*** ARTICLE *** Decreasing insulin resistance and increasing sensitivity

[jimmyinkedup]

I disagree.

Furthermore, please post studies which show chromium toxicity in humans.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I will say this - In my experience both are useless. This is backed up in all the more recent research stating neither one has an effect in non diabetics. To take it further chromium has no effect peiod , even in diabetics , unless the individual is defficient. Pretty tough since it is so abundant in many foods.
As far as toxicity while it is difficult given the availibitly of chromium in supplements - there is a likelyhood of contamination and possibility of more dangerous form being used when claims of safer forms are listed as ingredients. This is not as far fetched as it may sound. Do I really need to post studies of toxicity of other forms of chromium this statement may refer to ?

[Narkissos]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I will say this - In my experience both are useless. This is backed up in all the more recent research stating neither one has an effect in non diabetics. To take it further chromium has no effect peiod , even in diabetics , unless the individual is defficient. Pretty tough since it is so abundant in many foods.

There is an abundance (understatement really) of research to the contrary.

So, yes... I'd love to see the studies. This is a learning community is it not?

As far as toxicity while it is difficult given the availibitly of chromium in supplements - there is a likelyhood of contamination and possibility of more dangerous form being used when claims of safer forms are listed as ingredients. This is not as far fetched as it may sound.

A 'likelihood' of contamination? That's a far cry from your earlier claim that supplemental chromium is toxic.

There's a 'possibility of contamination' with every food we eat, and every supplement we ingest. This does not inherently make our foods and supplements 'toxic'. That statement is irresponsible.

Do I really need to post studies of toxicity of other forms of chromium this statement may refer to ?

Other forms of chromium are not being discussed here.

So yes... post the studies which show dietary/supplemental chromium toxicity.

[jimmyinkedup]

There is an abundance (understatement really) of research to the contrary.

So, yes... I'd love to see the studies. This is a learning community is it not?



A 'likelihood' of contamination? That's a far cry from your earlier claim that supplemental chromium is toxic.
maybe you need to re read my ealrier claim as it is not even close to this - i belive i said "issues with toxicity"
There's a 'possibility of contamination' with every food we eat, and every supplement we ingest. This does not inherently make our foods and supplements 'toxic'. That statement is irresponsible.
It is not irresponsible - do some research into it and discover the likelyhood of contamination when this mineral is involved. You statement here is made in ignorance. I donbt mean that in a nasty way but in the clinical sense of the word ie: lack of knowledge on the topic


Other forms of chromium are not being discussed here.

So yes... post the studies which show dietary/supplemental chromium toxicity.
The point is it has been discovered that other forms of chromium have been used in supps that supposedly contain less toxic forms - so we HAVE to discuss that - that was my point

*LOL* Well first ill clarify EXACTLY what i said. I said i believe vandyl and chromium are both useless in non diabetics and both have issues with toxicity. Vandyl im sure you cannot and will not dipute this. I pointed out other issues with chromium and potential toxicity. Please do not take what i said out of context and make it into something else. I clearly explained why i said what i said ...if you want to turn my staements into something else the onus will fall upon you to justify or discredit your distorted perception of my statements. As far as studies well on chromium i posted about 15 of them in a thread in the supp forum showing its worthless. Vandyl has also been shown useless in non diabetics.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12500990

Another:
"Halberstam et al gave 100 mg of vanadyl sulfate daily for three weeks to obese type 2 diabetic patients as well as non-diabetic subjects. There was an obvious decrease in fasting plasma glucose and a significant improvement in insulin sensitivity in the type 2 diabetic patients. There was, however, no change detected in the obese non-diabetic subjects."

Another:

"Oral vanadyl sulfate improves insulin sensitivity in NIDDM but not in obese nondiabetic subjects.

Diabetes (UNITED STATES) May 1996, 45 (5) p659-66


We compared the effects of oral vanadyl sulfate (100 mg/day) in moderately obese NIDDM and nondiabetic subjects. Three-hour euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic (insulin infusion 30 mU / m / min) clamps were performed after 2 weeks of placebo and 3 weeks of vanadyl sulfate treatment in six nondiabetic control subjects (age 37 +/- 3 years; BMI 29.5 +/- 2.4 kg/m2 ) and seven NIDDM subjects (age 53 +/- 2 years; BMI 28.7 +/-1.8 kg/m2). Glucose turnover ([3-3 H]glucose), glycolysis from plasma glucose, glycogen synthesis, and whole-body carbohydrate and lipid oxidation were evaluated. Decreases in fasting plasma glucose (by approximately 1.7 mmol/l) and HbAlc (both P < 0.05) were observed in NIDDM subjects during treatment; plasma glucose was unchanged in control subjects. In the latter, the glucose infusion rate (GIR) required to maintain euglycemia (40.1 +/- 5.7 and 38.1 +/- 4.8 micromol / kg fat-free mass FFM / min) and glucose disposal (Rd) (41.7 +/- 5.7 and 38.9 +/-4.7 micromol / kg FFM / min were similar during placebo and vanadyl sulfate administration, respectively. Hepatic glucose output (HGO) was completely suppressed in both studies. In contrast, in NIDDM subjects, vanadyl sulfate increased GIR approximately 82% (17.3 +/- 4.7 to 30.9 +/- 2.7 micromol / kg FFM / min, P < 0.05); this improvement in insulin sensitivity was due to both augmented stimulation of Rd (26.0 +/-4.0 vs. 33.6 +/- 2.22 micromol / kg FFM / min, P < 0.05) and enhanced suppression of HGO (7.7 +/- 3.1 vs. 1.3 +/- 0.9 micromol / kg FFM / min, P < 0.05). Increased insulin-stimulated glycogen synthesis accounted for >80% of the increased Rd with vanadyl sulfate (P < 0.005), but plasma glucose flux via glycolysis was unchanged. In NIDDM subjects, vanadyl sulfate was also associated with greater suppression of plasma free fatty acids (FFAs) (P < 0.01) and lipid oxidation (P < 0.05) during clamps. The reduction in HGO and increase in Rd were both highly correlated with the decline in plasma FFA concentrations during the clamp period (P < 0.001). In conclusion, small oral doses of vanadyl sulfate do not alter insulin sensitivity in nondiabetic subjects, but it does improve both hepatic and skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity in NIDDM subjects in part by enhancing insulin's inhibitory effect on lipolysis. These data suggest that vanadyl sulfate may improve a defect in insulin signaling specific to NIDDM."

There are countless more that show the same exact thing.
How about you post some studies on healthy humans showing a positive effect re: vanadyl?


Look Nark you and I have been down this road before. The fact is we disagree - and thats ok. You dont like it when someone disagrees with you ...but thats too bad. I dont like it all the time either.
You also took some of my statements out of context. I hope i clarified so your misinterpretaions are waylayed

Different things work for diff people - I can accept that. I stated my opinions and provided data that supports them. Please in the future if you wish for clarification of any statements i make do not ignorantly refer to them as irresponsible. I will go out of my way to clarify anything i post , thoroughly and respectfully - provided that is how the requests are made.

[Narkissos]

*LOL* Well first ill clarify EXACTLY what i said. I said i believe vandyl and chromium are both useless in non diabetics and both have issues with toxicity. Vandyl im sure you cannot and will not dipute this. I pointed out other issues with chromium and potential toxicity. Please do not take what i said out of context and make it into something else. I clearly explained why i said what i said ...if you want to turn my staements into something else the onus will fall upon you to justify or discredit your distorted perception of my statements. As far as studies well on chromium i posted about 15 of them in a thread in the supp forum showing its worthless. Vandyl has also been shown useless in non diabetics.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12500990

Here are 40+ Chromium studies on diabetics as well as non-diabetics: http://www.getnarked.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5459 (*Admin* feel free to remove said link, if posting it goes against any of the board rules. *Admin* I apologize in advance as well)

Again: I asked you to post studies to validate your stance... because that is what contributing members in a learning community do --> They provide reading material.

I do it all the time. You're not above doing so.

Look Nark you and I have been down this road before. The fact is we disagree - and thats ok. You dont like it when someone disagrees with you ...but thats too bad. I dont like it all the time either.

Clearly you have an issue. I don't have a problem "when someone disagrees with" me... I have a problem with people who make irresponsible statements.

You cannot find a study which points to supplemental chromium toxicity in humans (the statement i found irresponsible), because there are none.

No need to be condescending about it either. You're entitled to your opinion... everybody is.

Regards,