I’ve been receiving a lot of questions regarding C3 Reduct, the new type of curcumin patented by Sabinsa Corp (= the company that also makes the C3 Complex curcumin that many of us take). We heard about C3 Reduct in February: http://margaret.healthblogs.org/2013/02/21/a-new-product-curcumin-c3-reduct/.
Thanks to my blog reader John, who left a few comments on that February post, I didn’t have to do a whole lot of research. He found the main study for me (and then I went to PubMed and found a few others that basically confirmed that study’s conclusions): http://goo.gl/pbWg2J
Here are a few excerpts (from the above-mentioned study) that should give us a better picture of what is going on. While you are reading, keep in mind that C3 Reduct = THC, which is an abbreviation of tetrahydrocurcumin = one of curcumin’s main and most stable metabolites:
“THC and turmerones were much less effective” at suppressing tumor activity compared to regular curcumin. Uhmmmm…
Why this occurs is explained in the paragraph titled “THC is less active than curcumin mix to suppress TNF-induced NF-kB activation.” While THC is able to inhibit chronic myeloid leukemic cells (= KBM-5), said inhibition occurred in tests only at a concentration 10 times higher than that required for the curcumin mix.
TEN TIMES HIGHER.
That doesn’t sound very promising to me! The paragraph ends with this statement: “Thus, these results suggest that THC is not a very potent anti-inflammatory agent and that the conjugated bonds in the central seven-carbon chain are needed for its activity.” Ah, so C3 Reduct is missing a few “conjugated bonds” in its makeup. Bummer, that!
More unfortunate news: as we know, there are also a lot of genes involved in keeping myeloma cells alive and happy, such as COX2 and cyclin D1. Well, THC was found to be “much less effective” in inhibiting these pesky genes compared to regular old curcumin.
There are other minor things, too, such as THC’s inability to generate ROS, but I would like to keep to the main point, that is, its comparatively reduced effectiveness concerning the inhibition of one of myeloma’s best friends, the NF-kB pathway…
In sum, it doesn’t sound to me as though C3 Reduct would be a great thing for us myeloma folks to take. Disappointing, yes, I know. I’m very disappointed, too! I was so excited at the idea of taking something more bioavailable than the old C3 Complex (and not as messy!) when I first read about C3 Reduct…oh well. I guess we need to be careful about which curcuminoids are inside the type of curcumin we choose. And, from the studies I’ve looked at, I’m afraid that this new product may fall into the category of “not as effective for myeloma.” Too bad!
Okay, now I am going to, er, muddy the waters a bit. A few abstracts seem to indicate the opposite of what I just wrote (I know, I know…!):
This 2011 study showed that THC was effective against a leukemia cell line (HL-60): http://goo.gl/MDglIw
This 2008 study found that THC was effective against highly-metastatic HT1080 human fibrosarcoma cells by inhibiting the MMPs, which are active in myeloma, too: http://goo.gl/IMS8Oh Note: another thing involved in myeloma is extracellular matrix, or ECM…in fact, it seems to have a role in myeloma drug resistance, from the little I just read in PubMed. Yikes.
So, is it possible that C3 Reduct might work for myeloma after all, in spite of the drawbacks listed in the first article? Hard to say. The only way would be to try it, of course…And, since I know that some of you have already begun testing it, please let me know how things go. Thanks! 🙂
Bottom line: for now at least, I’m sticking to C3 Complex (I’m currently on 4 grams of C3 Complex without bioperine, PLUS 3 to 3.5 grams of C3 Complex with bioperine).
What can I say? I want my NF-kB pathway to be inhibited…!!!