← Return to Vitamin B6: pyridoxine hydrochloride vs. pyridoxal 5’-phosphate?

Discussion
Comment receiving replies
@dbeshears1

Ray - All I can say is Wow. I have gotten used to accepting there is “good” cholesterol (HDL) and “bad” cholesterol (LDL), but now trying to understand good B6 from bad B6 seems a bit unreasonably complicated for the average Joe trying to stay on top of their health labs. I’m in no position to question your doctor, but we should campaign for new names for the two B6’s to help distinguish them or for a major educational campaign from the FDA or NIH to help consumers. My B6 registered a little high when I was advised to add B supplements in 2016. Then a startled doctor said “Woah! Stop! Add B12 not B6!” They knew it was only high because I had it in the supplements I started taking, but we never discussed whether it was from hydrochloride or from phosphate. This Medical University just said whatever I’m adding, stop it. But that was 2016 - maybe they’ve learned more, or perhaps your doctor is more thoroughly reviewing your case. Either way, I think simplification is in order to help patients understand.

Jump to this post


Replies to "Ray - All I can say is Wow. I have gotten used to accepting there is..."

Hello again, Debbie. I'm guessing, as it's been since last night since I posed my question (pyridoxine vs. pyridoxal) and five hours since you posted the only response that the question of the possibility of two effectively distinct forms of B6 (as you summed up so perfectly: one "good" form and one "bad" form) is a question many people have not heard before. If that's true, it just deepens my perplexity. –Ray (@ray666)