so, i was right about the "pqq derivatives" being the apparent disconnect in the data...

i posted last night that there was a disconnect between claimed average intake and what i could actually add up directly, and suspected it might be because i'm only adding up pure pqq and the average intake includes pqq-derivatives. one of pqq's proposed benefits is that it may act as an anti-oxidant (and, again: anti-oxidants are real science, the ambiguity is whether they can be absorbed and work in the body or if they just get bonded and/or degraded in the stomach), and it's thought to act as a co-factor in metabolic reactions, so it actually follows that it's highly reactive and it shouldn't be surprising that it binds to all kinds of things when you try to consume it. that's the reason the free pqq was so much smaller than the total pqq, and that's actually consistent with most things that get labeled "anti-oxidants".

if it's so highly reactive, i wonder if it might even end up having a similar action as phytic acid, which is a powerful anti-oxidant in theory but acts as an "anti-nutrient" in practice.

i may do a follow-up...

...but, the point of this post is just to point out that that inconsistency has at least been clarified: most of the pqq in foods is bonded to something like an amino acid, and isn't going to get measured properly for that reason. and, i don't currently know if that means that the data presented by the fda and other sources is an underestimate or if the remnant pqq is unavailable for human metabolic use - which would make it bad, because it's just ruining other nutrients.

so, pqq may be generally considered to be "safe", but that doesn't mean it's harmless...