• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

chromium


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 148
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2009 - 02:41 AM


anyone have any input on forms? the two most well researched i know of are chromemate polynicotinate and chromium 454... right now im leaning towards chromium 454

#2 Holysmoke

  • Guest
  • 23 posts
  • 0

Posted 05 November 2009 - 03:21 AM

anyone have any input on forms? the two most well researched i know of are chromemate polynicotinate and chromium 454... right now im leaning towards chromium 454


I lean to 454 as well. Hard to find however. I use jarrow chromium yeast now. I read that plynicotinate is Chromium picolinate is chromium III processed with picolinic acid. Picolinic acid is used in herbicides.

Not sure if that is true or not.

#3 ajnast4r

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 148
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2009 - 03:38 AM

I read that plynicotinate is Chromium picolinate is chromium III processed with picolinic acid. Picolinic acid is used in herbicides.

Not sure if that is true or not.


polynicotinate is just chromium and niacin

Posted Image

#4 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 05 November 2009 - 03:43 AM

There seems to be only one, likely manufacturer sponsored, rat study on chromium 454. The manufacturer also mentions a cell studie which is less interesting. No human studies. Also, it is a brewer's yeast extract. Brewer's yeast contains a lot of things that may have unclear and unknown metabolic effects and thus I think should be avoided in a basic multi.
http://scholar.googl...="chromium 454"

Another alternative to the by far most researched chromium picolinate is chromium niacinate:
http://www.sciencedi...14e5b1ecb65a890
http://www.lieberton...9/ars.2007.1577

Edited by Blue, 05 November 2009 - 03:47 AM.


#5 shazam

  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 05 November 2009 - 09:01 AM

Man, futureceuticals with all it's shady research... first with fructoborate, next with Chromium 454... and it showed such promise, too. I dunno though... still worth looking into. I mean, it IS a pretty new product.

Another form I hear of is Chromium Chevalite (possibly called chromium dinicotinate glycinate), though this does not seem to have a hell of a lot of research backing it up, or have alot of info on it, either.

Man, I kinda WANT 454 to be the real deal. Well, unless it's super expensive. Then I want it to be powdered smarties made in china for the purpose of keeping this multi cheap ;P

#6 ajnast4r

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 148
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2009 - 06:51 PM

There seems to be only one, likely manufacturer sponsored, rat study on chromium 454. The manufacturer also mentions a cell studie which is less interesting. No human studies. Also, it is a brewer's yeast extract. Brewer's yeast contains a lot of things that may have unclear and unknown metabolic effects and thus I think should be avoided in a basic multi.
http://scholar.googl...="chromium 454"

Another alternative to the by far most researched chromium picolinate is chromium niacinate:
http://www.sciencedi...14e5b1ecb65a890
http://www.lieberton...9/ars.2007.1577



i could have sworn i saw human studies on 454, but i guess i was wrong... i currently use chrome-mate brand polynicotinate (niacinate) so i wouldnt mind seeing that end up in the final product. chrome-mate brand claims a proprietary oxygen coordination process that gives their niacinate a higher biological activity than standard niacinate.

#7 shazam

  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 24 November 2009 - 04:10 AM

Any new info?

#8 ajnast4r

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 148
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 24 November 2009 - 05:19 AM

http://www.sciencedi...d236b1c1eff1dcc

Comparing metabolic effects of six different commercial trivalent chromium compounds.

Preuss HG, Echard B, Perricone NV, Bagchi D, Yasmin T, Stohs SJ.

Georgetown University Medical Center, Department of Physiology, Washington, DC 20057, United States. preusshg@georgetown.edu

Recent reports provide cogent evidence that the average individual becomes chromium deficient with age. Unfortunately, chromium deficiency is strongly associated with many aspects of the Metabolic Syndrome, including insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Since replacement of chromium, per os, often ameliorates many deleterious manifestations associated with insulin resistance and diabetes, it is not surprising that many different, commercial trivalent chromium compounds are available on the market. However, previous reports have shown that the form of trivalent chromium (negative charges) can influence effectiveness markedly. We compared various commercial forms of trivalent chromium commonly used alone or in formulations, to examine whether they are equally effective and non-toxic. In the first study, five different chromium products were examined - citrate, amino acid chelate (AAC), chelavite, polynicotinate (NBC), and nicotinate. In the second study, effects of NBC and picolinate were assessed. Results demonstrated that only chelavite and NBC improved insulin sensitivity, and only NBC decreased systolic blood pressure (SBP) significantly. In the second study, both picolinate and NBC significantly decreased SBP compared to control. NBC and picolinate decreased malonyldialdehyde concentrations (free radical formation) and DNA fragmentation in hepatic and renal tissues. No evidence of adverse effects was noted with any of the compounds tested. In conclusion, while all the trivalent chromium compounds tested seem safe, only three enhanced insulin sensitivity (NBC, chelavite, and picolinate) and only two decreased SBP significantly (NBC and picolinate). Furthermore, both NBC and picolinate were protective in lessening free radical formation and DNA damage in the liver and kidneys.


Edited by ajnast4r, 24 November 2009 - 05:23 AM.


#9 shazam

  • Guest
  • 197 posts
  • 0

Posted 24 November 2009 - 08:55 AM

Chromemate it is, then!

#10 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 24 November 2009 - 11:22 AM

http://www.sciencedi...d236b1c1eff1dcc

Comparing metabolic effects of six different commercial trivalent chromium compounds.

Preuss HG, Echard B, Perricone NV, Bagchi D, Yasmin T, Stohs SJ.

Georgetown University Medical Center, Department of Physiology, Washington, DC 20057, United States. preusshg@georgetown.edu

Recent reports provide cogent evidence that the average individual becomes chromium deficient with age. Unfortunately, chromium deficiency is strongly associated with many aspects of the Metabolic Syndrome, including insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Since replacement of chromium, per os, often ameliorates many deleterious manifestations associated with insulin resistance and diabetes, it is not surprising that many different, commercial trivalent chromium compounds are available on the market. However, previous reports have shown that the form of trivalent chromium (negative charges) can influence effectiveness markedly. We compared various commercial forms of trivalent chromium commonly used alone or in formulations, to examine whether they are equally effective and non-toxic. In the first study, five different chromium products were examined - citrate, amino acid chelate (AAC), chelavite, polynicotinate (NBC), and nicotinate. In the second study, effects of NBC and picolinate were assessed. Results demonstrated that only chelavite and NBC improved insulin sensitivity, and only NBC decreased systolic blood pressure (SBP) significantly. In the second study, both picolinate and NBC significantly decreased SBP compared to control. NBC and picolinate decreased malonyldialdehyde concentrations (free radical formation) and DNA fragmentation in hepatic and renal tissues. No evidence of adverse effects was noted with any of the compounds tested. In conclusion, while all the trivalent chromium compounds tested seem safe, only three enhanced insulin sensitivity (NBC, chelavite, and picolinate) and only two decreased SBP significantly (NBC and picolinate). Furthermore, both NBC and picolinate were protective in lessening free radical formation and DNA damage in the liver and kidneys.

Interesting. Not stated clearly but probably an animal study. But I thought that polynicotinate and nicotinate was the same? At least Chromemate claims that.
http://www.interheal...chromemate.aspx

Picolinate and polynicotinate/nicotinate? would seem to be the main contenders. It should be noted that most research, and especially human research, have used picolinate. Searching Google Scholar for the past 5 years for "chromium picolinate" gives 1350 articles. The same for "chromium polynicotinate " OR "chromium nicotinate" gives 267. Polynicotinate is also patented while picolinate is not. Considering what seems to be many more animal studies on toxicity and many more human placebo controlled studies I think picolinate is likely preferred.

#11 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 24 November 2009 - 12:20 PM

There are some animal studies (as cited earlier above) and at least one human study suggesting that polynicotinate may be better.

"Chromium supplementation may affect various risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD) and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM), including body weight and composition, basal plasma hormone and substrate levels, and response to an oral glucose load. This study examined the effects of chromium supplementation (400 micrograms.d-1), with or without exercise training, on these risk factors in young, obese women. Chromium picolinate supplementation resulted in significant weight gain in this population, while exercise training combined with chromium nicotinate supplementation resulted in significant weight loss and lowered the insulin response to an oral glucose load. We conclude that high levels of chromium picolinate supplementation are contraindicated for weight loss in young, obese women. Moreover, our results suggest that exercise training combined with chromium nicotinate supplementation may be more beneficial than exercise training alone for modification of certain CAD and NIDDM risk factors."
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/9268955

This is a strange result since other studies find that picolinate if anything slightly reduces weight. Anyhow, patented vs. nonpatented substance studies should be viewed with some scepticism due to the possible influence of the manufacturer of the patented substance.

Reviews on human studies find picolinate more effective or no difference:
http://www.lieberton.../dia.2006.8.677
http://care.diabetes.../30/8/2154.full

Edited by Blue, 24 November 2009 - 12:21 PM.


#12 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 24 November 2009 - 12:40 PM

There are some human studies finding effects from combining high-dose chromium picolinate and biotin if having type II diabetes.

"BACKGROUND: Chromium and biotin play essential roles in regulating carbohydrate metabolism. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the combination of chromium picolinate and biotin on glycaemic control. METHODS: Four hundred and forty-seven subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA(1c) > or = 7.0%) were enrolled and received either chromium picolinate (600 microg Cr(+3)) with biotin (2 mg), or matching placebo, for 90 days in combination with stable oral anti-diabetic agents (OADs). Major endpoints were reductions in HbA(1c), fasting glucose, and lipids. Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Change in HbA(1c) was significantly different between treatment groups (p = 0.03). HbA(1c) in the chromium picolinate/biotin group decreased 0.54%. The decrease in HbA(1c) was most pronounced in chromium picolinate/biotin subjects whose baseline HbA(1c) > or = 10%, and highly significant when compared with placebo (-1.76% vs - 0.68%; p = 0.005). Fasting glucose levels were reduced in the entire chromium picolinate/biotin group versus placebo (-9.8 mg/dL vs 0.7 mg/dL; p = 0.02). Reductions in fasting glucose were also most marked in those subjects whose baseline HbA(1c) > or = 10.0%, and significant when compared to placebo (-35.8 mg/dL vs. 16.2 mg/dL; p = 0.01). Treatment was well tolerated with no adverse effects dissimilar from placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the chromium picolinate/biotin combination, administered as an adjuvant to current prescription anti-diabetic medication, can improve glycaemic control in overweight to obese individuals with type 2 diabetes; especially those patients with poor glycaemic control on oral therapy."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17506119

BACKGROUND: The atherogenic index of plasma (AIP), defined as logarithm [log] of the ratio of plasma concentration of triglycerides to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, has recently been proposed as a predictive marker for plasma atherogenicity and is positively correlated with cardiovascular disease risk. The nutrient combination of chromium picolinate and biotin (CPB) has been previously shown to reduce insulin resistance and hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: Thirty-six moderately obese subjects with T2DM and with impaired glycemic control were randomized to receive CPB or placebo in addition to their oral hyperglycemic agents for 4 weeks. Measurements of blood lipids (including ratio of triglycerides to HDL cholesterol), fructosamine, glucose, and insulin were taken at baseline and after 4 weeks. RESULTS: At the final visit, the active group had a significantly lower AIP compared to the placebo group (P < 0.05). A significant difference in triglyceride level (P < 0.02) and the ratio of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) to HDL cholesterol (P < 0.05) was also observed between the groups at the final visit. In the active group, the changes in urinary chromium levels were inversely correlated with the change in AIP (P < 0.05). Urinary chromium levels were significantly increased in the CPB group. In the CPB group, glucose levels decreased at 1 hour and 2 hours and glucose area under the curve and fructosamine level were significantly decreased. Ratios of total to HDL cholesterol, LDL to HDL cholesterol, and non-HDL to HDL cholesterol were significantly decreased between the treatments at final visit. No significant adverse events were observed in the CPB or placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the combination of chromium picolinate and biotin may be a valuable nutritional adjuvant therapy to reduce AIP and correlated CVD risk factors in people with T2DM.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/17496732/

Dyslipidemia, often found in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients, plays an important role in the progression of cardiometabolic syndrome. Two essential nutrients, chromium and biotin, may maintain optimal glycemic control. The authors report here a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial (N=348; chromium picolinate and biotin combination [CPB]: 226, placebo: 122; T2DM participants with hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] >or=7%) evaluating the effects of CPB on lipid and lipoprotein levels. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive either CPB (600 microg chromium as chromium picolinate and 2 mg biotin) or a matching placebo once daily for 90 days. Statistical analyses were conducted in all eligible participants. Subsequent supplemental analyses were performed in T2DM participants with hypercholesterolemia (HC) and in those using stable doses of statins. In the primary analysis, CPB lowered HbA1c (P<.05) and glucose (P<.02) significantly compared with the placebo group. No significant changes were observed in other lipid levels. In participants with HC and T2DM, significant changes in total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and atherogenic index were observed in the CPB group (P<.05). Significant decreases in LDL-C, total cholesterol, HbA1c , and very low-density cholesterol levels (P<.05) were observed in the CPB group taking statins. CPB treatment was well tolerated with no adverse effects, dissimilar from those associated with placebo. These data suggest that intervention with CPB improves cardiometabolic risk factors.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....8?dopt=Citation

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies have shown that the combination of chromium picolinate and biotin significantly enhances glucose uptake in skeletal muscle cells and enhances glucose disposal. The present pilot study was conducted to determine if supplementation with chromium picolinate and biotin can improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with suboptimal glycemic control despite use of oral antihyperglycemic agents. METHODS: Forty-three subjects with impaired glycemic control (2-h glucose >200 mg/dL; glycated hemoglobin >or=7%), despite treatments with oral antihyperglycemic agents, were randomized to receive 600 microg of chromium as chromium picolinate and biotin (2 mg/day) (Diachrome(, Nutrition 21, Inc., Purchase, NY) in addition to their prestudy oral antihyperglycemic agent therapy. Measurements of glycemic control and blood lipids were taken at baseline and after 4 weeks. RESULTS: After 4 weeks, there was a significantly greater reduction in the total area under the curve for glucose during the 2-h oral glucose tolerance test for the treatment group (mean change -9.7%) compared with the placebo group (mean change +5.1%, P < 0.03). Significantly greater reductions were also seen in fructosamine (P < 0.03), triglycerides (P < 0.02), and triglycerides/ high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (P < 0.05) in the treatment group. No significant adverse events were attributed to chromium picolinate and biotin supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrates that supplementation with a combination of chromium picolinate and biotin in poorly controlled patients with diabetes receiving antidiabetic therapy improved glucose management and several lipid measurements. Chromium picolinate/ biotin supplementation may represent an effective adjunctive nutritional therapy to people with poorly controlled diabetes with the potential for improving lipid metabolism.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17109595

A review from 2006:
http://www.uspharmac...t/s/46/c/11511/




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users