Daily Mail article about lp(a)/Niacin/Vit. C

[Lone Dog]

FYI, this was in today's Daily Mail (UK newspaper). Their health section normally toes the line of orthodoxy, so this was refreshing to see, if perhaps old hat to forum members.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... ttack.html

[Lemonaid]

Researchers recently found that bad cholesterol has a twin called lipoprotein(a), which can also raise your risk of heart disease.

Let's see... now which researcher would that be... could it be Linus Pauling???

[godsilove]

If the Foundation ever decides to apply for another grant from the NIH, I really think they should aim towards establishing whether vitamin C lowers Lp(a), and the optimal dosage for this.

[ofonorow]

If the Foundation ever decides to apply for another grant from the NIH, I really think they should aim towards establishing whether vitamin C lowers Lp(a), and the optimal dosage for this.

This echos the sentiment of Warren Levin, and others. but I wouldn't expect it to, at least in the short term. (There is already established research that was cited by the cholesterol lab Atherotech many years ago that showed both vitamin C and Niacin are known to lower Lp(a) 30%.)

It has been repeatedly shown in guinea pigs that you can prevent apo(a) (Lp(a)) from increasing by keeping vitamin C adequate, and that Lp(a) will rise when vitamin C is deficient in these animals. However, I do not believe I have seen a study in guinea pigs that show that Lp(a) will diminish after it has been elevated. (Now the Reversibility paper by Willis from the 50s implies that Lp(a) was probably lowered, but again, we don't know much about that particular effect.) Anecdotally, my old friend, the medical school professor from New York saw his Lp(a) drop 30% in 3 months on vitamin C and lysine. It only went to zero after adding proline, but he waited 14 months for that measurement.

So Lp(a) would definitely be among the objective measures, but I would hate to call the study a "failure" if we ever get a shot merely because Lp(a) wasn't lowered.