Memodyne Official Website › Articles › Ingredients

Ingredients

Niacin, calcium and the two numbers you can check

By the Memodyne Team at Memoadyne · Published 2026-09-20 · Last updated 2026-09-20 · Reviewed by Dr. Gianna Link, MD, PhD

Two ingredients, two public reference values

Most of what is written about supplement labels is about what you cannot check. This article is about the opposite: the two ingredients on this particular label that do have numbers in public reference tables, what those numbers are, and what they are for.

Niacin and calcium are the two. Neither is what the marketing leads with, and between them they are the only part of this formula a reader can look up in an afternoon.

Niacin: 35 milligrams, and what that limit is

Niacin is vitamin B3. The NIH Office of Dietary Supplements sets a tolerable upper intake level of 35 mg a day for adults from supplements and fortified foods, and that number exists because of one specific, harmless, extremely unpleasant effect: the flush.

The meta-analysis behind the limit pooled 47 studies in 11,741 people and looked at the dose at which adverse effects appear. In healthy adults taking nicotinic acid on its own, the main adverse effects showed up below 1,000 mg a day, and the authors argued that the 35 mg limit is conservative by a wide margin.

A 35 mg upper limit is not a poison threshold. It is the point above which a predictable, visible, self-limiting effect starts to show up in a proportion of people, and it is the kind of number a reference table can honestly publish. The Memodyne panel prints 7.5 mg NE, which is 47 per cent of the Daily Value and about a fifth of that limit.

Why niacin appears on a memory label at all

Because severe niacin deficiency causes pellagra, and confusion is one of its classic signs. That is the thread a Chicago cohort study followed: 3,718 adults aged 65 and over, dietary intake by questionnaire, cognitive testing at three-year intervals over six years. The lowest fifth of niacin intake had the highest rate of incident Alzheimer's disease, with relative risks in the upper quintiles running around 0.3 against the bottom one, and higher food intake tracked with slower cognitive decline.

Two caveats travel with that finding and both matter. It is observational, so it cannot separate niacin from everything else that goes with eating well. And it is about food, not supplements: the exposure was dietary intake measured by questionnaire, not a capsule.

Calcium: a Daily Value, and a literature about bones

Calcium carbonate is the cheapest and most common supplemental form, and about 40 per cent of its weight is elemental calcium. An isotope study in ten postmenopausal women compared fractional absorption from calcium carbonate against milk, chocolate milk, yoghurt, cheese and an imitation milk, all at 250 mg of carrier calcium. Every source landed between 21 and 26 per cent, and none was statistically better than any other.

For outcomes, the reference trial is the Women’s Health Initiative: 36,282 postmenopausal women randomised to 1,000 mg of calcium carbonate with 400 IU of vitamin D or placebo, followed for an average of seven years. Hip bone density was 1.06 per cent higher on treatment. The hazard ratio for hip fracture was 0.88 and did not reach significance. The risk of kidney stones rose, hazard ratio 1.17. The Memodyne panel prints 18 mg, under 2 per cent of that trial’s daily amount, so it is a trace of the mineral rather than a calcium supplement.

The last line is the point of this article: two ingredients with checkable reference values, and a panel that prints both numbers, so the check takes a minute.

The calcium paper a reader will find

Anybody searching calcium and cognition will meet a 2016 Neurology study from Gothenburg, and it deserves to be described accurately rather than either hidden or amplified.

Seven hundred dementia-free women aged 70 to 92 were followed for five years. The 98 taking calcium supplements had a higher rate of dementia, odds ratio 2.10, with a confidence interval running from 1.01 to 4.37. The association was confined to women with cerebrovascular disease on imaging or a history of stroke.

That interval touches 1.01, which means the finding sits on the boundary of conventional significance. It is observational. It is one cohort. It drew three published letters in reply. The authors themselves called for replication. It is neither a reason to panic nor a reason to pretend the paper does not exist, and the honest handling is to print it with its interval attached and let a reader weigh it.

The flush, and why it is worth understanding first

Of everything in this formula, the niacin flush is the only effect a reader is likely to actually notice, and it is worth knowing about before it happens rather than afterwards.

It arrives within about half an hour of a capsule: a warm, red, prickling sensation across the face, neck and chest, sometimes with a headache, settling within an hour. It is caused by nicotinic acid triggering the release of prostaglandins in the skin, it is harmless, and it is the reason a 35 mg upper limit exists at all rather than something more alarming.

Two practical points follow. At 7.5 mg NE a capsule, a flush from this product alone would be surprising; if one appears, look first at any other niacin you take. And the form matters on any B3 label, because nicotinamide does not produce a flush at all.

What the other five rows do not have

Set niacin and calcium beside the five amino acids on this panel and the difference is not about evidence quality. It is about whether a public number exists at all.

Nutrients get reference values because a committee has reviewed the evidence and published an intake. A Daily Value, an upper limit and an average requirement are all consensus numbers, revisable, and printable on a panel. Amino acids sold as supplements have none of that: there is no Daily Value for citrulline, no upper limit for arginine AKG, and no committee has published an intake for either.

That is why the comparison this website makes for the amino acids has to be made against individual trials rather than against a reference table, and why the two nutrients here are the only ones a reader can check without reading a paper. It is also why the panel marks those five rows with a double asterisk, its own sign for a Daily Value that has not been established.

What a reader can actually do with this

1. Look up the two reference pages once: the ODS niacin fact sheet and the ODS calcium fact sheet. Ten minutes, and they are the tables everything else quotes.
2. Add up what you already take: this panel’s 7.5 mg NE of niacin and 18 mg of calcium, plus whatever any other product prints.
3. Notice a flush if it happens. Warm, red, prickling skin within half an hour of a capsule is nicotinic acid, it passes, and at this panel’s amount it points at the other B3 products you take.
4. If you have had a kidney stone, or been told to watch your calcium, the 18 mg here is not the number to worry about; your tablets and your diet are.
5. Read the panel on the bottle when it arrives and check it matches these two numbers.