Niacin studies show that it doesn't work either : Cholesterol, Heart Disease Forum : Active Low-Carber Forums

#1 ^

Thu, Dec-20-12, 15:40

Dodger Dodger is offline

Long-term low-carber

Posts: 8,764

Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches

BF:18%
Progress: 116%

Location: Longmont, Colorado

Niacin studies show that it doesn't work either

Quote:

This morning, drug researchers and cardiologists were again shocked by a big “everything you thought you knew is wrong” moment.

Again, lowering cholesterol with drugs, or a vitamin, is shown to not improve health. Niacin had been considered a safe natural way to lower cholesterol and reduce deaths.

Sponsored Links

#2 ^

Fri, Dec-21-12, 00:25

hawaiinei

Registered Member

Posts: 32

Plan: High fat, low carb
Stats: 225/179/180 Male 74 inches

BF:
Progress:

Quote:

Randy Thomas a preventative cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., says: “I don’t think there will be much of a future for niacin.” He is disenchanted with many cholesterol-lowering drugs. The big exception, he says, are statin medications like Lipitor, Crestor, Zocor, and Pravachol, most of which are now cheap and generic and have been shown to reduce heart attacks and deaths in big studies, and which are among the most commonly prescribed medicines.There is no doubt that these medicines have a big benefit for heart patients.

“As we delve into the statin therapy there are probably multiple reasons that the statins are so beneficial and lowering [cholesterol] may be just one of the reasons for benefits from statins. Anti-inflammatory effects may be another factor.”

Wow, those last 2 sentences on the benefits of statins contain one "probably" and two "maybe's".

Sooo, Niacin and statins both lower cholesterol, but Niacin's cholesterol lowering effect is being shown to be ineffective at reducing heart disease, so what does that say about statin's cholesterol lowering effect. "Well.....ahem.....it must be.....um......it must be the anti-inflammatory effects of statins. Yeah, that's the ticket." *shakes head*

#3 ^

Fri, Dec-21-12, 03:34

gonwtwindo gonwtwindo is offline

Senior Member

Posts: 6,671

Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 164/162.6/151 Female 5'3"

BF:Sure is
Progress: 11%

Location: SoCal

Well, there sure are a plethora of studies showing the effectiveness of statins (i.e., reducing mortality) but no one on here wants to believe them. I've searched and searched for both sides of the story and studies showing they are effective are way more plentiful than those showing they aren't.

Personally, I'm going with: they are effective. My father died of a heart attack at 56 (pre-statins) but his sister has taken statins since they came out in the late 80's. She's 86 and still up running around. I have other relatives in their 80's also on statins. No side effects. Alive. I'm going with what works in my family.

#4 ^

Thu, Jan-10-13, 02:04

Saggyface4 Saggyface4 is offline

Registered Member

Posts: 29

Plan: Somewhat Atkins
Stats: 180/180/140 Female 65 inches

BF:
Progress: 0%

Location: Seattle

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonwtwindo

If my father died of a heart attack at 56, I would also take statins. But someone like my mother, who has muscle pain and feels horrible while on statins, should probably not take them. She can control her cholesterol through diet alone. Statins have been heavily researched via big pharma b/c they are huge money makers, but these studies are rigorous and show proven benefit for many.

#5 ^

Thu, Jan-10-13, 02:07

Saggyface4 Saggyface4 is offline

Registered Member

Posts: 29

Plan: Somewhat Atkins
Stats: 180/180/140 Female 65 inches

BF:
Progress: 0%

Location: Seattle

Naicin is known to have little to no benefit for most people (this is not new info). It works by a completely different mechanism than statins.

#6 ^

Sun, Mar-10-13, 18:13

Lumifer

New Member

Posts: 4

Plan: None in particular
Stats: 190/190/190 Male 6'1"

BF:
Progress:

Statins + niacin doesn't seem to be a good idea any more...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013...E9280G620130309

#7 ^

Thu, Mar-14-13, 01:10

hawaiinei

Registered Member

Posts: 32

Plan: High fat, low carb
Stats: 225/179/180 Male 74 inches

BF:
Progress:

Quote:

"There are some nails in the coffin. But it doesn't absolutely answer the question," he said of the study. "I don't know that it was the niacin. They may be right, but they may be wrong."

Well, this article is the final nail in the coffin wrt niacin in my view. As of tonight I stop taking my Slo-Niacin and have thrown the rest of it in the trash. I mean, if Merck is voluntarily pulling their product from the market, what does that say about it? And while it's true that...

Quote:

The trial was not designed to show whether the adverse side effects were caused by the niacin or the anti-flushing drug, another potential failing.

...given the results of other studies, I'm willing to bet that its the Niacin. No thanks.

#8 ^

Thu, Mar-14-13, 13:50

JEY100 JEY100 is online now

To Good Health!

Posts: 13,428

Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"

BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%

Location: NC

The results of the study mentioned in the original article have now been released. Just a wee few "little side effects"....

Quote:

The addition of Tredaptive was found to bring no benefits at all in terms of risk of heart attack, stroke or overall risk of death.

However, those taking Tredaptive were at increased risk of certain side effects including:

bleeding
infection
diabetes
diabetic complications in those with diabetes
muscle damage (myopathy)
gastrointestinal symptoms
rashes

In summary, Tredaptive clearly did significantly more harm than good.

http://www.drbriffa.com/2013/03/14/...rawn-from-sale/