Does anyone have any info or experience with Enduracin? Kowalski swears by it in his book and says it really has the least side effects ie. flushing,gastro,liver toxity of any of the niacins..i tried Solgar no-flush (inositol hexanicotinate) 1000mg's for about 5 months and it had no effect on my numbers? he also writes that you can take less enduracin then regular niacin to achieve the same results.... and the less meds you can take and get a result is aways better.. any info would be helpful..thanks
It seems to be an effective niacin agent, but like all sustained effect niacins (wax bound slow release type), the results are quite modest and there is the dreaded flush which may or may not be tolerable on an individual basis and the oft-present questionalble liver effects.
13 patients aged 39 to 60 years with coronary atherosclerosis confirmed at selective coronary angiography combined with primary hyperlipidemia (phenotypes 2a and 2b) received enduracin in a dose 1500 mg/day. As a result of the treatment total cholesterol (TC) and LDL cholesterol lowered by 10.3 and 13.1%, respectively, whereas HDL cholesterol rose by 15.2%. Half of the patients demonstrated activation of hepatic transaminases, but discontinuation of the drug was not necessary. In 3 out of 4 patients after 2 years of enduracin treatment stabilization of atherosclerosis was observed. Thus, long-term enduracin is able to inhibit progression of atherosclerosis in coronary heart disease patients.
Somebody on another board says the flush from 1500 mg enduracin is "no worse than 500 mg. instant release." Well, that would have me in the ER!
It seems to walk the same line that all niacin formulations do. How does it compete on price?
Although I've never used Enduracin, it's most likely a good quality product. I believe it is made by Endurance Products, the same company that I buy a pharmaceutical grade pantethene supplement from. I understand that Enduracin has been used successfully in some clinical trials. Actually, it's also quite affordable. Available in 500mg tablets, a bottle of 200 tablets will run about $20, a bottle of 500 costs about $40, and you can get 1000 for about $70.
Dr William Parsons indicates that the slow release Niacin is about twice as effective as the quick acting so if you take 2000mg of regular niacin it is more or less equivalent to 1000mg of slow release.
I take 1500 mg of brand name SLO-Niacin and cholesterol has dropped from 260 to 210. LDL has dropped from 180 to 130. I will see if he has Enduracin in his book.
isn't slo-niacin's the ones that can be more damaging to the liver or am i thinking of time released niacins? this is so confusing...didnt read Parsons but according to Kowalski's "8week cholestrol cure" book enduracin almost never causes flushing and rarely if EVER causes liver changes when taken in moderate amounts..of course i wasent born yesterday so i take everything with a grain of salt even if it has been on the N.Y Times bestsellers list..i am trying to lower my LDL from 153 to under 130 so i was only going to take 500mg's enduracin to 1000 tops...what do you guys think?
You are right,
Slow Release, Timed Release, Sustained Release, and Long-Acting all mean variants of the same thing and are all more damaging to the liver than Instant Release (IR).
These products all expose the liver for a longer period of a time to an agent that's hard on the liver (niacin).
Personally I think the 500 mg enduracin will only give you a tiny LDL lowering, but everyone behaves differently. It probably won't hurt to give it a run for the money. At least the price is low!
Let me know how severe the "flush" is!
Dr. Parsons says that he actually prefers Enduracin to Slo-Niacin. It is slightly more easily absorbed - 98% versus 88%.
He says that they both work "very well". One of his criteria
was that the SLO-Niacin cost 13.50 / 100 and Enduracin cost 8.99 / 100. He said that is a lot cheaper. I went for convenience.
The form of niacin you use may depend on what you intend to use it for. For example, I have read that time-release (or sustained-release) niacin may be better for lowering LDL, while immediate-release niacin may be best for raising HDL and lowering triglycerides. As for myself, I take the immediate-release niacin.
zip, is niacin harder on and potentially more damaging to the liver than statins? i was going to start taking niacin as a way to possibly avoid statins and their possible side effects and possible liver changes,but i certainly don't want to take something that could do more damage.......................... ........................................ ..................i wasent planning on taking more than a gram of sustained-release but geez, i dont want to find out a few years down the line that i did damage to my liver and i should have just used a stain instead....whats your opinion on this?
All I can offer is an opinion. My opinion is that both are hard on the liver because both act to interfere with the liver's functioning.
Which is worse is probably personal, certainly dose dependent,
Remember that the statins (prescription drug) have to meet a higher standard of safety and efficacy than a supplement like niacin....and also dosage control.
There simply are no controls on the supplement market unless the product is killing people outright.
The one exception is niaspan which has submitted to testing and gained approval....but costs a great deal more than the "health food store" product.
Since the flush is a real killer for me, I've never had to choose.
Anyone taking either should monitor liver function and make sure that you're getting a good lipid profile with the product..
This is free advice and we all know what that is worth. You might want to get a copy of Dr. William Parsons book on cholesterol. You have to special order it, but each page is quite interesting. He mentions the pros and cons of statins vs. niacin. He has been treating patients since 1955 so he has a little experience.