Talk:Chromium deficiency

message: The whole "glucose tolerance factor" thing seems to have been abandoned as a serious line of enquiry many years ago. Why are we still giving it so much weight? This was the subject of an edit war in diabetes mellitus a while ago. JFW | T@lk 07:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The

message: The article assumes that a biological role for Cr is established, when in fact the so-called problem of chromium deficiency is probably a construct of the marketers of nutritional supplements.  Biochemically, the topic appears to be either unimportant and flimsy, based on the lack of references.  I cant find much on  beneficial bio-Cr either.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My guess: this is fringe science

message: Does anyone have information on Chromium Chelate? Have there been studies upon this form in particular? 68.121.171.33 (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Meta-analyses show that chromium not effective in controlling LDL-cholesterol. David notMD (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Information

message: Some reference needs be made in this article to Glucose Tolerance Factor (GTF) chromium.  The natural form of chromium from yeast is better, cheaper, and not patented.  There is a large NPOV 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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stress on the commercial patented picolinate and omission of the natural GTF is NPOV ad copy.  

message: McCarty MF.
The therapeutic potential of glucose tolerance factor.
Med Hypotheses. 1980 Nov;6(11):1177-89.
Abstract
Glucose Tolerance Factor (GTF) is synthesized in vivo from absorbed dietary chromium, and acts as a physiological enhancer of insulin activity, binding to insulin and potentiating its action about three-fold. Since GTF is well absorbed orally, the development of sufficiently concentrated and stable supplementary sources of this agent may enable convenient and physiologically appropriate pharmacological modulation of insulin activity. A review of the numerous physiological actions of insulin suggests a number of therapeutic applications for GTF, in such diverse ailments as diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, reactive hypoglycemia, obesity, cancer, protein malnutrition or malabsorption, endogenous depression, Parkinsonism, hypertension and cardiac arrhythmias. GTF supplementation may also have value in preventive medicine.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The therapeutic potential of glucose tolerance factor.  {{PMID|7005627}}  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chromium deficiency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207123911/http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/reviewofchrome.pdf to http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/reviewofchrome.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chromium deficiency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110707224221/http://www.berkeleywellness.com/html/ds/dsChromium.php to http://www.berkeleywellness.com/html/ds/dsChromium.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Attempting to edit toward a neutral point of view, as there was some chromium bashing in the article. Touchy topic, as EFSA (European Union) denies chromium is an essential nutrient, but U.S. says it is, and even approved a Qualified Health Claim. A topic not yet adequately addressed in the article is whether chromium as a supplement helps manage glucose in people with type 2 diabetes. Also not addressed are the weight loss claims. 
I am declaring a COI on the supplementation topic, as I am a science consultant to dietary supplement companies that make and sell chromium-containing products. None of my clients have asked me to edit about chromium, and in fact, none of them are not aware that I am a Wikipedia editor. I am not editing on any client's (unknowing) behalf. Regardless, if I compose text and citations about chromium as a supplement for people with diabetes, and/or any role in weight management, I will create it as a section here in Talk, for others to review and decide whether it belongs in the article. An important question - which article? Supplementation at 200 to 500 micrograms per day in people who are not chromium deficient may be more appropriate in the chromium article, biological role section, than here in Chromium deficiency. David notMD (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For what its worth and with respect, my advice would be to tap into your expertise to remove or challenge only egregious material, if any, add a superb source or two and then back off.  There is the COI issue.  If animal studies show no benefit, why not leave such material?--Smokefoot (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Vis-a-vis diabetes, there are more than 50 clinical trials cited in seven meta-analyses (see  page 459 for list of trials and meta-analyses) so I see no need to dilly-dally with animal-based evidence. As a preview of where this is going, modest decreases in hemoglobin A1C and/or fasting blood glucose are either statistically significant or not, depending on which meta-analysis. The authors' point from that 2016 article is that few of the trials reported decreases large enough to be considered clinically relevant, i.e., large enough to expect to make a difference in disease outcome. And the trials in the main were not long enough to report changes in disease outcome. Finally, it needs to be stated that all (?) of these trials were with people who had been and continued to be treated with prescription medications for their diagnosed diabetes, so there is an absence of evidence for chromium having any efficacy as a first or only treatment, an alternative to drugs. David notMD (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing toward NPOV 

message: What follows is a proposed replacement for the existing supplementation section. My own understanding of the evidence is that chromium as a supplement, consumed by people who have type 2 diabetes and are not thought to be chromium deficient, results in statistically significant but modest decreased in FPG and HbA1C that may not be large enough to have a significant impact on clinical outcome. What is missing from the literature are trials that are long and large enough to test whether standard medical treatment plus chromium was superior to standard medical treatment alone. Weight loss is a second purported benefit that supplement companies claim. Here again, there appears to be a measurable but very, very modest effect. Because of my declared consultant involvement in the supplement industry I leave to other editors whether any of the proposed content should be added to the article (and whether it belongs in the chromium deficiency article, or the chromium article, or both). David notMD (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like this is much more of an expansion than a replacement.  In any event, I didn't have any concerns with policy/guideline compliance after reading through the content below, so . Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed replacement for Supplementation section