Is it worth taking niacin as a pre-workout and if so how much? I dont really care about flushes, however I am rather skeptical about its supposed benefits.
>>74115810a good liquid b complex plus caffeine and glucose would be better
>>74115810"Pre-workout" supps are a fucking meme designed to sell you more shit. Have a cup of black coffee.
>>74115810It's probably worth taking just for the protection against atherosclerosis alone. I should probably start, my dad was fit as a fiddle and ate clean and still needed bypass surgery in his 50s.
A lot of over the counter B3 is niacinamide, which will actually inhibit your sirtuin genes from working correctly. Enjoy your accelerated aging.
>>74116382What's the good form?
>>74116382What i have is listed as Nicotinic acid and not niacinamide.
>>74116316atherosclerosis is pretty much primarily caused by ApoB which is increased by eating cholesterol and certain types of saturated fat. While there are other risk factors, if you lower your LDL enough you essentially can't even develop plaques. This happens once you get below 70mg/dl Meaning, it doesn't matter how healthy you are. It's like ingesting small amounts of mercury regularly over time. Exercising and eating kale won't do anything to prevent the mercury poisoningMost of western society has LDL levels that are conducive to developing atherosclerosis hence why heart disease is the #1 killer in the US. This is because if you eat remotely fatty meat a few times a day on a regular basis that's all that is required to elevate your LDL, and once you do this for 30 years straight and hit your 50s often times you've unknowingly been building up severe plaque and may only find out from a "surprise" heart attack. It's also the case that getting your LDL low enough is sometimes not genetically possible for some people, though I've no idea how common that is. In those cases it may actually not be a bad idea to take statins for preventative purposes.
>>74117282Hilarious anon, here's you (you). In the .00001% chance you're 1) not shitposting, and 2) willing to hear counter-evidence, here are some links. Even if you disregard this maybe some other anon can learn something.1) An article from an extremist far-right journal called Nature, see pic for why I want you to look at thishttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38461-y 2) A video describing said article https://youtu.be/eZ-x5PRkSxI?si=m5KRlyXUeyPx0AZW3) Understanding LDLhttps://youtu.be/rymCw1ED5tk?si=jVYQfW9Wd_aGiPDP4) The Cholesterol Conundrum- the most important thing to watch, but also the longest so I'm putting it last because people have short attention spanshttps://youtu.be/fuj6nxCDBZ0?si=2VWazHm8r1br9fvK
>>74115810niacinamide 10mg
>>74117282https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27292972/
>>74117373The U curve effect isn’t anything new. It’s been replicated over and over and is generally attributed to the fact that people who have chronic illness (cancer, liver disease, etc) also tend to have lower cholesterol. Cancer for example directly causes low cholesterol. The authors of the study in Denmark that find the same relationship say this specifically in the conclusion. Here’s a digestible video for you explaining this effect: https://youtu.be/CxX51n2Z0vc?si=ct5UhJNefTou0_zxThis is a common error people make when trying to interpret observational data. Usually counter intuitive findings like this have some hidden context that the media isn’t good at communicating. Dietetics research is full of complex issues like this hence why it’s such a controversial topic online Also, I’m not watching that youtube vid you sent me because mechanistic talk is mostly just theoretical masturbation and doesn’t matter much outside of forming hypotheses in nutrition research. No offense. The dudes channel is extremely sus and has tons of weird clickbait so I have to assume he’s a grifter or midwit
>>74117536>ApoB
>>74117373Here are 4 randomized controlled studies including a meta of 26 studies that remove the U Curve effect present due to confounders in your observational studies. They directly lower cholesterol and find lower all cause mortality and unlike the observational studies these ones are controlled, hence the lack of U Curve, and hence why we can make claims of causality using themhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199610033351401https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61350-5/fulltexthttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109719349319https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199610033351401You should really go watch that youtube vid I linked. Gil is great and you will learn a ton about nutrition research if you keep up with his content
>>74117373and just to add a cherry on top, here's a letter written by the authors of the Denmark observational study directly addressing people (such as yourself) that use their research to argue against LDL lowering treatments>We are saddened to learn that Drs. Verdonk and van Lennep already experienced mischievous misuse of our observational study by those who mistrust the causal association between LDL cholesterol and risk for cardiovascular disease in general and the favorable effects of cholesterol-lowering therapy in particular>full letter: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4266/rr-4
