1 of 2
1
Glucosamine or Glucosamine sulfate
Posted: 14 November 2006 06:41 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2006-11-14

I am interested in knowing about the standard dose of Glucosamine. I have surfed the net and other literatures as to the matter, however I am confused if it is the salt form required in 500mg TID basis or Glucosamine alone that is required in 500mg TID dose.

i.e.,
which is the standard dose:
Glucosamine sulfate 500mg TID or,
Glucosamine sulfate, equivalent to Glucosamine 500mg.

If you could solve my query along with supporting documents or web site addresses where the information is available, it would be very generous of you.


Hoping to hear from you,

Thank you,
Sujata Sapkota
Kathmandu, Nepal

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 November 2006 03:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

Er, this isn’t really a medical forum per se; but check here for more info on glucosamine.

In particular, I suggest you pay attention to this paragraph:

[quote author=“Wikipedia”]This situation [previous suggestive but small or poorly designed studies] led the National Institutes of Health to fund a large, multicenter clinical trial to test the effects of chondroitin sulfate, glucosamine, and the combination on painful osteoarthritis of the knee, compared to both placebo and celecoxib. The results of this 6-month trial found that patients taking glucosamine HCl, chondroitin sulfate, or a combination of the two had no statistically significant improvement in their symptoms compared to patients taking a placebo (Clegg et al., 2006). The group of patients who took celecoxib did have a statistically significant improvement in their symptoms. These results suggest that glucosamine and chondroitin do not effectively relieve pain in osteoarthritis patients.

(Bolding by me).

Also check the wonderful Quackwatch site on glucosamine .

Looks like a thoroughly unproven treatment.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2007 04:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2007-01-05

Glucosamine "Study" Is FLAWED!

The problem with the study stating that glucosamine did not show an improvement in symptoms is somewhat of a classic strawman set-up. First let’s define symptoms: Joint Pain. Pain is the symptom of Inflammation. Inflammation is the result of clinical osteoarthritis (OA) or bone on bone grinding on any joint surface.

Secondly, It should be noted that Glucosamine is NOT classified as any type of COX inhibitor or anti-inflammatory. Glucosamine by definition: Is an important building block needed by the body to manufacture specialized molecules called glycosaminoglycans, found in cartilage, Not a COX-2 inhibiting drug such as celecoxib (Celebrex). In essence, Glucosamine is only applicable in cases of OA ( “wear and tear” arthritis, the gradual, chronic joint disease that is primarily associated with aging and injury). 


Quoting from the “Study”:

“The group of patients who took celecoxib did have a statistically significant improvement in their symptoms. These results suggest that glucosamine and chondroitin do not effectively relieve pain in osteoarthritis patients.”

This is an easy conclusion given the premise (if you want to call it that) is flawed is far from a sound argument. The comparison being made doesn’t even compare apples to apples (Cox-2 to Cox-2).

The study should have compared apples to apples, namely a Natural COX-2 Inhibitor such as standardized Boswellia Extract, Hops Extract (I like IsoOxygene) or Curcumin (Turmeric).

                          VS.

                  Celecoxib (Celebrex)

It should also be noted that Vioxx (Mercks Cox-2) and Celebrex carry Gastrointestinal & Cardiovascular ADRs (Adverse Drug Reactions). Is the risk worth the reward?


As with any treatment of OA, simply addressing inflammation is merely treating the symptom of pain. The underlying factor of worn joint cartilage should always be looked at too. Rebuilding joint cartilage is a process that takes many months to years to see (and feel) a difference. The process of building new joint cartilage in the knee for example does not happen over night, nor should it be expected to work overnight or in a short time-span. After-all, our knees take a beating from being on them for many years. Just think of all the weight bearing / jarring years the typical OA patient has seen in a lifetime….


Anyway, thats my two cents and is also my first message here. I love the podcasts for POI and look forward to a healthy debates about anything…

As for my recommendation, I like these two products. One is designed for Joint Support and has a form of glucosamine that I like plus a good natural COX-2 inhibitor (IsoOxygene) and other nutrients that have been shown to aid in the regeneration of cartilage.

The second product is mainly a straight COX-2 blend of botanicals but has some 5-LO inhibitors as well (another inflammatory pathway). This is called Inflacain

Peace Out!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2007 04:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2007-01-05

I would go with the standard 500 mg TID. Most all literature points to that dosage. check out pubmed.com for all studies.

Also, stick to the HCL or Sulfate forms. Chondrotin is a big molecule not easily absorbed (Think ground up crawdaddys-yuk!)....

Peace out!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2007 06:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

Healthy debates are fine, posting sites where you can purchase items you tout is not. I have once again deleted the website mentions.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2007 02:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I have a very negative opinion about alternative medicine.  If I had seen that study prior to trying glucosamine/MSN I would never have bothered buying a bottle from the local healthfood store (it was on sale). 

I do not recommend it for anyone else because I have no controlled data, as, I assume, the people who wrote the report did.  And I know that “I took a pill.  I got better.  The pill worked” is not correct logic.  However, since my knee joint pain stopped, I have two choices:  1.  Stop taking it and see if the pain returns, or 2.  Continue taking it until my knee pain returns.  Since I’m a RETIRED scientist, I choose number two.  smile

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2007 02:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26

Re: Glucosamine "Study" Is FLAWED!

[quote author=“Libtech33”]The problem with the study stating that glucosamine did not show an improvement in symptoms is somewhat of a classic strawman set-up. First let’s define symptoms: Joint Pain. Pain is the symptom of Inflammation. Inflammation is the result of clinical osteoarthritis (OA) or bone on bone grinding on any joint surface.

!

I don’t know what study you’re quoting, but the NIH study compared Glucosamine to placebo. This is the only valid comparison. The Glucosamine was not statisctically significant from placebo in reducing symptoms. That’s the reall take home message. Glucosamine is not effective.

Note: Herbal and Nutritional supplements are not tested for efficacey or safety by their manufacturers. “Natural” does not mean safe, just untested. Use these products at yourown risk, but preferably not at all.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2007 03:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Damn, I’d love to get some of that placebo because I’m sure it’s cheaper.  Unfortunately, someone would have to convince me that it’s glucosamine for it to have the placebo effect.  Oh well.  LOL  LOL  LOL

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 June 2007 03:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2007-06-19

Well, there’s cure, then there’s preventative. I dont think the study went on long enough either. I’m nearly 68; my herbalist has had me on Glucosamine Chondroitin with MSM for 6 or 7 years, and my joints are still fine.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 June 2007 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4051
Joined  2006-11-28

Proves nothing, daybrown, except that people believe things for bad reasons, including the belief that individual anecdotes are meaningful. I have this neat charm I carry around that wards off polar bears. And since I’ve never seen one in all the time I’ve been living in San Francisco, I know it works. :grin:

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 June 2007 03:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2007-06-19

I didnt say there was proof, I said that the study was not carried on long enough to provide proof.
The problems with joints dont appear over nite, but require decades of the aging process. Why would we expect a few months to be significant?

In my case, I got polio in 1946, and my mobility has been powered by only my right leg. My herbalist understood this, While the joint pain in my hip, knee, and right hand (from the use of a cane) was not yet chronic or severe, we all know which way it was headed. But now here I am, 6-7 years later, in a frame that was severely stressed by torquing needed for me to get around, yet without joint problems.

It mite be useful to collect the demographic data from poster children like me who presented the greatest risk of joint problems and look back on any set of them who were given Glucosamine over several years, especially during the late 50’s and into the 60’s when debilitiation becomes dramatically more common. Of course, since there is no possible patent on this, the transnational pharmaceuticals wont fund the long term studies, nor fund studies with large sample size from the most at risk demographic portion of the population.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 June 2007 03:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4051
Joined  2006-11-28

When I suggested you had not proven anything, I was not referring to the study but to your comment that you were taking the product and your joints were ok. That is the kind of anecdote which has great impact on people’s beliefs but, sadly, nerly zero probative value. I certainly agree a retrospective study on people at risk for DJD would be useful, if there were adequate contgrols on who took glucosamine and other treatments, age and activity variables, and all the other factors that influence development and course of the disease. Obviously, such a study is difficult to conduct, but if done properly it might answer the question. I agree that no definitive study has been done, but I also think that the bits and pieces of information we have so far are not encouraging, and the greatest reason people still believe in the substance is anecdotal evidence and personal experience, which I still maintain is useless for evaluating the efficacy of a drug.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2007 04:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2007-06-19

The problem with your position, is that people are aging now, and they cant wait on your scientific studies, but must make do with the anecdotal reports they can find. The German and Chinese governments have done *extensive* studies of herbal therapies in the name of public health, which makes it really obvious why such studies as you suggest need to be made wont be. Not in the USA anyway.

Americans dont have a choice. They must decide what to do to maintain their condition *before* it deteriorates. An ounce of prevention… Thankfully, the net is providing a venue where people can report on the experiments they have done on themselves. In asmuch as the transant pharma is not going to let the FDA fund the studies, I dunno what else people can do.

You suggest that anecdotal reports are biased. as may be. But the medical community, that should be doing the studies, itself is so biased, the studies you suggest are needed to expose the bias you say exists, have not been done.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2007 09:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4051
Joined  2006-11-28

Anecdotal reports are not biased so much as useless. What happens to one person simply isn’t predictive of what will happen to another. Even in large scale studies, some tiny percentage of people react differently and suffer side effects the majority do not. We cannot make anything perfect, but if you try something on one or a few people, or even on many with no rational, scientific monitoring and analysis, and then you tell other people to use the same therapy, you are guaranteed to have both people for whom it does no good and people who are actively harmed by it. There is no free lunch in physiology, so if it has zero side effects in every single person, it ain’t doin sh*t.

Americans are obsessed with living forever and living perfectly. And they are so desparate they will spend money and time on unproven BS. You want an ounce of prevention, then let’s get people to lose weight, eat more fruits and vegetables, exercise more, stop smoking, and a hundred other proven preventative measures we can’t seem to get the public to accept. But no, people would rather take some shark cartilage and ginko biloba than change their lifestyle. That’s their right, I suppose (though it irks me when society as a whole has to pay the cost for the subsequent disease and treatment). But the answer to preventative health care and aging is not self-experimentation and irrational popping of unproven herbal remedies and supplements. We might as well go back to bloodletting, because after all, for more than a thousands years anecdotal reports among learned (but pre-scientific method) doctors showed it was helpful for many medical conditions.


I’m not saying we do nothing until we have perfect data. The level of evidence one accepts before trying a therapy is dependant on the seriousness of the condition being treated (how urgent is it, how much suffering does it cause, etc) and the possible risks of the therapy. Sometimes, when someone is suffering greatly or is going to die soon, a therapy that has some low level suggestive supporting evidence but is largely unproven in terms of safety and efficacy may be reasonable. But when you’re talking about years of therapy to prevent a disease that may or may not even have significant consequences for the patient, anecdotal evidence is not enough to outweigh the completely unknown risks. I see too much suffering in my work that goes unrelieved or is even caused by people relying on unproven therapy because they make the common thought errors (including relying on anecdotes) and believe erroneously it has value. And I’m not saying these people are stupid. I know smart, well-educated doctors who have fallen for quack therapies that proved useless or harmful when properly evaluated.

So as for me, I’m middle-aged and I can see the writing on the wall in terms of age-related diseases down the road,  but I’m waiting for science to look before I leap.

[ Edited: 24 June 2007 05:15 PM by mckenzievmd ]
 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2007 01:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
daybrown - 23 June 2007 04:25 PM

The problem with your position, is that people are aging now, and they cant wait on your scientific studies, but must make do with the anecdotal reports they can find. The German and Chinese governments have done *extensive* studies of herbal therapies in the name of public health, which makes it really obvious why such studies as you suggest need to be made wont be. Not in the USA anyway.

These studies are typically not done because the scientific community knows that there is no plausible active ingredient in the supposed “herbal remedies” that is likely to be useful. So in general such studies are a waste of time and money.

daybrown - 23 June 2007 04:25 PM

Thankfully, the net is providing a venue where people can report on the experiments they have done on themselves.

This is one of the major unavoidable problems with the net, as such reports are entirely valueless. Anecdotal reports show success with every quack remedy ever foisted on an unsuspecting public, including such clearly dangerous substances as pure crude oil, which were touted as remedies in the 19th century.

daybrown - 23 June 2007 04:25 PM

In asmuch as the transant pharma is not going to let the FDA fund the studies, I dunno what else people can do.

First, the FDA doesn’t fund these studies. The drug companies do. That is so because typically the studies required to bring a drug to the market run into the hundreds of millions of dollars (the vast majority of which is in Phase II and III testing, which require human subjects, to test for harm and effectiveness). The US public is unlikely to want to fund billions of dollars in taxpayer money for this purpose.

The NIH, on the other hand, does fund studies on potential drugs, but only in the very early stages. What they fund is basic research into so-called ‘druggable targets’, i.e. chemical or biological compounds that are likely to be effective treatments for disease. And among those targets are some that are derived directly from nature, for instance poisons of various sorts from plants which can be used as chemotherapies for treating cancer.

daybrown - 23 June 2007 04:25 PM

You suggest that anecdotal reports are biased. as may be. But the medical community, that should be doing the studies, itself is so biased, the studies you suggest are needed to expose the bias you say exists, have not been done.

If the pharma/medical community is biased, it is in favor of searching for compounds that are actually likely to be useful drugs rather than compounds that are empty of any effect but easily marketable to people who don’t know any better as “natural”.

The other sorts of tests that aren’t done on so-called “natural remedies”, by the way, are tests to determine if they are actually harmful. Many of them no doubt are, as most plants are loaded with various “natural” poisons that they use to discourage being eaten.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 June 2007 05:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2007-06-19

>If the pharma/medical community is biased, it is in favor of searching for compounds that are actually likely to be useful drugs rather than compounds that are empty of any effect but easily marketable to people who don’t know any better as “natural”.>

“Natural” being any substance, no matter how effective, which cannot be *patented*.  Many in the medical community are heavily invested in transnational pharmaceuticals, and unfortunately dont constitute an unbiased body to perform the scientific studies to expose the frauds.

There are reports of lobbyists and transnat pharma people manipulating the FDA, and this has resulted in several notorious recalls that have severely damaged the reputation of the scientific community you say should perform the studies.

Caveat lector.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
‹‹ Auras      Fish oil, dose it work? ››