Cinnamon and diabetes

Moeisretired said:

Has anyone here tried Cinnamon to lower blood sugar levels? I just read about it here:

news.scotsman.comlatest.cfmOpen ↗

It may be of some value, but that article is [censored]. Check alt.support.diabetes for links to
better articles.

--
Wes Groleau Heroes, Heritage, and History freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com~wgroleauOpen ↗

Here is a good abstract--

ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗
uids=14633804&dopt=Abstract

Impressive? Here were the results!! Hey maybe this would work on non-diabetics as well. Could cut
into Lipitor sales--

"RESULTS:-After 40 days, all three levels of cinnamon reduced the mean fasting serum glucose (18-
29%), triglyceride (23-30%), LDL cholesterol (7-27%), and total cholesterol (12-26%) levels; no
significant changes were noted in the placebo groups. Changes in HDL cholesterol were not
significant."

Dunno about blood sugars.

BL

"As the waves pass the rock, their shape is changed. There is a hologram of the rock within the wave
that comes forward and crashes on the beach, then there's a reflected wave back." Ralph Abraham

"I'd like to learn to windsurf." BL

It has been posted, and posted, and posted it is a [censored] abstract from a group who, for over ten
years has been pushing this to promote their patented nostrum

There were very few people involved, and 40 days is MUCH to short for a reasonable test.

Bg VARIES . What you need is A1c after 180 days, not staged BG readings The fact that they used BG,
not Aic is another example of the fact that they are STILL hyping, as they have been all along.

AND you need at LEAST 800 samples and controls (my approximation, If Herman disagrees, I'll accept
his greater knowledge on THAT number)

BL 1204 said:

Here is a good abstract--

ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗
uids=14633804&dopt=Abstract

Impressive? Here were the results!! Hey maybe this would work on non-diabetics as well. Could cut
into Lipitor sales--

"RESULTS:-After 40 days, all three levels of cinnamon reduced the mean fasting serum glucose (18-
29%), triglyceride (23-30%), LDL cholesterol (7-27%), and total cholesterol (12-26%) levels; no
significant changes were noted in the placebo groups. Changes in HDL cholesterol were not
significant."

Dunno about blood sugars.

BL

"As the waves pass the rock, their shape is changed. There is a hologram of the rock within
the wave that comes forward and crashes on the beach, then there's a reflected wave back."
Ralph Abraham

"I'd like to learn to windsurf." BL

First: This has been around for OVER ten years - Anderson and crew keep issuing NEW press releases
claiming a breakthrough.

The earliest publication I could find about Andersen and his "discovery" is in a BOOK over
10 years old

SECOND: Anderson and crew have obtained a PATENT for this - now, I can't IMAGINE what is patentable,
but they HAVE a patent, got it over a year ago

It LOOKS like he has gotten ARS to pay for his "research" attempting to justify his
patented nostrum.

THIRD: Remember, ARS is the SAME government agency which promoted tobacco as healthful

FOURTH: Your understanding of statistics is faulty - small samples do NOT yield reliable results.
The more complex the condition, the less reliable the results on small samples. Larger samples even
out the effects of uncontrolled factors.

FIFTH: BG readings are almost worthless, they cannot be normalized. A1c readings are fairly
good indications of what the BG readings have been doing over the ENTIRE period, not just at
random points.

BL 1204 said:

Quoted message said:

It has been posted, and posted, and posted it is a [censored] abstract from a group who, for over ten
years has been pushing this to promote their patented nostrum

You mean like drug companies paying for research and so forth?

I am not sure how this particular abstract could have been posted and posted since it is dated
Dec 2003.

800 subjects? Are you KIDDING? That might be needed if something was potentially harmful, to get
adverse effect information. Statistically though, it does NOT matter how large the sample size is,
because the level of significance takes the sample size into account. I haven't read the entire
article, but since the HDL was not increased significantly, perhaps a larger sample size would
have showed that. Huge numbers of subjects are only needed when the differences in the groups are
small, and one wants to show them to be "significant."

Some drug studies have to use large sample sizes for this reason.

Personally, I am more interested in the lipid levels than the blood glucose levels. HbA1c
levels would be interesting to have if it were a six month test. I would love someone to do a
six month test.

Won't most powdered cinnamon do? We aren't talking about tiny amounts of cinnamon, but they aren't
enormous either. One thing-- if this study is borne out, I am wondering if there really *might* be
some adverse outcomes by trying it. If so, I doubt that they are as large as the statin drugs, but
I really don't know that for certain.

BL

"As the waves pass the rock, their shape is changed. There is a hologram of the rock within
the wave that comes forward and crashes on the beach, then there's a reflected wave back."
Ralph Abraham

"I'd like to learn to windsurf." BL

BL 1204 said:

TED PLEASE!!! You need to take this up with the American Diabetes Association, which publishes
Diabetes Care, and its review board!!! They should NOT be a party to such press releases!!

[snip long list of MDs and other alphabet soup]

Oh, but they're all quacks. Have to be, since two of them endorsed Bernstein.

:-)

--
Wes Groleau
-----------
Curmudgeon's Complaints on Courtesy: onlinenetiquette.comcourtesy1.htmlOpen ↗ (Not necessarily
my opinion, but worth reading)