Talk:Chromium(III) picolinate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Care advised[edit]

Inorganic and bioinorganic chemists would be absolutely delighted by some good evidence for a biological role for Cr, but such evidence is lacking. Of course, it is always possible that some ultra-trace amounts influence human health or dont really bother us. Furthermore, if such extremely small amounts are healthy, it is likely that humans ingest sufficient Cr without trying. Against this backdrop exists a thriving mineral supplements industry that strives to convince the population that chromium picolinate is a good thing to buy and ingest. Some producers also fund research demonstrating efficacy, supposedly. But these reports can be affected by serious conflicts of interest between the researchers and the manufacturers.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Positive findings
PMID 16873787 found an improvement in weight control in diabetics taking sulfonylurea
PMID 18715218 saw no significant effect on weight loss (P = 0.08) but saw significant effects on reduced food intake (P < 0.0001), hunger levels (P < 0.05), and fat cravings (P < 0.0001).
Negative findings
PMID 17291720 saw no effect on weight loss in people fed a calorie-controlled diet.
PMID 10819315 saw no effect on insulin sensitivity, serum lipids, or body composition in elderly people
PMID 8776075 saw no effect on body fat or weight loss in people losing weight through exercise.
PMID 11506057 saw no effect on body composition in people losing weight through exercise.
So the balance of evidence is that CrPi is ineffective in producing weight loss. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nutshell summary[edit]

I inserted a nutshell summary on the health effects section. As User:Jevansen reminded readers, nutshells are usually reserved for Wikipolicy discussions, but my suggestion is that nutshells could be useful in articles where a lot of complicated jargon is reviewed, but all the jargon points to the same general conclusion. (Ideally, the script for the nutshell could be revised, I agree. It should read "This section in a nutshell" vs "This page in a nutshell: "). My sense is that just because this signage is mainly used by bureaucrats is no reason that it cannot be useful for content. Debate and discussion welcome! But I recommend that we keep it until we hear cogent comments against its use.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your addition to the article due to WP:POV and WP:NDA concerns. Template:Nutshell isn't meant for the article namespace. I feel that this addition isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. The statement and its wording appears biased. The statement also appears in a relatively large and highly visible template that would divert any reader's attention from the rest of the section's material. It should also be noted that there shouldn't be disclaimers in articles. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. The reason that I resisted (or at least reverted) is encapsulated by your approach "isn't meant for the article namespace." (Dear child, some things just aren't meant to be, sorry.). And the implication that because the statement describes a stance that it is non-NPOV. This ultra-bland approach could be described as a tortured form of wiki-speak, an avoidance POV in the name of a non-existent NPOV. Oh well, it was an experiment, and I figured it would be slapped down.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uneven presentation[edit]

The health claims are presented very differently in the atypical depression article. These should probably be more similiar. Persephone12 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The natural form of chromium from yeast is better, cheaper, and not patented. Its omission is NPOV ad copy[edit]

Some reference needs be made in this article to Glucose Tolerance Factor (GTF) chromium. There is a large advertising-like bias in favor of the commercial picolinate product by the complete omission of GTF.

The natural form of chromium from yeast (GTF chromium) is has better-established health effects, and is cheaper. GTF chromium is not patented, because it cannot be - it's a natural substance. Chromium Picolinate was an attempt to profit by patenting an analogue to the beneficial GTF chromium, and it was heavily promoted based on very thin research, and without mention of GTF chromium. I believe the FDA finally cracked down on the claims.

Glucose tolerance factor (GTF) in Wikipedia redirects to Chromium deficiency, which lays out the threadbare claims for picolinate without ever directly mentioning Glucose Tolerance Factor chromium.

Chromium picolinate is the most commonly used synthetic supplement. However, recent studies "have concluded that such supplements have no demonstrated effects on healthy individuals."[6] A meta-analysis in 2002 found no effect on blood glucose or insulin in healthy people, and the data were inconclusive for diabetics.[11] Subsequent trials gave mixed results, with one finding no effect in people with impaired glucose tolerance,[12] but another seeing a small improvement in glucose resistance.[13] In a 2007 review of these and other clinical trials it was again concluded that chromium supplements had no beneficial effect on healthy people, but that there might be an improvement in glucose metabolism in diabetics, although the authors stated that the evidence for this effect remains weak.[14]

A 2003 pilot trial of 15 patients suggested that chromium picolinate might have antidepressant effects in atypical depression.[15] A larger trial in 2005 set up to test this finding found no effect on depression in its test group, but suggested that the use of chromium supplementation could help to reduce carbohydrate cravings and regulate appetite in these patients.[16] A post-hoc analysis of a subpopulation of patients in this study that experienced high carbohydrate cravings suggested that these patients experienced significant improvements in their depression compared to those treated with a placebo.

This supplement is purported to correct imbalances in glucose metabolism due to chromium deficiency, even though the occurrence of such a deficiency is extremely rare in countries where the supplement is sold. The mechanism by which this complex enters the cells in the body differs from that for the introduction of trivalent chromium found naturally in food does, and for this reason the safety of this supplement is debatable, since chromium is toxic at high levels.[17]

Although it is controversial if supplements should be taken by healthy adults eating a normal diet,[2] chromium is needed as a component of the defined liquid diet that is given to patients receiving total parenteral nutrition (TPN), since deficiency can occur after many months of this highly restricted diet.[9] As a result chromium is added to normal TPN solutions,[18] although the trace amounts from even in supposedly "chromium free" preparations may be enough to prevent deficiency in some individuals.[19] Indeed, a 1992 paper in The Lancet suggested that adding chromium to feeding solutions given to children produces excessive levels of this metal in their bodies.[20]

It is not clear if you are making a recommendation or what about these articles. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to the theme of this article. I would expect more time and energy spent identifying WHAT chromium picolinate actually is. If shots are to be fired regarding its efficacy one would expect that in a later paragraph vs. opening sentences. The credibility of the current article is in question -and must be discounted as biased until this is modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akirakhan (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chromium picolinate not the healthiest chromium compound - PMID 12656641[edit]

Chromium picolinate called "amazingly popular" but not the healthiest choice:

Vincent JB.

The potential value and toxicity of chromium picolinate as a nutritional supplement, weight loss agent and muscle development agent.

Sports Med. 2003;33(3):213-30.

However, over a decade of human studies with Cr(pic)(3) indicate that the supplement has not demonstrated effects on the body composition of healthy individuals, even when taken in combination with an exercise training programme. Recent cell culture and in vivo rat studies have indicated that Cr(pic)(3) probably generates oxidative damage of DNA and lipids and is mutagenic, although the significance of these results on humans taking the supplement for prolonged periods of time is unknown and should be a focus for future investigations. Given that in vitro studies suggest that other forms of chromium used as nutritional supplements, such as chromium chloride, are unlikely to be susceptible to generating this type of oxidative damage, the use of these compounds, rather than Cr(pic)(3), would appear warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chromium picolinate mutagenic breakdown products[edit]

Chromium picolinate is long-lasting in the body, and can be altered to forms that create free radical damage.


Speetjens JK, Collins RA, Vincent JB, Woski SA.

The nutritional supplement chromium (III) tris(picolinate) cleaves DNA.

Chem Res Toxicol 1999;12:483–7

PMID 10368310

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx9900167

Abstract

'Chromium(III) tris(picolinate) [Cr(pic)3] is currently a very popular nutritional supplement; however, its safety has recently been questioned, especially with regard to its ability to act as a clastogen. At physiologically relevant concentrations, Cr(pic)3 is reduced by biological reductants, including ascorbate and thiols, to Cr(II)-containing species. These species are susceptible to air oxidation, resulting in the catalytic generation of the potent DNA-damaging agent hydroxyl radical.' In the absence of reductants, H2O2 can interact with Cr(pic)3 to produce hydroxyl radicals by a second, less efficient mechanism. Cr(pic)3 is extremely stable, which allows the complex to be readily absorbed but also to potentially be incorporated into cells intact. In this form, Cr(pic)3 is primed by its redox potential to enter into the generation of hydroxyl radicals. This study suggests that investigation of the long-term effects of supplementation of the diet with Cr(pic)3 are needed to assess the safety of this material.

I have added the studies that have suggested that it is a clastogen. It's grouped under the heading "safety". If there is a good secondary source for it, that would be welcomed.Bioinorganicstudent (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible expansion of the article[edit]

Hi, I am planning to expand this article within a couple of days as a homework assignment and it would be good if the article is of good quality. Although I may be adding in a lot of information, it would be good to have any expert advice and what parts should be requested/added/improve on to avoid adding in any info that may be controversial. Thanks. Bioinorganicstudent (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carcinogenic oxidation[edit]

Unincorporated research:

Wu LE, Levina A, Harris HH, Cai Z, Lai B, Vogt S, James DE, Lay PA (2015). "Carcinogenic Chromium(VI) Compounds Formed by Intracellular Oxidation of Chromium(III) Dietary Supplements by Adipocytes". Angewandte Chemie (International Ed. in English). doi:10.1002/anie.201509065. PMID 26696553. Retrieved 2016-01-12. These results strongly support the hypothesis that the antidiabetic activity of CrIII and the carcinogenicity of CrVI compounds arise from similar mechanisms involving highly reactive CrVI and CrV intermediates, and highlight concerns over the safety of CrIII nutritional supplements.

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chromium(III) picolinate/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
There is something fundamentally wrong with this website, or at least its description of chromium picolinate. We keep trying to update the site with the latest studies, but someone keeps changing it back to outdated and flawed material. The truth is that chromium picolinate is safe and effective, as evidenced by a number of important studies that have published in the last few years. In fact, the Institute of Medicine, the FDA and the Food Standards Agency in the UK have recently confirmed chromium picolinate safety. However, competitors that make chromium supplements and detractors in the pharmaceutical realm keep bringing up bad studies (most of which come from scientists employed by these competitors). If you look at the real data, it is clear that chromium picolinate is safe, and has helped many, many thousands of people in need.

My question is, what good is a site like Wikipedia if anyone for any reason can go in and distort the truth?

Pdomenico 17:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no expertise in this subject but I'd like to point out that there seems to be two mutually contradictory statements in the opening section of the article. 

 Sentence #3 states:  Small quantities of chromium are needed for glucose utilization by insulin in normal health, but deficiency is extremely rare  
                                 and has only been observed in hospital patients on long-term defined diets.[1]
 Sentence #4 states:  No biochemical basis for the human body's need for chromium has been identified.[2]
Perhaps there is a technical distinction between "...needed for glucose utilization..." and "No biochemical basis...". But in the absense of such the two assertions appear to contradict each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.185.191 (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 11:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chromium(III) picolinate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content[edit]

Deleted content based on in vitro and animal research. And individual human trials. Goal is content citing reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. David notMD (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes[edit]

the word Diabetes appears 21 times in this article that is way to many it should be limited to about 10 I think you can cover the information without using the word "Diabetes" so many times

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chromium(III)_picolinate&oldid=1195531511"