Guest guest Posted March 12, 2001 Report Share Posted March 12, 2001 , The vast majority of studies (probably around 95%) have shown no benefit of Chromium picolinate supplementation. Also, there is strong evidence to suggest that Chromium picolinate contributes to chromosome damage. Darren London Chromium Supplementation > Chromium May Improve Body Composition > San , TX (June 23, 1998)- Dietary supplementation with chromium > picolinate may lead to significant improvements in body composition in > moderately overweight subjects, according to a study reported in Current > Therapeutic Research. > > The results of new double-blind, placebo controlled clinical study, in which > 122 moderately overweight individuals took chromium picolinate, showed an > average loss of 6.2 pounds of body fat as opposed to only 3.4 pounds in > those individuals in the placebo group. > > The new research, reported in the June issue of Current Therapeutic > Research, reinforces results from an earlier clinical trial and demonstrates > that chromium picolinate supplementation can play an important role in > improving body composition. Body composition is determined by the ratio of > fat-free mass versus the amount of fatty tissue in the body. > > " The data clearly confirm that supplementation with chromium picolinate can > lead to significant improvements in body composition resulting from fat > loss, particularly for individuals who may not be as aggressive in making > lifestyle changes such as reducing caloric intake or increasing their > physical activity, " says Gilbert Kaats, Ph.D., of the Health and Medical > Research Foundation in San , the lead investigator in the study. > > Subjects involved in the study were provided 400 micrograms of chromium > picolinate or placebo daily. Changes in body fat, fat-free mass, and weight > were measured over a 90-day period. The results of the study demonstrated a > statistically significant reduction in body fat (and fat mass) in those > individuals who took chromium picolinate, without losing any valuable lean > body mass. > > The authors noted, " It has been proposed that chromium picolinate's positive > effect on body composition is through its ability to improve insulin > utilization, thereby reducing fat deposition and resulting in improving > entry of glucose and amino acids into muscle cells. Although this study did > not attempt to test this assertion, the findings are consistent with this > hypothesis. " > > Chromium picolinate's ability to improve glucose utilization was also the > subject of presentations and discussion at the recent International > Symposium on the Health Effects of Dietary Chromium sponsored by the Tufts > University School of Medicine, the US Department of Agriculture, and the > Chromium Information Bureau, held in Dedham, Massachusetts. > > During the symposium, which drew leading diabetologists, endocrinologists, > scientists, and dietitians, Dr. Cefalu, MD, of the University of > Vermont, College of Medicine, presented human data supporting the hypothesis > that chromium picolinate has the ability to improve insulin action in > moderately obese non-diabetic subjects. > > " This latest work is important especially since it was conducted among > moderately obese individuals who are at risk of developing type 2 diabetes, " > said Dr. Cefalu. " The clinical implications of this study with regard to the > use of chromium picolinate supplementation in pre-diabetic subjects is > significant, " he concluded. > > Dr. Cefalu is currently conducting a trial using chromium picolinate as a > supplement to oral hypoglycemic agents in individuals with type 2 diabetes. > Other researchers who attended the Symposium are also currently conducting > separate trials in type 2 diabetic patients. > > It is important to note that dietary supplements are not drugs. They are not > intended to treat,diagnose, prevent, cure, or mitigate a disease. Consumers > and patients who are concerned about a particular dietary supplement or > nutrition product should consult with a physician, pharmacist, or dietitian > before self-medicating. > > > " Solamente aquél que contribuye al futuro tiene derecho a juzgar el pasado. " > -Federico Nietzsche > > [Which means: 'Only that which contributes to the future has the right to judge the past.' Mel Siff] > > > > > If volume of daily discussion seems too great, simply change your subscription to receive web mail which you can choose to read at: > > supertraining > > when you are less busy. Modify your subscription here: > > mygroups > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2001 Report Share Posted March 12, 2001 sports can lead to fatigue and damage too. A lot of things out there can damage you, life itself as we get older our cells will damage themselves, we cannot escape that >From: " Darren Freeman " <darrenfreeman@...> >Reply-Supertraining ><Supertraining > >Subject: Re: Chromium Supplementation >Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:29:45 -0000 > >, > >The vast majority of studies (probably around 95%) have shown no benefit of >Chromium picolinate supplementation. Also, there is strong evidence to >suggest that Chromium picolinate contributes to chromosome damage. > >Darren >London > Chromium Supplementation > > > > Chromium May Improve Body Composition > > San , TX (June 23, 1998)- Dietary supplementation with chromium > > picolinate may lead to significant improvements in body composition in > > moderately overweight subjects, according to a study reported in Current > > Therapeutic Research. > > > > The results of new double-blind, placebo controlled clinical study, in >which > > 122 moderately overweight individuals took chromium picolinate, showed >an > > average loss of 6.2 pounds of body fat as opposed to only 3.4 pounds in > > those individuals in the placebo group. > > > > The new research, reported in the June issue of Current Therapeutic > > Research, reinforces results from an earlier clinical trial and >demonstrates > > that chromium picolinate supplementation can play an important role in > > improving body composition. Body composition is determined by the ratio >of > > fat-free mass versus the amount of fatty tissue in the body. > > > > " The data clearly confirm that supplementation with chromium picolinate >can > > lead to significant improvements in body composition resulting from fat > > loss, particularly for individuals who may not be as aggressive in >making > > lifestyle changes such as reducing caloric intake or increasing their > > physical activity, " says Gilbert Kaats, Ph.D., of the Health and Medical > > Research Foundation in San , the lead investigator in the study. > > > > Subjects involved in the study were provided 400 micrograms of chromium > > picolinate or placebo daily. Changes in body fat, fat-free mass, and >weight > > were measured over a 90-day period. The results of the study >demonstrated >a > > statistically significant reduction in body fat (and fat mass) in those > > individuals who took chromium picolinate, without losing any valuable >lean > > body mass. > > > > The authors noted, " It has been proposed that chromium picolinate's >positive > > effect on body composition is through its ability to improve insulin > > utilization, thereby reducing fat deposition and resulting in improving > > entry of glucose and amino acids into muscle cells. Although this study >did > > not attempt to test this assertion, the findings are consistent with >this > > hypothesis. " > > > > Chromium picolinate's ability to improve glucose utilization was also >the > > subject of presentations and discussion at the recent International > > Symposium on the Health Effects of Dietary Chromium sponsored by the >Tufts > > University School of Medicine, the US Department of Agriculture, and the > > Chromium Information Bureau, held in Dedham, Massachusetts. > > > > During the symposium, which drew leading diabetologists, >endocrinologists, > > scientists, and dietitians, Dr. Cefalu, MD, of the University of > > Vermont, College of Medicine, presented human data supporting the >hypothesis > > that chromium picolinate has the ability to improve insulin action in > > moderately obese non-diabetic subjects. > > > > " This latest work is important especially since it was conducted among > > moderately obese individuals who are at risk of developing type 2 >diabetes, " > > said Dr. Cefalu. " The clinical implications of this study with regard to >the > > use of chromium picolinate supplementation in pre-diabetic subjects is > > significant, " he concluded. > > > > Dr. Cefalu is currently conducting a trial using chromium picolinate as >a > > supplement to oral hypoglycemic agents in individuals with type 2 >diabetes. > > Other researchers who attended the Symposium are also currently >conducting > > separate trials in type 2 diabetic patients. > > > > It is important to note that dietary supplements are not drugs. They are >not > > intended to treat,diagnose, prevent, cure, or mitigate a disease. >Consumers > > and patients who are concerned about a particular dietary supplement or > > nutrition product should consult with a physician, pharmacist, or >dietitian > > before self-medicating. > > > > > > " Solamente aquél que contribuye al futuro tiene derecho a juzgar el >pasado. " > > -Federico Nietzsche > > > > [Which means: 'Only that which contributes to the future has the right >to >judge the past.' Mel Siff] > > > > > > > > > > If volume of daily discussion seems too great, simply change your >subscription to receive web mail which you can choose to read at: > > > > supertraining > > > > when you are less busy. Modify your subscription here: > > > > mygroups > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2001 Report Share Posted March 12, 2001 I exercise regularly, and I was progressing with keeping a lean body, and watching my weight. I am taking Chromium Supplementations, and although the results were not drastic, I did notice a change in how It became easier to keep a lean body. I had been trying to loose some extra gut so to speak, and using the same workout on Chromium, I was able to speed up the resluts. So I think that If your interested in taking Chromium that you should forget all the so called experts, cause they don't know whats good for " YOU! " You have to understand that not everybody in the world is out to do good for you. Some so called experts have an agenda, what ever it may be. I think that you should take your body into consideration, and weigh the pro's and cons on your own terms not some so called expert. I have heard a lot of Junk on both sides of the line when it comes to Chromium, and both sides have gone over the edge. The only fact I know is that it has worked for me. So as Far as I'm concerned I will comtinue to take it. If it doesn't work for you, then just stop taking it. The only report of damage to the body that I've heard from Chromium are from the people that over do it. I think the suggested into of Chromium is 400mcg a day, and thats the MAX. I have heard of side effects and permenat damage from people that were taking around a 1000mcg a day. They didn't follow the directions and thats why they are having problems, but the experts don't tell you that, they just say it causes damage. Trust me people, if there's one thing I've learned its to not follow what the Media says. And every expert is not always an expert! No matter what, do your " OWN " research, and if it works for you don't be persuaded by theses so called expert reports, cause the Experts don't know your body! Eagledancer Full Name & City, please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2001 Report Share Posted March 13, 2001 Eagledancer, Can you please point me in the direction of some references regarding chromium picolinate (not reviews). Without the experts that you talk about with so much contempt you would not have any supplements at all. We would know nothing about muscle growth, muscle fatigue, weight loss or any other physiological process. Just because people say what you do not want to hear does not mean we do not have the exercising publics interest at heart. If we were not passionate about the subject of exercise and supplementation do you think we would spend so much time on this forum. Especially when most of us work in physiology departments. Have you ever heard of the placebo effect? Darren Freeman London RE: Chromium Supplementation > I exercise regularly, and I was progressing with keeping a lean body, and > watching my weight. I am taking Chromium Supplementations, and although the > results were not drastic, I did notice a change in how It became easier to > keep a lean body. I had been trying to loose some extra gut so to speak, > and using the same workout on Chromium, I was able to speed up the resluts. > > So I think that If your interested in taking Chromium that you should forget > all the so called experts, cause they don't know whats good for " YOU! " You > have to understand that not everybody in the world is out to do good for > you. Some so called experts have an agenda, what ever it may be. I think > that you should take your body into consideration, and weigh the pro's and > cons on your own terms not some so called expert. I have heard a lot of > Junk on both sides of the line when it comes to Chromium, and both sides > have gone over the edge. The only fact I know is that it has worked for me. > > So as Far as I'm concerned I will comtinue to take it. If it doesn't work > for you, then just stop taking it. The only report of damage to the body > that I've heard from Chromium are from the people that over do it. I think > the suggested into of Chromium is 400mcg a day, and thats the MAX. I have > heard of side effects and permenat damage from people that were taking > around a 1000mcg a day. They didn't follow the directions and thats why > they are having problems, but the experts don't tell you that, they just say > it causes damage. > > Trust me people, if there's one thing I've learned its to > not follow what the Media says. And every expert is not always an expert! > No matter what, do your " OWN " research, and if it works for you don't be > persuaded by theses so called expert reports, cause the Experts don't know > your body! > > > Eagledancer > Full Name & City, please! > > > > > If volume of daily discussion seems too great, simply change your subscription to receive web mail which you can choose to read at: > > supertraining > > when you are less busy. Modify your subscription here: > > mygroups > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2001 Report Share Posted March 13, 2001 Eagledancer wrote, >I exercise regularly, and I was progressing with keeping a lean body, and >watching my weight. I am taking Chromium Supplementations, and although the >results were not drastic, I did notice a change in how It became easier to >keep a lean body. I had been trying to loose some extra gut so to speak, >and using the same workout on Chromium, I was able to speed up the resluts. > >So I think that If your interested in taking Chromium that you should forget >all the so called experts, cause they don't know whats good for " YOU! " You >have to understand that not everybody in the world is out to do good for >you. Some so called experts have an agenda, what ever it may be. I think >that you should take your body into consideration, and weigh the pro's and >cons on your own terms not some so called expert. I have heard a lot of >Junk on both sides of the line when it comes to Chromium, and both sides >have gone over the edge. The only fact I know is that it has worked for me. > >So as Far as I'm concerned I will comtinue to take it. If it doesn't work >for you, then just stop taking it. The only report of damage to the body >that I've heard from Chromium are from the people that over do it. I think >the suggested into of Chromium is 400mcg a day, and thats the MAX. I have >heard of side effects and permenat damage from people that were taking >around a 1000mcg a day. They didn't follow the directions and thats why >they are having problems, but the experts don't tell you that, they just say >it causes damage. > >Trust me people, if there's one thing I've learned its to >not follow what the Media says. And every expert is not always an expert! >No matter what, do your " OWN " research, and if it works for you don't be >persuaded by theses so called expert reports, cause the Experts don't know >your body! You're line of thinking is confusing me a little here, Eagledancer. Perhaps you could expand on these questions. 1. You say you are exercising regularly. How then do you think Chromium is speeding up the results? What percentage of your goal (in terms of losing some 'extra gut') do you attribute to Chromium and what do you attribute to your exercise program? Do you think Chromium is more effective in losing fat tissue and building muscle tissue than a healthy diet? If so, why? 2. You tell us to forget what the 'experts' say regarding Chromium, but at the same time tell us to listen carefully to the experts in regard to dosage. Which is it? If the experts are out to lunch regarding the benefits of Chromium what makes you think the 'other experts' know what they are talking about in regard to dosage? 3. You accuse the experts of an agenda. What is your agenda in showing up out of nowhere and touting the use of Chromium? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2001 Report Share Posted March 13, 2001 When I read something like this it takes me back 10 years when I was reading Muscle & Fiction.. ops.. & Fitness. I think this forum should be more Nietzschean, more Spartan, and throw these aborted concepts over the cliff Partially kidding. Carlo Buzzichelli Siena, Italy / Brooklyn, NY P.S. Did become an eagle dancer? > I exercise regularly, and I was progressing with keeping a lean body, and > watching my weight. I am taking Chromium Supplementations, and although the > results were not drastic, I did notice a change in how It became easier to > keep a lean body. I had been trying to loose some extra gut so to speak, > and using the same workout on Chromium, I was able to speed up the resluts. > > So I think that If your interested in taking Chromium that you should forget > all the so called experts, cause they don't know whats good for " YOU! " You > have to understand that not everybody in the world is out to do good for > you. Some so called experts have an agenda, what ever it may be. I think > that you should take your body into consideration, and weigh the pro's and > cons on your own terms not some so called expert. I have heard a lot of > Junk on both sides of the line when it comes to Chromium, and both sides > have gone over the edge. The only fact I know is that it has worked for me. > > So as Far as I'm concerned I will comtinue to take it. If it doesn't work > for you, then just stop taking it. The only report of damage to the body > that I've heard from Chromium are from the people that over do it. I think > the suggested into of Chromium is 400mcg a day, and thats the MAX. I have > heard of side effects and permenat damage from people that were taking > around a 1000mcg a day. They didn't follow the directions and thats why > they are having problems, but the experts don't tell you that, they just say > it causes damage. > > Trust me people, if there's one thing I've learned its to > not follow what the Media says. And every expert is not always an expert! > No matter what, do your " OWN " research, and if it works for you don't be > persuaded by theses so called expert reports, cause the Experts don't know > your body! > > > Eagledancer > Full Name & City, please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2001 Report Share Posted March 14, 2001 Darren Freeman wrote: < 'Eagledancer', Can you please point me in the direction of some references regarding chromium picolinate (not reviews). Without the experts that you talk about with so much contempt you would not have any supplements at all. We would know nothing about muscle growth, muscle fatigue, weight loss or any other physiological process. Just because people say what you do not want to hear does not mean we do not have the exercising publics interest at heart. If we were not passionate about the subject of exercise and supplementation do you think we would spend so much time on this forum. Especially when most of us work in physiology departments. Have you ever heard of the placebo effect? > Here are some chromium references. None of the clinical studies showed any performance or body composition effects, only significant increases in urinary chromium concentration. , R.A., N.A. Bryden, M.M. Polansky, and P.A. Deuster. Exercise effects on chromium excretion of trained and untrained men consuming a constant diet. J Appl Physiol. 64:249-252, 1988. , R.A. and H.N. Guttman. Trace minerals and exercise. In Exercise, Nutrition, and Energy Metabolism. E.S. Horton and R.L. Terjung (Eds.), New York, NY: Macmillan, 180-195, 1988. , R.A., and A.S. Kozlovsky. Chromium intake, absorption, and excretion of subjects consuming self-selected diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 41:177-183, 1985. Clancy, S.P., P.M. son, M.E. DeCheke, K. Nosaka, P.S. Freedson, J.J. Cunningham, and B. Valentine. Effects of chromium picolinate supplementation on body composition, strength, and urinary chromium loss in football players. Int J Sport Nutr. 4:142-153, 1994. son, P.M. Nutritional ergogenic aids: chromium, exercise, and muscle mass. Int J Sport Nutr. 1:289-293, 1991. , G.W. The effect of chromium picolinate on insulin controlled parameters in humans. Int J Biosocial Med, 11:163-180, , 1989. Hasten, D.L., E.P. Rome, B.D. s, and M. Hegsted. Effects of chromium picolinate on beginning weight training students. Int J Sport Nutr. 2:343-350, 1992. Hallmark, M.A., T.H. Reynolds, C.A. DeSouza, C.O. Dotson, R.A. , and M.A. . Effects of chromium and resistive training on muscle strength and body composition. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 28:139-144, 1996. Lefavi, R.G., R.A. , R.E. , G.D. , J.L. McMillan, and M.H. Stone. Efficacy of chromium supplementation in athletes: emphasis on anabolism. Int J Sport Nutr. 2:111-122, 1992. Lukaski, H.C., W.W. Bolonchuk, W.A. Siders, D.B. Milne. Chromium supplementation and resistance training: effects on body composition, strength, and trace element status of men. Am J Clin Nutr. 63:954-965, 1996. , , J., and Karl E. Friedl, PhD. " Ergogenic Aids: Physiology of Nutritional Supplements: Chromium Picolinate and Vanadyl Sulfate. " National Strength & Conditioning Association Journal 14(3):47-51. Riales, R. and M.J. Albrink. Effect of chromium chloride supplementation on glucose tolerance and serum lipids including high-density lipoprotein of adult men. Am J Clin Nutr. 34:2670-2678, 1981. , L.S., M.G. Bemben, D.A. Bemben, A.W. Knehans. Chromium picolinate effects on body composition and muscular performance in wrestlers. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 30:1730-1737, 1998. E. Powers, PhD, ATC, CSCS Assistant Professor Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences University of Florida office: (352) 392-0584 x332 fax: (352) 392-5262 mpowers@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 Hi folks: More stuff suggesting chromium supplementation does seem to be a good idea. I take 200 mcg once a week in the form of picolinate. fwiw. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl? ACCT=109 & STORY=/www/story/11-11-2004/0002404122 & EDATE http://snipurl.com/amjg Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 Have to note this is a press release by a company selling chromium supplements, though. So taken with the proverbial grain of salt? On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:20:44 -0000, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote: > > > Hi folks: > > More stuff suggesting chromium supplementation does seem to be a good > idea. I take 200 mcg once a week in the form of picolinate. fwiw. > > http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl? > ACCT=109 & STORY=/www/story/11-11-2004/0002404122 & EDATE > > http://snipurl.com/amjg > > Rodney. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 More on this topic: NATURE'S PESTICIDES: MUTAGENICITY AND CARCINOGENICITY " Plants are not just food for animals. . . The world is not green. It is colored lectin, tannin, cyanide, caffeine, aflatoxin, and canavanine " [Janzen (16)]. Dietary Pesticides are 99.99% All Natural. Nature's pesticides are one important subset of natural chemicals. Plants produce toxins to protect themselves against fungi, insects, and animal predators (5,16-23). Tens of thousands of these natural pesticides have been discovered, and every species of plant analyzed contains its own set of perhaps a few dozen toxins. When plants are stressed or damaged, such as during a pest attack, they may greatly increase their natural pesticide levels, occasionally to levels that can be acutely toxic to humans. We estimate that Americans eat about 1.5 g of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than they eat of manmade pesticide residues (see below). As referenced in this paper (see 16-21 and Legends to Table 1, 2) there is a very large literature on natural toxins in plants and their role in plant defenses. The human intake of these toxins varies markedly with diet and would be higher in vegetarians. Our estimate of 1.5 g of natural pesticides per person per day is based on the content of toxins in the major plant foods (e.g. 13 g roasted coffee per person per day contains about 765 mg of chlorogenic acid, neochlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, and caffeine; see (22,23) and Table 2). Phenolics from other plants are estimated to contribute another several hundred mg of toxins. Flavonoids and glucosinolates account for several hundred mg; potato and tomato toxins may contribute another hundred, and saponins from legumes another hundred. Grains such as white flour and white rice contribute very little, but whole wheat, brown rice, corn (maize) may contribute several hundred mg more. The percentage of a plant's weight that is toxin varies, but a few percent of dry weight is a reasonable estimate: e.g. 1.5% of alfalfa sprouts is canavanine and 4% of coffee beans is phenolics. However, the percentage in some plant cultivars is lower, e.g. potatoes and tomatoes. Concentrations of natural pesticides in plants are usually measured in parts per thousand or million (16-23) rather than parts per billion (ppb), the usual concentration of synthetic pesticide residues or of water pollutants (1,24). We estimate that humans ingest roughly 5,000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides and their breakdown products (16-23). For example, Table 1 shows 49 natural pesticides (and metabolites) that are ingested when eating cabbage and indicates how few have been tested for carcinogenicity or clastogenicity. Lima beans contain a completely different array of 23 natural toxins that, in stressed plants, range in concentration from 0.2 to 33 parts per thousand fresh weight; none appears to have been tested yet for carcinogenicity or teratogenicity (19). Many Leguminosae contain canavanine, a toxic arginine analog that, after being eaten by animals, is incorporated into protein in place of arginine. Feeding alfalfa sprouts (1.5 % canavanine dry weight) or canavanine to monkeys causes a lupus erythematosus-like syndrome (44). Lupus in man is characterized by a defect in the immune system that is associated with autoimmunity, antinuclear antibodies, chromosome breaks, and various types of pathology. The toxicity of non-food plants is well known: plants are among the most commonly ingested poisonous substances for children under five. Surprisingly few plant toxins have been tested for carcinogenicity (10-13,45). Among 1052 chemicals tested in at least one species in chronic cancer tests, only 52 are naturally occurring plant pesticides (10-13). Among these, about half (27/52) are carcinogenic. Even though only a tiny proportion of plant toxins in our diet has been tested so far, the 27 natural pesticides that are rodent carcinogens are present in the following foods: anise, apple, apricot, banana, basil, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe, caraway, carrot, cauliflower, celery, cherries, cinnamon, cloves, cocoa, coffee, collard greens, comfrey herb tea, currants, dill, eggplant, endive, fennel, grapefruit juice, grapes, guava, honey, honeydew melon, horseradish, kale, lentils, lettuce, mango, mushrooms, mustard, nutmeg, orange juice, parsley, parsnip, peach, pear, peas, black pepper, pineapple, plum, potato, radish, raspberries, rosemary, sesame seeds, tarragon, tea, tomato, and turnip. Thus, it is probable that almost every fruit and vegetable in the supermarket contains natural plant pesticides that are rodent carcinogens. The levels of these 27 rodent carcinogens in the above plants are commonly thousands of times higher than the levels of manmade pesticides. Table 2 shows a variety of natural pesticides that are rodent carcinogens occurring in the ppm range in plant foods. The catechol-type phenolics such as tannins, and caffeic acid and its esters (chlorogenic and neochlorogenic acids), are more widespread in plant species than other natural pesticides (e.g., Table 1 and 2). It may be that these phenolics have an antimicrobial role analogous to the respiratory burst of oxygen radicals from mammalian phagocytic cells. The phenolics oxidize when a plant is wounded, yielding a burst of mutagenic oxygen radicals, e.g. the browning when an apple is cut. Caution is necessary in interpreting the implications of the occurrence in the diet of natural pesticides that are rodent carcinogens. It is not argued here that these dietary exposures are necessarily of much relevance to human cancer. Indeed, a diet rich in fruit and vegetables is associated with lower cancer rates (86,87). This may be because anticarcinogenic vitamins and antioxidants come from plants (86,87). What is important in our analysis is that exposures to natural rodent carcinogens may cast doubt on the relevance of far lower levels of exposures to synthetic rodent carcinogens. Residues of Manmade Pesticides. A National Research Council report has discussed the regulation of synthetic pesticides that are rodent carcinogens, but ignored natural pesticides (88). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has assayed food for 200 chemicals including the manmade pesticide residues thought to be of greatest importance and the residues of some industrial chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (24). FDA found residues for 105 of these chemicals: the U.S. intake of the sum of these 105 chemicals averages about 0.09 mg per person per day, which we compare to 1.5 g of natural pesticides (i.e. 99.99% natural). Other analyses of synthetic pesticide residues are similar (90). About half (0.04 mg) of this daily intake of synthetic pesticides is composed of 4 chemicals (24) that were not carcinogenic in rodent tests: ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate, chlorpropham, malathion, and dicloran (10,89). Thus, the intake of rodent carcinogens from synthetic residues is only about 0.05 mg a day (averaging about 0.06 ppm in plant food) even if one assumes that all the other residues are carcinogenic in rodents (which is unlikely). Cooking food. The cooking of food is also a major dietary source of potential rodent carcinogens. Cooking produces about 2 g per person per day of mostly untested burnt material that contains many rodent carcinogens, e.g. polycyclic hydrocarbons (81,91) heterocyclic amines (92,93), furfural (22,23), nitrosamines and nitroaromatics (1,94), as well as a plethora of mutagens (91-95). Thus, the number and amounts of carcinogenic (or total) manmade pesticide residues appear to be minimal compared to the background of naturally-occurring chemicals in the diet. Roasted coffee, for example, is known to contain 826 volatile chemicals (22); 21 have been tested chronically and 16 are rodent carcinogens (10-13); caffeic acid, a non-volatile rodent carcinogen, is also present (Table 2). A typical cup of coffee contains at least 10 mg (40 ppm) of rodent carcinogens (mostly caffeic acid, catechol, furfural, hydroquinone, and hydrogen peroxide)(Table 2). The evidence on coffee and human health has been recently reviewed, and the evidence to date is not sufficient to show that coffee is a risk factor for cancer in humans (81,86). The same caution about the implications for humans of rodent carcinogens in the diet that were discussed above for nature's pesticides apply to coffee and the products of cooked food. Clastogenicity and Mutagenicity Studies. Results from in vitro studies also indicate that the natural world should not be ignored and that positive results are commonly observed in high-dose protocols. For example, Ishidate et al. (26) reviewed experiments on the clastogenicity (ability to break chromosomes) of 951 chemicals in mammalian cell cultures. Of these 951 chemicals, we identified 72 as natural plant pesticides: 35 (48%) were positive for clastogenicity in at least one test. This is similar to the results for the remaining chemicals, of which 467/879 (53%) were positive in at least one test. Of particular interest are the levels at which some of the carcinogenic plant toxins in Table 2 were clastogenic (26) a) Allyl isothiocyanate was clastogenic at a concentration of 0.0005 ppm, which is about 200,000 times less than the concentration of sinigrin, its glucosinolate, in cabbage. Allyl isothiocyanate was among the most potent chemicals in the compendium (26), and is also effective at unusually low levels in transforming (96) and mutating animal cells (30). (See also the discussion of cancer tests in Table 1.) Safrole was clastogenic at a concentration of about 100 ppm, which is 30 times less than the concentration in nutmeg, and roughly equal to the concentration in black pepper. The rodent carcinogens safrole and estragole, and a number of other related dietary natural pesticides that have not been tested in animal cancer tests, have been shown to produce DNA adducts in mice (97). c) Caffeic acid was clastogenic at a concentration of 260 and 500 ppm, which is less than its concentration in roasted coffee beans and close to its concentration in apples, lettuce, endive, and potato skin. Chlorogenic acid, a precursor of caffeic acid, was clastogenic at a concentration of 150 ppm, which is 100 times less than its concentration in roasted coffee beans and similar to its concentration in apples, pears, plums, peaches, cherries and apricots. Chlorogenic acid and its metabolite caffeic acid are also mutagens (Table 1). The genotoxic activity of coffee to mammalian cells has been demonstrated (98). The carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of many plant pesticides have been recently reviewed (45): 5- and 8-methoxypsoralen are light activated mutagens (17); benzyl acetate and ethyl acrylate mutate mouse lymphoma cells (30). Plant phenolics such as caffeic acid, chlorogenic acid, and tannins (esters of gallic acid) have been reviewed for their mutagenicity and anti-mutagenicity, clastogenicity, and carcinogenicity (99). ACKNOWLEDGMENT We are indebted to R. Peto, N. B. Manley, T. H. Slone, C. Wehr, R. Beier, L. W. Wattenberg, R. Hall, T. Jukes, G. R. Fenwick, J. Caldwell, J. Duke, C. VanEtten, D. Freedman, R. Prokopy, and N. Ito. This work was supported by National Cancer Institute Outstanding Investigator Grant CA39910, by National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Center Grant ES01896; Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098: Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of Health and Environmental Research, Division of the U.S. Department of Energy. We dedicate this paper to the memory of Havender. Original Source: NIEHS Center for Environmental Health Sciences at the University of California, Bereley http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/mutagen/ames.PNASII.html On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:23:31 -0500, Dowling <christopher.a.dowling@...> wrote: > Have to note this is a press release by a company selling chromium > supplements, though. So taken with the proverbial grain of salt? > > > > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:20:44 -0000, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote: > > > > > > Hi folks: > > > > More stuff suggesting chromium supplementation does seem to be a good > > idea. I take 200 mcg once a week in the form of picolinate. fwiw. > > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl? > > ACCT=109 & STORY=/www/story/11-11-2004/0002404122 & EDATE > > > > http://snipurl.com/amjg > > > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 Hi : Thanks for noting that. I was assuming that the quotes and sources mentioned in that piece were accurate. But I did not check that they were, and it would have been better to go to the original source. ty. Rodney. > Have to note this is a press release by a company selling chromium > supplements, though. So taken with the proverbial grain of salt? > > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:20:44 -0000, Rodney <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > > > > > > Hi folks: > > > > More stuff suggesting chromium supplementation does seem to be a good > > idea. I take 200 mcg once a week in the form of picolinate. fwiw. > > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl? > > ACCT=109 & STORY=/www/story/11-11-2004/0002404122 & EDATE > > > > http://snipurl.com/amjg > > > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 Hi folks: This appears to be the original study on which that press release was based. It is on Pubmed, but there is no abstract available. Not yet at least. It is dated November 2004. " Role of chromium in human health and in diabetes. Cefalu WT, Hu FB. Division of NutritionChronic Disease, The Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, 6400 Perkins Rd., Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA. cefaluwt@... PMID: 15505017 [PubMed - in process] " Rodney. > Have to note this is a press release by a company selling chromium > supplements, though. So taken with the proverbial grain of salt? > > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:20:44 -0000, Rodney <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > > > > > > Hi folks: > > > > More stuff suggesting chromium supplementation does seem to be a good > > idea. I take 200 mcg once a week in the form of picolinate. fwiw. > > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl? > > ACCT=109 & STORY=/www/story/11-11-2004/0002404122 & EDATE > > > > http://snipurl.com/amjg > > > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 Something I found regarding chromium, coffee, and other " wonder " foods: Med Hypotheses. 2005;64(1):151-8. Related Articles, Links Nutraceutical resources for diabetes prevention - an update. McCarty MF. NutriGuard Research, 1051 Hermes Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024, USA. There is considerable need for safe agents that can reduce risk for diabetes in at-risk subjects. Although certain drugs - including metformin, acarbose, and orlistat - have shown diabetes-preventive activity in large randomized studies, nutraceuticals have potential in this regard as well. Natural agents which slow carbohydrate absorption may mimic the protective effect of acarbose; these include: soluble fiber - most notably glucomannan; chlorogenic acid - likely responsible for reduction in diabetes risk associated with heavy coffee intake; and legume-derived alpha-amylase inhibitors. There does not appear to be a natural lipase inhibitor functionally equivalent to orlistat, although there are poorly documented claims for Cassia nomame extracts. Metformin's efficacy reflects activation of AMP-activated kinase; there is preliminary evidence that certain compounds in barley malt have similar activity, without the side effects associated with metformin. In supraphysiological concentrations, biotin directly activates soluble guanylate cyclase; this implies that, at some sufficient intake, biotin should exert effects on beta cells, the liver, and skeletal muscle that favor good glucose tolerance and maintenance of effective beta cell function. Good magnesium status is associated with reduced diabetes risk and superior insulin sensitivity in recent epidemiology; ample intakes of chromium picolinate appear to promote insulin sensitivity in many individuals and improve glycemic control in some diabetics; calcium/vitamin D may help preserve insulin sensitivity by preventing secondary hyperparathyroidism. Although conjugated linoleic acid - like thiazolidinediones, a PPAR-gamma agonist - has not aided insulin sensitivity in clinical trials, the natural rexinoid phytanic acid exerts thiazolidinedione-like effect in animals and cell cultures, and merits clinical examination. Other natural agents with the potential to treat and possibly prevent diabetes include extracts of bitter melon and of cinnamon. Nutraceuticals featuring meaningful doses of combinations of these agents would likely have substantial diabetes-preventive efficacy, and presumably could be marketed legally as aids to good glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity. PMID: 15533633 [PubMed - in process] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:26:03 -0000, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote: > > > Hi folks: > > This appears to be the original study on which that press release was > based. It is on Pubmed, but there is no abstract available. Not yet > at least. It is dated November 2004. > > " Role of chromium in human health and in diabetes. > > Cefalu WT, Hu FB. > > Division of NutritionChronic Disease, The Pennington Biomedical > Research Center, Louisiana State University, 6400 Perkins Rd., Baton > Rouge, LA 70808, USA. cefaluwt@... > > PMID: 15505017 [PubMed - in process] " > > > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks: > > > > > > More stuff suggesting chromium supplementation does seem to be a > good > > > idea. I take 200 mcg once a week in the form of picolinate. > fwiw. > > > > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl? > > > ACCT=109 & STORY=/www/story/11-11-2004/0002404122 & EDATE > > > > > > http://snipurl.com/amjg > > > > > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 Some info on the backing of the study: http://www.nutriguard.com/companyinfo.htm On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:07:09 -0500, Dowling <christopher.a.dowling@...> wrote: > Something I found regarding chromium, coffee, and other " wonder " foods: > > Med Hypotheses. 2005;64(1):151-8. Related Articles, Links > > Nutraceutical resources for diabetes prevention - an update. > > McCarty MF. > > NutriGuard Research, 1051 Hermes Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024, USA. > > There is considerable need for safe agents that can reduce risk for > diabetes in at-risk subjects. Although certain drugs - including > metformin, acarbose, and orlistat - have shown diabetes-preventive > activity in large randomized studies, nutraceuticals have potential in > this regard as well. Natural agents which slow carbohydrate absorption > may mimic the protective effect of acarbose; these include: soluble > fiber - most notably glucomannan; chlorogenic acid - likely > responsible for reduction in diabetes risk associated with heavy > coffee intake; and legume-derived alpha-amylase inhibitors. There does > not appear to be a natural lipase inhibitor functionally equivalent to > orlistat, although there are poorly documented claims for Cassia > nomame extracts. Metformin's efficacy reflects activation of > AMP-activated kinase; there is preliminary evidence that certain > compounds in barley malt have similar activity, without the side > effects associated with metformin. In supraphysiological > concentrations, biotin directly activates soluble guanylate cyclase; > this implies that, at some sufficient intake, biotin should exert > effects on beta cells, the liver, and skeletal muscle that favor good > glucose tolerance and maintenance of effective beta cell function. > Good magnesium status is associated with reduced diabetes risk and > superior insulin sensitivity in recent epidemiology; ample intakes of > chromium picolinate appear to promote insulin sensitivity in many > individuals and improve glycemic control in some diabetics; > calcium/vitamin D may help preserve insulin sensitivity by preventing > secondary hyperparathyroidism. Although conjugated linoleic acid - > like thiazolidinediones, a PPAR-gamma agonist - has not aided insulin > sensitivity in clinical trials, the natural rexinoid phytanic acid > exerts thiazolidinedione-like effect in animals and cell cultures, and > merits clinical examination. Other natural agents with the potential > to treat and possibly prevent diabetes include extracts of bitter > melon and of cinnamon. Nutraceuticals featuring meaningful doses of > combinations of these agents would likely have substantial > diabetes-preventive efficacy, and presumably could be marketed legally > as aids to good glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity. > > PMID: 15533633 [PubMed - in process] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:26:03 -0000, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote: > > > > > > Hi folks: > > > > This appears to be the original study on which that press release was > > based. It is on Pubmed, but there is no abstract available. Not yet > > at least. It is dated November 2004. > > > > " Role of chromium in human health and in diabetes. > > > > Cefalu WT, Hu FB. > > > > Division of NutritionChronic Disease, The Pennington Biomedical > > Research Center, Louisiana State University, 6400 Perkins Rd., Baton > > Rouge, LA 70808, USA. cefaluwt@... > > > > PMID: 15505017 [PubMed - in process] " > > > > > > > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks: > > > > > > > > More stuff suggesting chromium supplementation does seem to be a > > good > > > > idea. I take 200 mcg once a week in the form of picolinate. > > fwiw. > > > > > > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl? > > > > ACCT=109 & STORY=/www/story/11-11-2004/0002404122 & EDATE > > > > > > > > http://snipurl.com/amjg > > > > > > > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 Perhaps a more objective study of chromium?: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000 May;55(5):M260-3. Related Articles, Links Effects of chromium picolinate supplementation on insulin sensitivity, serum lipids, and body composition in healthy, nonobese, older men and women. Amato P, Morales AJ, Yen SS. Department of Reproductive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla 92093-0633, USA. pamato@... BACKGROUND: Chromium is an essential nutrient required for carbohydrate and lipid metabolism. Chromium supplementation in humans has been reported to improve glucose metabolism and improve serum lipid parameters and to reduce body fat; parameters that worsen with aging. As a result, chromium picolinate has been widely promoted as a health aid for the general population. The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of chromium supplementation on insulin sensitivity, serum lipids, and body composition in nonobese, healthy men and women of advanced age. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 19 subjects (9 men and 10 women), aged 63-77, were given either chromium picolinate, 1,000 microg/d, or a placebo for 8 weeks. Serum lipids were measured at baseline and 8 weeks. Insulin sensitivity and body composition were measured with the minimal-model intravenous glucose tolerance test and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan, respectively, at baseline and after 8 weeks of chromium or placebo supplementation. RESULTS: No significant change in serum lipids, insulin sensitivity, or body composition was observed in the chromium group compared with the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Chromium picolinate supplementation alone does not appear to improve insulin sensitivity, serum lipids, or change body composition in nonobese, healthy men and women of advanced age. Publication Types: Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial PMID: 10819315 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:09:37 -0500, Dowling <christopher.a.dowling@...> wrote: > Some info on the backing of the study: > > http://www.nutriguard.com/companyinfo.htm > > > > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:07:09 -0500, Dowling > <christopher.a.dowling@...> wrote: > > Something I found regarding chromium, coffee, and other " wonder " foods: > > > > Med Hypotheses. 2005;64(1):151-8. Related Articles, Links > > > > Nutraceutical resources for diabetes prevention - an update. > > > > McCarty MF. > > > > NutriGuard Research, 1051 Hermes Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024, USA. > > > > There is considerable need for safe agents that can reduce risk for > > diabetes in at-risk subjects. Although certain drugs - including > > metformin, acarbose, and orlistat - have shown diabetes-preventive > > activity in large randomized studies, nutraceuticals have potential in > > this regard as well. Natural agents which slow carbohydrate absorption > > may mimic the protective effect of acarbose; these include: soluble > > fiber - most notably glucomannan; chlorogenic acid - likely > > responsible for reduction in diabetes risk associated with heavy > > coffee intake; and legume-derived alpha-amylase inhibitors. There does > > not appear to be a natural lipase inhibitor functionally equivalent to > > orlistat, although there are poorly documented claims for Cassia > > nomame extracts. Metformin's efficacy reflects activation of > > AMP-activated kinase; there is preliminary evidence that certain > > compounds in barley malt have similar activity, without the side > > effects associated with metformin. In supraphysiological > > concentrations, biotin directly activates soluble guanylate cyclase; > > this implies that, at some sufficient intake, biotin should exert > > effects on beta cells, the liver, and skeletal muscle that favor good > > glucose tolerance and maintenance of effective beta cell function. > > Good magnesium status is associated with reduced diabetes risk and > > superior insulin sensitivity in recent epidemiology; ample intakes of > > chromium picolinate appear to promote insulin sensitivity in many > > individuals and improve glycemic control in some diabetics; > > calcium/vitamin D may help preserve insulin sensitivity by preventing > > secondary hyperparathyroidism. Although conjugated linoleic acid - > > like thiazolidinediones, a PPAR-gamma agonist - has not aided insulin > > sensitivity in clinical trials, the natural rexinoid phytanic acid > > exerts thiazolidinedione-like effect in animals and cell cultures, and > > merits clinical examination. Other natural agents with the potential > > to treat and possibly prevent diabetes include extracts of bitter > > melon and of cinnamon. Nutraceuticals featuring meaningful doses of > > combinations of these agents would likely have substantial > > diabetes-preventive efficacy, and presumably could be marketed legally > > as aids to good glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity. > > > > PMID: 15533633 [PubMed - in process] > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:26:03 -0000, Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi folks: > > > > > > This appears to be the original study on which that press release was > > > based. It is on Pubmed, but there is no abstract available. Not yet > > > at least. It is dated November 2004. > > > > > > " Role of chromium in human health and in diabetes. > > > > > > Cefalu WT, Hu FB. > > > > > > Division of NutritionChronic Disease, The Pennington Biomedical > > > Research Center, Louisiana State University, 6400 Perkins Rd., Baton > > > Rouge, LA 70808, USA. cefaluwt@... > > > > > > PMID: 15505017 [PubMed - in process] " > > > > > > > > > > > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks: > > > > > > > > > > More stuff suggesting chromium supplementation does seem to be a > > > good > > > > > idea. I take 200 mcg once a week in the form of picolinate. > > > fwiw. > > > > > > > > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl? > > > > > ACCT=109 & STORY=/www/story/11-11-2004/0002404122 & EDATE > > > > > > > > > > http://snipurl.com/amjg > > > > > > > > > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 Hi folks: Just to be clear about the reason I take a once weekly chromium supplement (a reason which quite possibly may apply only to me) ............. I DO **NOT** take it because of a need to improve lipids data or insulin sensitivity (nor from a belief that it may do those things) nor to help lose weight, or for any other specific health reason. As I believe I have posted here previously, I take it because many years ago a friend I trust who acquired type I diabetes at age ~50 told me chromium was an essential nutrient and there was some evidence suggesting it might help the way the body releases energy in cells. So, interested in nutrition, I bought some and took 200 mcg once a week. Almost immediately I thought I noticed a small improvement in brain function. So I continued taking it. Then one day, perhaps it was a Tuesday, I was having a day when I had trouble getting my brain around some silly programming problem, and for some reason I asked myself " did I take my chromium this week? " Then I realized I hadn't. Since then I have gotten in the habit of asking myself if I have taken my chromium if I seem to be having more difficulty than I ought to with some brain 'puzzle' of some kind. This same phenomenon now seems to have recurred enough times over the past (ten?) years that I have become persuaded that a very small weekly chromium supplement does make a difference to my performance. Of course it could be argued that I am imagining it, or that it is just psychosomatic. But there seem to be a couple of problems with that. If it is psychosomatic then I wonder why have I never found any other type of supplement to make ANY perceptible difference to my performance? Certainly I would have liked them to have. Also, if it is psychosomatic, it would be logical that my feeling of underperformance should happen only AFTER I realize I had not taken the supplement. But it is the other way around. But even if we suppose it were to be shown that my perceptions are psychosomatic, why would I complain about the benefit I see? I would happily take a placebo if I believed it would provide perceptible benefits. None of this indicates others will see similar benefits. It may be that I have a greater than average need for chromium. It may be that my body is unusually inefficient in the way it absorbs, or uses, chromium. But as long as I think I see benefit and no evidence from studies of harm, even in large doses, I am likely to continue taking a small amount each week. So I take it because I have come to the (perhaps mistaken) conclusion that it is noticeably beneficial. In consequence I am not especially interested in whether some medically measurable benefit may accrue from taking it. But I am very interested in any studies having relevance to the SAFETY of chromium - especially chromium picolinate. My understanding is that within the past year tests using large daily doses have shown no evidence of harm. I think I posted about it here, perhaps ~five months ago? All fwiw, just for clarification. Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks: > > > > > > > > > > > > More stuff suggesting chromium supplementation does seem to be a > > > > good > > > > > > idea. I take 200 mcg once a week in the form of picolinate. > > > > fwiw. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl? > > > > > > ACCT=109 & STORY=/www/story/11-11-2004/0002404122 & EDATE > > > > > > > > > > > > http://snipurl.com/amjg > > > > > > > > > > > > Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2004 Report Share Posted November 15, 2004 >>> From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> Date: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:10 pm Subject: Re: Chromium Supplementation ....interested in nutrition, I bought some and took 200 mcg once a week. Almost immediately I thought I noticed a small improvement in brain function. So I continued taking it. Then one day, perhaps it was a Tuesday, I was having a day when I had trouble getting my brain around some silly programming problem, and for some reason I asked myself " did I take my chromium this week? " Then I realized I hadn't. Since then I have gotten in the habit of asking myself if I have taken my chromium if I seem to be having more difficulty than I ought to with some brain 'puzzle' of some kind. >>> It is sometimes hard to determine the benefit of supplements or the harm of medicines. I stopped taking cough drops with dextromethorphan after an incident in which my mind was very clear when coding a computer program and, immediately after taking the cough drop, I could not organize my thoughts. Similarly, I do not take acetaminophen (Tylenol) because it affects my sense of smell. Of the many supplements that I have tried over the years there are only two for which I have actually felt or seen some benefit: multivitamin pills, and MSM (methyl sulfonylmethane) which is a dietary sulfur supplement. The vitamins make me feel more energetic, and shortly after I started MSM supplementation my hair started growing more vigorously. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.