The storied past of Red Yeast Rice

[dinoiii]

An interesting question was asked back on the night of March 5, 2006 after the release of PCT: ACV III and 1/2 (yes, I put them all in archives; you'd never believe how they're organized) me in an overnight email regarding Red Yeast Rice that I felt actually needed addressing here.




Q: Hey dinoiii, I thought that HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors like statin drugs were actually the best option in prevention of high cholesterol - in fact, contributing to a DECEASED MORTALITY in these kind of patients. Would not something like Red Yeast Rice be superior to niacin in our battle against cholesterol that is associated with cycle use.

A: I actually think this to be a good question because the mortality data is simply not there for other items (niacin being one) in the battle against cholesterol value changes - that is a great point. One of the reasons I have actually sided myself against Red Yeast Rice (and I cannot stress this point enough) is due to the changes specific to a predominance of cycles (i.e. - decreased HDL) as well as side effect profiles and the ability to guarantee actual standardization.

Red Yeast Rice has an interesting history. Its actually a product of yeast (Monascus purpureus) grown on rice and serves as a dietary staple in some Asian countries. It contains several compounds as I said in parts II and III known as "monocolins," substances known to inhibit cholesterol synthesis. It is one of these, monocolin K, that has gained all the attention in the matter you describe - because it is a very potent inhibitor of HMG-CoA reductase and is the very same thing known as a common statin drug - lovastatin (Mevacor) - but this is where the problem begins.

Red Yeast Rice Extract (RYRE) has been sold as a natural cholesterol-lowering agent in over-the-counter supplements such as Cholestin. However, there has been legal and industrial dispute as to whether RYR is a drug or dietary supplement, involving the manufacturer of Cholestin (Pharmanex, Inc.), the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry (particularly makers of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors/statins). It has actually been quite comical yet coninued interest by those such as myself because it is a battle that actually had more implication on differences between the supplement industry and pharmaceutics than the ole prohormone and ephedra wars of today as many are concerned of supplements as an industry holding any viability.

We have to trace back to the 1970s to see where human studies reporting Red Yeast Rice lowers blood cholesterol levels, LDL ("bad" cholesterol) and triglycerides. The pharmaceutic industry responded by bringing to market Mevacor and it was years later and then low and behold government/FDA obviously favors in support of the drug company - which did IN NO WAY own the novelty of such a compound like this.

In March 2001, a U.S. District Court ruled that the RYRE product Cholestin contains the same chemical as the prescription med. HUH? This is obviously a chicken and egg argument and the government wins - long-live democracy! How can a company like Pharmanex respond? They have since reformulated their product with different ingredients (still marketing under the same name - cholestin), such as policosanol [according to their website, they have NO more RYR in the product in fact, but this is a simple claim which may have lent some credibility to policosanol efficacy - but that latter part is just an assumption]. Other products claim RYRE, however, these products may NOT be standardized and I can bet you if makers of Mevacor thought they did - the attacks would be the same.

The side effects with this product CANNOT be judged appropriately by the average RYRE taker I am afraid and when bodybuilders engage in taking it, the liver side effects are too high (namely in the realm of C17 alkylated products) and it would be hard to judge Rhabdomyolysis when - if you are in the process of coming off of increasing poundages with DOMS playing a direct role - early outward signs of this potentially deadly side effect simply can be hidden. I STRONGLY SUGGEST AGAINST ITS USE IN THE GREATER SENSE OF THE PRODUCT VERSUS ANY POTENTIAL OR MORBIDITY/MORTALITY POTENTIAL. It may contribute just as easy to higher morbidity/mortality as it may alter it. As far as I am concerned - the niacin (no-flush protocol) I have initroduced in parts II and III rules.



D_