42 replies to this topic

[Zaul]

I'm not a big fan of taking niacin on a daily basis and in doses above a gram, for many reasons, one of them is the increase of plasma uric acid levels which i have personal experience. 500mg per day for just a few months send my UA levels to the upper limit, so be aware if you're at risk for gout.

 

https://sci-hub.tw/h...matology/kew293

 

 

Edited by Nigeria Custom Officer, 17 June 2020 - 12:08 PM.

[pamojja]

.. for many reasons, one of them is the increase of plasma uric acid levels which i have personal experience.

 

Even with about 3 g/d of niacin-intake now for almost 11 years, my uric acid never increase (~4.7 mg/dl for all these years). Only thing which raises it for me is a little inosine.

 

We are all different. Therefore monitoring regular lab-work is always advised. Especially with high-dose niacin.

 

 

By the way, I don't know why, but all your sci-hub.tw links in this thread never reach the site (always timeout).
 

Edited by pamojja, 17 June 2020 - 01:13 PM.

[Zaul]

 

By the way, I don't know why, but all your sci-hub.tw links in this thread never reach the site (always timeout).
 

 

 

Just tried my sci-hub links from this and other threads with three different browsers and they all open fine. i don't know, maybe it's something on your end.

Edited by Nigeria Custom Officer, 17 June 2020 - 01:33 PM.

[JimWoodall]

Slow release isn't recommended, since it is harsher to the liver. I started with 150mg and every few days increased by ~50mg. And in short time was at 3 gram. Actually take 6g niacin every second day, to spare my liver even further. Rarely experience a very mild flush only. 500mg increases would been overwhelmingly be too much me.

Thanks that was what I thought, I just could not imagine what taking that much at once would be like. I’m only taking 100.  Going to start upping it a bit.  Thanks 

[Harkijn]

Just tried my sci-hub links from this and other threads with three different browsers and they all open fine. i don't know, maybe it's something on your end.

Just a reminder here that sci-hub is illegal and that you make Longecity vulnerable to claims. If by any means you have found a source that is not open access you can protect Longecity by uploading it yourself.

[Zaul]

Just a reminder here that sci-hub is illegal and that you make Longecity vulnerable to claims. If by any means you have found a source that is not open access you can protect Longecity by uploading it yourself.

 

That's up to the mods of this place to decide if merely linking to sci-hub is illegal or not, not you. They are free to give me a warning or even ban me and since they haven't done that so far i'll keep posting articles through sci-hub.

[Harkijn]

That's up to the mods of this place to decide if merely linking to sci-hub is illegal or not, not you. They are free to give me a warning or even ban me and since they haven't done that so far i'll keep posting articles through sci-hub.

I was just trying to help. Sorry if I offended you. It is not up to me to decide what's illegal about this and I have not said so. Nor can the mods decide the illegal status of certain actions. Not so many mods around here, actually....

Edited by Harkijn, 18 June 2020 - 03:35 PM.

[Zaul]

I was just trying to help. Sorry if I offended you. It is not up to me to decide what's illegal about this and I have not said so. Nor can the mods decide the illegal status of certain actions. Not so many mods around here, actually....

 

No need to say sorry, and you didn't offend me at all, i was the one with the uppity response.

Point taken. for the sake of forum harmony and peace from now on i'll upload the articles myself instead of linking directly to sci-hub.

[SearchHorizon]

Looking at papers on tissue NAD+ levels - I don't know if attempting to raise tissue NAD+ level is important at all. It seems like NAD+ levels in tissue is regulated (clamped). Can anyone verify this? If so, then we want plasma NAD+ level to be restored, not tissue-specific level. Also, the age-dependent NAD+ decrease is measured in plasma, I believe. Can anyone double check?

[osris]

Remember both NAM and Niacin increases glucose.

 

Yes but only with long term use:

 

"According to the information I found, there is evidence suggesting that long-term niacin treatment can induce insulin resistance. Studies have shown that while niacin initially decreases the plasma concentration of free fatty acids, it can lead to a normalization of plasma nonesterified fatty acid (NEFA) levels and induce insulin resistance over time [2][3]. The underlying mechanisms for this effect are not yet fully understood. It is important to note that these studies focused on the long-term effects of niacin treatment and not the short-term or acute effects.

 

Additionally, it is worth mentioning that niacin can cause hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) and abnormal glucose tolerance, as well as glycosuria (sugar loss in the urine) [5]. Therefore, individuals taking niacin, especially in high doses, may need to monitor their blood glucose levels more closely and adjust their diabetes medications if necessary." (chatGPT)

[osris]

Niacin is a better NAD+ precursor than Nicotinamide. But niacin can cause insulin resistance. NR/NMN does not cause insulin resistance and have much better anti aging effects.

 

As an aside, but related, in a study I heard about, people were given 500 mg of niacin daily for the initial week and then increased to 1000 mg daily for the second week. The findings revealed that niacin diminished insulin sensitivity compared to the placebo, indicating that the body's response to insulin was less effective. However, intriguingly, despite this decline in insulin sensitivity, blood sugar levels remained consistent when compared to the placebo group.

[osris]

Sorry if I state the obvious but in case you missed it: NA raised in NAD in patients with low NAD. NA did nothing in the healthy control group. I quote:

 

In the healthy subjects, niacin did not increase muscle NAD+ , despite the 5-fold increase in the blood. These results suggest that in healthy muscle the NAD+ amounts are close to the homeostatic maximum.

 

But who really is ever fully healthy? 

[osris]

How is increasing blood NAD+ levels beneficial? What is that supposed to do?

 

I´m more interested in tissue levels of NAD+, not whole blood levels.

 

Because NAD+ is a molecule that exists intracellularly, meaning it's found within the cells rather than in the extracellular space or bloodstream. So anything aimed at increasing NAD+ levels often target cellular pathways.