhalation. I havent been nebulising GSH for Sam at present, only on oral.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top