Restaurant eating: A fructose landmine

There is no remaining question that fructose is among the worst possible things humans can consume.

Followers of the Heart Scan Blog already know this, from conversations like The LDL-Fructose Disconnect, Where do you find fructose?, and Goodbye, fructose.

But fructose, usually as either high-fructose corn syrup (44%, 55%, occasionally higher percentage fructose) or sucrose (50% fructose), is ubiquitous. I've seen it in the most improbable places, including cole slaw, mustard, and dill pickles.

It's reasonably straightforward to avoid or minimize fructose exposure while eating at home, provided you check labels and focus on foods that don't require labels (like green peppers, salmon, and olive oil, i.e., unprocessed foods). But when you choose to eat at a restaurant, then all hell can break loose and fructose exposure can explode.

So what are some common and unsuspected fructose sources when eating at a restaurant?

Salad dressings--Dressings in all stripes and flavors are now made with high-fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose. This is especially true of low-fat, non-fat, or "lite" dressings, meaning oils have been replaced by high-fructose corn syrup. It can also be true of traditional non-low-fat dressings, too, since high-fructose corn syrup is just plain cheap.

Olive oil and vinegar are still your safest bets. I will often use salsa as a dressing, which works well.

Sauces and gravies--Not only can sauces be thickened with cornstarch, many pre-mixed sauces are also made with high-fructose corn syrup or sweetened with sucrose. Barbecue sauce is a particular landmine, since it is now a rare barbecue sauce not made with high-fructose corn syrup as the first or second ingredient. Sauces for dipping are nearly always high-fructose corn syrup-based.

Ketchup--Yup. Good old ketchup even is now made with high-fructose corn syrup. In fact, you should be suspicious of any condiment.

Highball, Bloody Mary, Margarita, Daiquiri, beer--Even the before-dinner or dinner drink can have plenty of fructose, particularly if a mix is used to make it. While Blood Marys seem the most benign of all, adorned with celery, pickle, and olive, just take a look at the ingredient label on the mix used: high-fructose corn syrup.

Fructose is a stealth poison: It doesn't immediately increase blood sugar; it doesn't trigger any perceptible effect like increased energy or sleepiness. But it is responsible for an incredible amount of the health struggles in the U.S., from obesity, to diabetes, to hyperlipidemias and heart disease, to arthritis, to cataracts.

A glycation rock and a hard place

Advanced Glycation End-products, or AGEs, the stuff of aging that mucks up brains, kidneys, and arteries, develop via two different routes: endogenous (from within the body) and exogenous (from outside the body).

Endogenous AGEs develop via glycation. Glycation of proteins in the body occurs when there are glucose excursions above normal. For instance, a blood glucose of 150 mg/dl after your bowl of stone-ground oatmeal causes glycation of proteins left and right, from the proteins in the lens of your eyes (cataracts), to the proteins in your kidneys (proteinuria and kidney dysfunction), to skin cells (wrinkles), to cartilage (brittle cartilage followed by arthritis), to LDL particles, especially small LDL particles (atherosclerosis).

At what blood sugar level does glycation occur? It occurs even at "normal" glucose levels below 100 mg/dl (with measurable long-term cardiovascular effects as low as 83 mg/dl). In other words, some level of glycation proceeds even at blood glucose levels regarded as normal.

There's nothing we can do about the low-level of glycation that occurs at low blood sugar levels of, say, 90 mg/dl or less. However, we can indeed do a lot to not allow glycation to proceed more rapidly, as it inevitably will at blood sugar levels higher than 90 mg/dl.

How do you keep blood sugars below 90 mg/dl to prevent excessive glycation? Avoid or minimize the foods that cause such rises in blood sugar: carbohydrates.

What food increases blood sugar higher than nearly all other known foods? Wheat.

Is einkorn the answer?

People ask: "What if I would like a piece of bread or other baked product just once in a while? What is safe?"

Eli Rogosa, Director of The Heritage Wheat Conservancy, believes that a return to the wheat of our ancestors in the Fertile Crescent, circa 10,000 years ago, is the answer.

Former science teacher, now organic farmer, farm researcher, and advocate of sustainable agriculture, Eli has been reviving "heritage" crops farmed under organic conditions, some of her research USDA-funded.

In particular, Eli has been cultivating original 14-chromosome ("diploid") einkorn wheat. Although einkorn contains gluten (in lesser quantities despite the higher total protein content), the group of proteins that trigger the immune abnormalities of celiac disease and other immune phenomena, Eli tells me that she has witnessed many people with a variety of wheat intolerances, including celiac disease, tolerate foods made with einkorn wheat. (The variety of glutens in einkorn differ from the glutens of the dwarf mutant that now dominate supermarket shelves.)

Eli travels to Israel every year, returning with "heritage" seeds for wheat and other crops. She formerly worked in the Israel GenBank as Director of the Ancient Wheat Program. She has written a brochure that describes her einkorn wheat.

Eli sent me 2 lb of her einkorn grain that nutritionist, Margaret Pfeiffer, and I ground into bread. Our experience is detailed here. My subsequent blood sugar misadventure, comparing einkorn bread to conventional organic whole wheat bread is detailed here, followed by the odd neurologic effects I experienced here.

Anyone else wishing to try this little ancient wheat experiment with einkorn can also obtain either the unground grain or ground flour through Eli's website, www.growseed.org. Most recently, einkorn pasta is being retailed under the Jovial brand at Whole Foods Market.

If anyone else makes bread or any other food with Eli's einkorn wheat, please let me know:

1) Your blood sugar response (before and 1 hour after consumption)
2) Whether you experienced any evidence of wheat intolerance similar to what you experienced with conventional wheat, e.g., rash, acid reflux, gas and cramping, moodiness, asthma, etc.

But remember: Wheat effects or no, einkorn is still a grain. My belief is that humans do best with little or no grain. The einkorn experience is an effort to identify reasonable compromises so that you and I can have a piece of birthday cake once a year without getting sick.

Genetic incompatibility

Peter has lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), a genetic pattern shared by 11% of Americans.

It means that Peter inherited a gene that codes for a protein, called apoprotein(a), that attaches to LDL particles, forming the combined particle Lp(a). It also means that his overall pattern responds well to a high-fat, high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet: The small LDL particles that accompany Lp(a) over 90% of the time are reduced, Lp(a) itself is modestly reduced, other abnormalities like high triglycerides (that facilitate Lp(a)'s adverse effects) are corrected. Small LDL particles are, by the way, part of the genetic "package" of Lp(a) in most carriers.

Peter also has another gene for Apo E4, another genetically-determined pattern shared by 19% of Americans. (Another 2% of Americans have two "doses" of Apo E4, i.e., they are homozygotes for E4.) This means that the Apo E protein, normally responsible for liver uptake and disposal of lipoproteins (especially VLDL), is defective. In people with Apo E4, the higher the fat intake, the more LDL particles accumulate. (The explanation for this effect is not entirely clear, but it may represent excessive defective Apo E-enriched VLDL that competes with LDL for liver uptake.) People with Apo E4 therefore drop LDL (and LDL particle number and apoprotein B) with reductions in fat intake.

This is a genetic rock-and-a-hard-place, or what I call a genetic incompatibility. If Peter increases fat and reduces carbohydrates to reduce Lp(a)/small LDL, then LDL measures like LDL particle number, apoprotein B, and LDL cholesterol will increase. Paradoxically, sometimes small LDL particles will even increase in some genetically predisposed people.

If Peter decreases fat and increases carbohydrates, LDL particle number, apoprotein B, and LDL cholesterol will decrease, but the proportion of small LDL will increase and Lp(a) may increase.

Thankfully, such "genetic incompatibilities" are uncommon. In my large practice, for instance, I have about 5 such people.

The message: If you witness paradoxic responses that don't make sense or follow the usual pattern, e.g., reductions in LDL particle number, apoprotein B, and small LDL with reductions in their dietary triggers (i.e., carbohydrates, especially wheat), then consider a competing genetic trait such as Apo E4.

The folly of an RDA for vitamin D

Tom is a 50-year old, 198-lb white male. At the start, his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level was 28.8 ng/ml in July. Tom supplements vitamin D, 2000 units per day, in gelcap form. Six months later in January (winter), Tom's 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 67.4 ng/ml.

Jerry is another 50-year old white male with similar build and weight. Jerry's starting summer 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 26.4 ng/ml. Jerry takes 12,000 units vitamin D per day, also in gelcap form. In winter, six months later, Jerry's 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 63.2 ng/ml.

Two men, similar builds, similar body weight, both Caucasian, similar starting levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. Yet they have markedly different needs for vitamin D dose to achieve a similar level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. Why?

It's unlikely to be due to variation in vitamin D supplement preparations, since I monitor vitamin D levels at least every 6 months and, even with changes in preparations, dose needs remain fairly constant.

The differences in this situation are likely genetically-determined. To my knowledge, however, the precise means by which genetic variation accounts for it has not been worked out.

This highlights the folly of specifying a one-size-fits-all Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D. The variation in need can be incredible. While needs are partly determined by body size and proportion body fat (the bigger you are, the more you need), I've also seen 105 lb women require 14,000 units and 320-lb men require 1000 units to achieve the same level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D.

An RDA for everyone? Ridiculous. Vitamin D is an individual issue that must be addressed on a person-by-person basis.

Heart scan: Standard of care?

If coronary disease is easy to detect by measuring coronary calcium, shouldn't this represent the standard of care?

In other words, if you've been seeing your doctor and he/she has been monitoring cholesterol levels and, inevitably, talks about statin drugs, then you have a heart attack, unstable angina, or die--yet never knew you had heart disease--isn't this negligence?

Coronary calcium, and thereby coronary atherosclerotic plaque, are markers for the disease itself. Unlike cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc., that represent risk factors for coronary atherosclerotic plaque, coronary calcium is a measure of total plaque: "soft" elements like lipid collections, necrotic tissue, fibrous tissue, as well as "hard" elements like calcium. Because calcium occupies 20% of total atherosclerotic plaque volume, it can be used as an indirect "dipstick" for total plaque.

So why isn't an unexpected heart attack, hospitalization for unstable heart symptions, emergency bypass, etc., not regarded as potential malpractice? These are not benign events, but potentially life-threatening.

The costs of doing drug business?

Here's a telling situation.

Liz had been on prescription niacin, Niaspan, 1500 mg per day (3 x 500 mg tablets) for several years to treat her severe small LDL pattern and familial hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides 500-1000 mg/dl). Because her health insurance had been paying for the "drug," she insisted on taking the prescription form.

A change in insurance, however, meant that the Niaspan was no longer covered. Her pharmacy wanted to charge $227 per month.

Liz came to the office in tears, worried that she was going to have to choke up $227 per month. I reminded her that, as I had told her several years ago, she could easily replace the Niaspan with over-the-counter Sloniacin or Enduracin. Both release niacin over approximately 6 hours, just like Niaspan.

Here are the prices I've seen with Sloniacin, 100 tablets of 500 mg:

Walgreens: $15.99
Walmart: $12.99
Costco: $8.99

So the most expensive source, Walgreens, would cost Liz just under $15.99 per month to take 1500 mg per day.

$15.99 versus $227.00 per month for preparations that are highly similar. Hmmmmmm.

I wonder what the $211.01 extra per month goes towards? Admittedly, Abbott Labs, the current company selling Niaspan (after Abbott acquired Kos), has invested in a few clinical trials, such as ARBITER-HALTS6. But does supporting research justify this much difference, a difference that amounts to $2532 over a year? If just 100,000 patients are prescribed Niaspan at this dose (a typical dose), this generates $253 million.

Is the cost of developing and marketing a supplement-turned-drug that great? Is this justifiable? Is it any wonder that our health insurance premiums continue to balloon?

I use Sloniacin and Enduracin almost exclusively.

Measurement

A crucial component of self-empowerment in healthcare is to be able to measure various health parameters. More and more measurement tools are entering the direct-to-consumer arena.

Quantification of various phenomena is important in managing many aspects of health. Imagine a carpenter trying to build a house without the use of a tape measure, level, or other measuring tools. In health, as in building a house, measurement, adjustment, and correction are critical.

Among the most helpful health measurement tools:

Blood glucose meters--Blood glucose meters aren't just for diabetics. They are among the most powerful weight loss tools available.

Blood pressure cuffs--There's no better way to assess blood pressure than to assess it under all the varied conditions of life: When you're tired, when you're excited, when you're upset, when you're happy, hungry, stomach full, morning, night. This is a lot better than the one isolated measure in the doctor's office.

Digital thermometers--Your first a.m. oral temperature is a great way to assess thyroid status. We aim to maintain first a.m. oral temperature around 97.3 degrees F, the normal human temperature upon arising that reflects normal thyroid function. (No, Dr. Broda Barnes fans, axillary temperatures should NOT be used due to flagrant variation from right armpit to left armpit, modifying effects of clothing and ambient temperature, etc. Oral temperature tracks internal, "core," temperature fluctuations reliably, including circadian variation, far better than axillary temperatures.)

Fingerstick blood tests--An incredible number of blood tests are now available just by performing a simple fingerstick in your kitchen or bathroom. You can get 25-hydroxy vitamin D, lipids, thyroid measures (TSH, free T3, free T4), hormones (DHEA, testosterone, estrogens). And the list is growing rapidly. Salivary tests are also growing in number for many of the same measures.

A variation on fingerstick blood tests are devices like CardioChek that allow you to do a fingerstick, but also run the test on your own device at home. (The CardioChek device tests total cholesterol, triglycerides, and HDL.)

Urine pH--You can dipstick your own urine to assess the relative acidity or alkalinity of your lifestyle. Acid pH (7 or below) suggests that diet is weighed too heavily in favor of animal products and grains. An alkaline pH (above 7) suggests plentiful vegetables and fruits, not counteracted by animal products and grains.

There are many more, including the ZEO device to monitor sleep quality, RESPeRATE for reduction of blood pressure, HeartMath to manage stress and augment the parasympathatic (relaxation) response. We've come a long way compared to the health monitoring devices of just 25-30 years ago.

Anyway, that's a partial list. Given the rapid advances in technology that allow such home tests, I anticipate a much longer list in the coming few years.

For some perspective on how far these devices have come, here's a great graphic of an early sphygmomanometer, or blood pressure gauge.


Courtesy Wellcome Library, London

I lost 37 lbs with a fingerstick

Jack needed to lose weight.

At 5 ft 7 inches, he weighed in at 273 lbs, putting his BMI at a sobering 42.8. (A BMI of 30 or above is classified as "obese.") In addition to lipoprotein(a), Jack had an extravagant quantity of small LDL (the evil "partner" of lipoprotein(a)), high triglycerides, and blood sugars in the diabetic range. With a heart scan score of 1670, Jack had little room for compromises.

Try as he might, Jack could simply not stick to the diet I urged him to follow. Three days, for instance, of avoiding wheat was promptly interrupted by his wife's tempting him with a nice BLT sandwich. This triggered his appetite, with diet spiraling downward in short order.

So I taught Jack how to check his blood sugars using a fingerstick device, what I call the most important weight loss tool available. I asked Jack to check his pre-meal blood glucose and his one-hour after-meal blood glucose and not allow the after-meal blood glucose to rise any higher than the pre-meal. For example, if blood glucose pre-meal was 115 mg/dl, after-meal blood glucose should be no higher than 115 mg/dl.

If any food or combination of foods increase blood glucose more than the pre-meal value, then eliminate the culprit food or reduce the portion size. For example, if dinner consists of baked salmon, asparagus, and mashed potatoes, and pre-meal blood glucose is 115 mg/dl, post-meal 155 mg/dl, reduce or eliminate the mashed potatoes. If slow-cooked, stone ground oatmeal causes blood glucose to increase from 115 mg/dl to 185 mg/dl (a typical response to oatmeal), then eliminate it.

Having immediate feedback on the effects of various foods finally did it for Jack: It identified foods that were triggering excessive blood sugar rises (and thereby insulin) and foods that did not.

What Jack did not do is limit or restrict calories. In fact, I asked him to eat portion sizes that left him comfortable. There was no need to reduce calories, push the plate away, etc. Just don't allow blood sugars to rise.

Six months later, Jack came back 37 lbs lighter. And he got there without calorie-counting, without regulating portion sizes, without hunger.

The two kinds of small LDL

You won't find this in any publication nor description (at least ones that I've come across) about the ubiquitous small LDL particles. It's an observation I've made having obtained thousands of advanced lipoprotein panels of the sort that break lipoproteins down by size. I've discussed this issue previously here. But small LDL is so ubiquitous, not addressed by conventional strategies like statin drugs or fat restriction (it is made worse, in fact, by reducing fat in the diet), that it is worth keeping at the top of everyone's consciousness.

(Because most of the lipoprotein analyses performed in my office are done via NMR, I will discuss in terms relevant to NMR. This does not necessarily mean that similar observations cannot be made with centrifugation, i.e, VAP from Atherotech, or gel electropheresis from Berkeley, Boston Heart Lab, Spectracell, and others).

There are two basic varieties of small LDL particles:

1) Genetically-programmed--e.g., via cholesteryl-ester transfer protein (CETP) activity
2) Acquired--via carbohydrate consumption


It means that people with acquired small LDL from carbohydrate consumption can reduce small LDL to zero with reduction of carbohydrates, especially the most small LDL-provoking foods of all: wheat, cornstarch, and sucrose.

It also means that people who have small LDL for genetically-determined reasons can only minimize, not eliminate, small LDL. By NMR, we struggle to keep small LDL in the 300-600 nmol/L range when genetically-determined. (People typically start with 1400-3000 nmol/L small LDL particles prior to diet changes and other efforts.) We can only presumptively identify genetically-determined small LDL when all the appropriate efforts have been made, including reduction in weight to ideal, yet small LDL persists.

Here is where we need better tools: when you've done everything possible, yet small LDL persists.

While we break LDL particles (NOT LDL cholesterol, the crude and misleading way of viewing atherosclerosis causation) down by size, it's really about all the undesirable characteristics that accompany small size:

--Distortion of Apo B conformation--i.e., the primary protein that directs LDL particle fate is distorted, making it less likely to be cleared by the liver but more likely to be taken up by inflammatory (macrophages) in the artery wall, creating plaque. It means that small LDL particles linger for a longer time than larger particles.

--Small LDLs are more oxidation-prone. Oxidized LDL are more avidly taken up by inflammatory macrophages.

--Small LDLs are more glycation-prone.

--Small LDLs are more adherent to structural tissues, e.g., glycosaminoglycans, that reside in the artery wall.

You and I cannot measure such phenomena, so we resort to distinguishing LDL particles by size.

The drug industry believes it may have a solution to small LDL in the form of CETP-inhibiting drugs, like anacetrapib. In the way of nutritional solutions beyond carbohydrate reduction, weight loss/exercise, niacin, vitamin D normalization, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, there are exciting but very preliminary data surrounding the possibility that anthocyanins may inhibit CETP activity. Having toyed with this concept for the past 6 months, I remain uncertain how meaningful the effect truly is, but it is harmless, since we obtain anthocyanins from foods colored purple or purplish, such as blackberries, blueberries, cherries, red leaf lettuce, red cabbage, etc.

I welcome any unique observations on this issue.
No-flush niacin kills

No-flush niacin kills

Gwen was miserable and defeated.

No wonder. After a bypass operation failed just 12 months earlier with closure of 3 out of 4 bypass grafts, she has since undergone 9 heart catheterization procedures and received umpteen stents. She presented to me for an opinion on why she had such aggressive coronary disease (despite Lipitor).

No surprise, several new causes of heart disease were identified, including a very severe small LDL pattern: 100% of LDL particles were small.

Given her stormy procedural history, I urged Gwen to immediately drop all processed carbohydrates from her diet, including any food made from wheat or corn starch. (She and her husband were shocked by this, by the way, since she'd been urged repeatedly to increase her whole grains by the hospital dietitians.) I also urged her to begin to lose the 30 lbs of weight that she'd gained following the hospital dietitians' advice. She also added fish oil at a higher-than-usual dose.

I asked her to add niacin, among our most effective agents for reduction of small LDL particles, not to mention reduction of the likelihood of future cardiovascular events.

Although I instructed Gwen on where and how to obtain niacin, she went to a health food store and bought "no-flush niacin," or inositol hexaniacinate. She was curious why she experienced none of the hot flush I told her about.

When she came back to the office some weeks later to review her treatment program, she told me that chest pains had returned. On questioning her about what she had changed specifically, the problem became clear: She'd been taking no-flush niacin, rather than the Slo-Niacin I had recommended.

What is no-flush niacin? It is inositol hexaniacinate, a molecule that indeed carries six niacin molecules attached to an inositol backbone. Unfortunately, it exerts virtually no effect in humans. It is a scam. Though I love nutritional supplements in general, it pains me to know that supplement distributors and health food stores persist in selling this outright scam product that not only fails to exert any of the benefits of real niacin, it also puts people like Gwen in real danger because of its failure to provide the effects she needed.

So, if niacin saves lives, no-flush niacin in effect could kill you. Avoid this scam like the plague.

No-flush niacin does not work. Period.


Disclosure: I have no financial or other relationship with Upsher Smith, the manufacturer of Slo-Niacin.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Comments (18) -

  • Liss

    3/20/2008 2:03:00 AM |

    Dr Davis is there a way to minimize the niacin-induced flush for people with rosacea who have been advised to avoid flushing?  Thank you for making this post.  I've been taking the no-flush niacin not realizing it wasn't effective.

  • Anonymous

    3/20/2008 2:16:00 AM |

    How stressful is it on the liver?  I've taken Niacin for over a year at either 500 mg or 1 gr doses.  As soon as I started with a timed-release formula (another brand), my liver started to show signs of stress.  I went back to regular Niacin and the results were back to normal in two months.  I've been leery of time-release versions since then.

  • Anonymous

    3/20/2008 3:44:00 AM |

    Why is Slo-niacin recommended over Niaspan or Enduracin? Isn't Slo-niacin extended release, which means it takes a long time to clear out of the liver?

    Wouldn't a sustained release (6-7 hr) version, like Enduracin (if going OTC) or Niaspan be better for the liver?

  • Anonymous

    3/20/2008 1:37:00 PM |

    Slo-Niacin is a sustained release version of Niacin very much akin to Enduracin or Niaspan.  Slo-Niacin has a very good track record and a history of medical trial success without causing liver damage.

  • Ross

    3/21/2008 2:19:00 AM |

    You can minimize niacin flushing by being well hydrated, by taking a normal or enteric aspirin 30 minutes before the niacin, by gradually increasing your dose, by spreading your daily dose into three or four daily doses, and simply by having your body get used to the niacin.

    What's nice is that you can combine these strategies, taking aspirin before the niacin for a few weeks and then dropping the aspirin since your body will be more used to it.  

    But really make sure you're well hydrated as that has made the biggest difference for me.

    Oh, and don't panic.  The first time you feel the flush it will be a bit suprising.  But if you respond to it with a kick of adrenalin, it will get worse.  If you instead say, "Ah, there's the niacin." and have another glass of water, it will pass fairly quickly.

  • Dr. William Davis

    3/21/2008 12:21:00 PM |

    Ross--

    Thanks for the comments.

    However, please be aware that spacing your doses of niacin out DRAMATICALLY increases liver toxicity. Once per day, twice per day at most, is what I tell my patients to minimize liver toxicity.

  • Michael

    3/21/2008 6:44:00 PM |

    Thanks for the information regarding slo-niacin. I could have sworn I read somewhere that it was an extended release form (12 hrs or more), but perhaps that site was wrong.

    Is there any advice for people who get side effects from niacin not related to flush? I sometimes notice my heart beating slightly more forcefully after I take niacin. It also seems to make me a little tired after taking it.

    The flush may be minimal to non-existent,  but this side effect still sometimes occurs. I've worn a holter monitor, so it's not producing any dangerous heart beats nor tachycardia, but it's still somewhat annoying.

    Any advice?

  • Anonymous

    3/21/2008 9:58:00 PM |

    Quercetin has been shown to reduce the flushing-effect.

    "Key results:

    Niacin (7.5 mg per rat, equivalent to a human dose of 1750 mg per 80 kg) maximally increased ear temperature to 1.9plusminus0.2 oC at 45 min.

    Quercetin and luteolin (4.3 mg per rat; 1000 mg per human), administered i.p. 45 min prior to niacin, inhibited the niacin effect by 96 and 88%, respectively.

    Aspirin (1.22 mg per rat; 325 mg per human) inhibited the niacin effect by only 30%. Niacin almost doubled plasma PGD2 and 5-HT, but aspirin reduced only PGD2 by 86%.

    In contrast, luteolin inhibited both plasma PGD2 and 5-HT levels by 100 and 67%, respectively."

    http://www.nature.com/bjp/journal/
    vaop/ncurrent/abs/0707668a.html;
    jsessionid=E91B46D4E63909EB
    593744E596A55668

  • mit

    4/29/2008 7:59:00 PM |

    Big Pharma is now trying to capitalize on niacin.

    Apparently, niacin, which is available without prescription for pennies, is more effective than anything else for controlling & improving lipid/blood ratios (and more).

    Statin drugs, even though less effective and more dangerous than niacin, have been the most profitable drugs in history. Big Pharma’s “education” of physicians has, until recently, discouraged the use of niacin for obvious, bottom-line reasons.

    The fact is that niacin’s side-effects are not at all as bad as suggested by Big Pharma. Ask anyone who’s been using niacin to control cholesterol for a few months.

    See www.cholesterolscore.com for many articles and studies on this subject.

  • Ben

    6/23/2008 3:02:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    First, Let me state how happy I am to have found your blog. Niacin has really worked for me.

    Following your posts, I ordered some Slo-Niacin (500 mg). However, I'm concerned that one of the inactive ingredients is hydrogenated vegetable oil. Are you sure it's a good idea to prescribe trans-fat to heart patients?

    Thanks for your feedback.

  • Anonymous

    8/14/2008 2:49:00 AM |

    Inositol Hexanicotinate (no-flush Niacin) has been shown to lower LDL cholesterol and raise HDL by up to 30% in numerous test. Also it's shown to be less liver toxic than regular 'nicotinic acid' Niacin. Standard Niacin has been tied to numerous deaths via liver disease. So this 'article' is quite shocking when 1,000 of other physicians say the opposite. Unless you sell nicotinic acid  Smile

  • Denise

    12/17/2008 4:51:00 AM |

    I just wanted to say that I've been taking Slo-Niacin for almost 9 months now, doctor increased the dosage about 3 months ago, and until today, literally, I had never experienced any noticable side effects, and it's working.  My cholesterol has dropped almost 100 points in the past six months.  

    Today I experienced the flushing, itching, burning, fire-ants-under the skin feeling for the first time, and it was MISERABLE!!!  I have to say, working or not, if I have to go through THAT every night, I won't continue the program.  I already take Motrin and Aspirin at the same time as the Slo-Niacin,  I already drink a full glass of water with it, and I always eat something small as the combination of medications I take makes me nauseous anyway.  I took a Benadryl, which I don't normally take as I get weird side effects from that, too, but I was desperate!!

    Anyone have any idea why I would experience this particular side effect after 9 months of treatment and not earlier in the program???

    Thanks!

  • Anonymous

    3/28/2009 3:03:00 AM |

    I wanted to clarify a few things I've read in various posts.

    First off, Slo-Release Niacin is not akin to Niaspan. Niaspan is actually Extended Release which means that it releases quicker than Slo-Release but slower than Immediate Release Niacin. The point of the ER Niacin is that it releases slowly enough to minimize the flushing (unlike IR) but quickly enough that you don't have to be as concerned with elevated liver toxicity (as with the SR).

    Also a major concern with OTC versions of Niacin is that they're not regulated by the FDA, therefore you could be getting different variations of Niacin with each new pill/bottle.  

    With Niaspan, which I have taken for about a year now, it's the only form of Niacin ER and is actually indication (by the FDA) to promote regression of plaque buildup in the arteries as well as significantly raise your HDL (good cholesterol, or as my doctor refers to it: "happy" cholesterol). Being a patient with a bad family history of stroke and heart attack, I would much rather be on something approved by the FDA and have a little (or even a lot when I first started) flushing. Think of the flushing as your arteries expanding aka you know it's working. I much prefer this over risking a heart attack or some other serious condition - physically, emotionally and financially.

    The way I take it really helped manage the flushing - I always take an aspirin 30 minutes prior and as soon as I hop in bed, I take the Niaspan. That way, if I do experience any flushing I can hopefully just sleep through it. It's also important to remember that the flushing is not a permanent side-effect, it does go away (mine took about a month).

    Happy Flushing!!

  • Anonymous

    11/1/2009 1:03:12 AM |

    In additon to taking the asprin and being well hydrated I reccomend eating some soluable fiber 30 min. before you dose and do not eat foods high in fat.  Niaspan is fat soluable and will disperse more rapidly if you have consumed a high fat content meal.  I am curious as to what dosages people are taking.  I have titrated up to 3 grams per day over six months.

  • Jennifer Lynn

    11/18/2009 11:00:18 PM |

    There are studies on No-Flush niacin.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 2:55:38 PM |

    When she came back to the office some weeks later to review her treatment program, she told me that chest pains had returned. On questioning her about what she had changed specifically, the problem became clear: She'd been taking no-flush niacin, rather than the Slo-Niacin I had recommended.

  • Anonymous

    4/25/2011 4:01:26 AM |

    Doctor Ross:  I & I'm sure there are others too who are dismayed @ the disparity of opinions on 'no-flush' niacin -  This has been used for over thirty-five years in Europe, is there no record of results available there?
    & if no-flush kills, then why is it not banned? Confused as all get out!

  • Patricia Donovan

    10/26/2011 10:19:57 PM |

    Great article.

    I strongly agree with your stance that no-flush niacin is a big scam.
    It is also very logical why 'normal' niacin is that much better than the flush free version:
    When you take in 'normal' niacin, your veins will widen a little,
    enabling all the benefits associated with niacin flushing.
    However, none of this is possible with flush-free niacin.

    My source of this information is http://www.niacinflushsolutions.com

    I also really recommend this website to all people curious about the other benefits
    of niacin flushing.

Loading