Jump to content

Photo

Cinnamon Does Not Lower Blood Sugar Levels

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1
Richard157

Richard157

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 1,407 posts
I have been hearing for a couple of years that cinnamon can help lower blood sugar levels. The following article does not agree with that assertion.

Diabetes News - American Diabetes Association
Type 1 for 68 years, A1c = 6.1, pump with MM 523 Revel, I have good health.

You never know how Strong you are until being strong is the ONLY choice you have!

#2
JediSkipdogg

JediSkipdogg

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 8,757 posts
  • I am a:Type 1
Since the ADA agrees to it it's only about 25% true....LOL

The ADA didn't support Low Carb diets for a long time and now they finally do. There's been studies that have gone both ways on the cinnamon reasoning. I think it's mainly a long term thing and therefore it has to be taken everyday and the overall average will be lower.
●Blue Ash, Ohio Police Dispatcher
●Type 1 diabetic since 11 months old
●Pumper since December of 2002
~Animas IR 1000 (Dec. 2002 - Jan. 2005)
~Animas IR 1200 (Jan. 2005 - Jan. 2009)
~Cozmo 1800 (Jan. 2009 - ?)
●Dexcom Seven+ (Aug 1, 2009 - Oct 31, 2012)
●Dexcom G4 (Nov 1, 2012 - ???)


Diabetes is an Art, NOT a Science. You must master the control by skills and not by knowledge alone.


#3
xMenace

xMenace

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 11,108 posts

The ADA didn't support Low Carb diets for a long time and now they finally do.


I haven't read their statement, but my dietician tells me they neither support nor condone it. They ride the fence.
Michelle Oberg "yep....stop trying to make vegetables taste like meat.....you made your choice, now live with it hippies"

Back on MDI and doing well. Trying Victoza and loving it. A1C 6.0, no major hypos; a few highs; lots of shots. Diagnosed Oct 19th, 1975.
HDL-101; LDL-64; TG-36; TOT-172

#4
JediSkipdogg

JediSkipdogg

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 8,757 posts
  • I am a:Type 1

I haven't read their statement, but my dietician tells me they neither support nor condone it. They ride the fence.


CarbWire - ADA Supports Low-Carb Diet For Weight Loss, Not Health
●Blue Ash, Ohio Police Dispatcher
●Type 1 diabetic since 11 months old
●Pumper since December of 2002
~Animas IR 1000 (Dec. 2002 - Jan. 2005)
~Animas IR 1200 (Jan. 2005 - Jan. 2009)
~Cozmo 1800 (Jan. 2009 - ?)
●Dexcom Seven+ (Aug 1, 2009 - Oct 31, 2012)
●Dexcom G4 (Nov 1, 2012 - ???)


Diabetes is an Art, NOT a Science. You must master the control by skills and not by knowledge alone.


#5
lgvincent

lgvincent

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 4,978 posts
I tried it for a long time and never noticed any change.
Brandy
My Little Princess
August 18, 1990 - May 3, 2006


Posted Image



Say you'll share with
me one
love, one lifetime . . .
Lead me, save me
from my solitude . . .

Say you want me
with you ,
here beside you . . .
Anywhere you go
let me go to . . .
Christine,
that's all I ask of . . .
(you)

#6
volleyball

volleyball

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 2,040 posts
The Article seem to suggest that 1 report showed no difference. It did not say it was the ADA position. It also was focused on heart and not diabetes.
I like cinnamon. I put lots on my food. I am going to keep on using it. I don't think it is a magic pill, but a help along with eating right.
Diabetes is a condition that you have to manage or it will manage you. The care team is only there in a supporting role

#7
wiseguy

wiseguy

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 639 posts
Cinnamon does help some people with type 2 diabetes control their BG levels. I place no value on anything the ADA has to say about anything.

#8
princesslinda

princesslinda

    Super Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 15,804 posts
  • LocationKnoxville, TN
  • I am a:Type 2
I have used cinnamon for sometime now, in my tea and on anything I think it would taste good on. I took cinnamon capsules for awhile, but they bothered my stomach somewhat, so now I just add it to things.

I have found that cinnamon DOES in fact help my blood sugars. I can eat the same thing (ie: kashi cereal) w/o cinnamon and find my levels a little higher than if I have the cinnamon sprinkled on it.

As with most things diabetes-wise, your results may vary.

T2, diagnosed 8/31/06.
Meds: Metformin-ER 500 mg twice daily, HCTZ 12.5 mg every other day for BP Enalapril 20 mg 1 daily (ace-inhibitor)
Diet: I eat to my meter, generally eating 75-100 carbs/day with the occasional splurge.


#9
jhausmann

jhausmann

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
I wonder if the type makes a difference.

from Wikipedia: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinnamon]Cinnamon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

The name cinnamon is correctly used to refer to Ceylon Cinnamon, also known as "true cinnamon" (from the botanical name C. zeylanicum). However, the related species Cassia (Cinnamomum aromaticum), Saigon Cinnamon (Cinnamomum loureiroi) and Cinnamomum burmannii are sometimes sold labeled as cinnamon, sometimes distinguished from true cinnamon as "Chinese Cinnamon", "Vietnamese cinnamon" or "Indonesian cinnamon."[citation needed] Ceylon cinnamon, using only the thin inner bark, has a finer, less dense, and more crumbly texture, and is considered to be less strong than cassia. Cassia has a much stronger (somewhat harsher) flavor than Cinnamon and is generally a medium to light reddish brown, is hard and woody in texture, and is thicker (2–3 mm thick), as all of the layers of bark are used. All of the powdered cinnamon sold in supermarkets in the United States is actually Cassia. European health agencies have recently warned against consuming high amounts of cassia, due to a toxic component called coumarin.[1] This is contained in much lower dosages in Cinnamomum burmannii due to its low essential oil content. Coumarin is known to cause liver and kidney damage in high concentrations. True Ceylon cinnamon has negligible amounts of Coumarin.



#10
shabbie

shabbie

    Member

  • 500 plus
  • 473 posts

I tried it for a long time and never noticed any change.


Ditto.................
Sharon :)

#11
volleyball

volleyball

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 2,040 posts
The experiments were conducted using the american or fake cinnamon. I did not see any tests using the more Viet. or other real stuff. I have both kinds, I do use the Viet. kind in baking
Diabetes is a condition that you have to manage or it will manage you. The care team is only there in a supporting role

#12
REDLAN

REDLAN

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 872 posts
I read the news report, and I also read the abstract from Diabetes Care, and I also looked at a discussion in a blog with an author who can afford the $15 dollar subscription to read the whole article (I personally find this OUTRAGEOUS) both additional articles are linked below.

Effect of Cinnamon on Glucose Control and Lipid Parameters -- Baker et al. 31 (1): 41 -- Diabetes Care

Junkfood Science: Cinnamon and sugar ? blood sugar, that is

The conclusion drawn by the authors was

Cinnamon does not appear to improve A1C, FBG, or lipid parameters in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.


Which is kinda blunt and to the point really. There is no evidence that cinnamon works.

Things to note.

the 5 studies were randomised double-blinded trials - the highest quality and least susceptible to biases.

the quantities of cinnamon ingested were between 1g and 6g daily (i.e. rather a lot). Would suggest that sprinkling cinnamon on your food to taste is even less likely to do anything. However it does taste nice, and I for one will be continuing to add it to my food.

re-reading the news article again, I thought overall that it was well written in the sense that it fairly accurately reflected the results that the researchers found (which I personally find astonishing)

the headline was

Cinnamon Does Not Control Blood Sugar Or Fat Levels



which is quite close to the results - although they could not claim that cinnamon didn't work only that it did not appear to work.

they did say something stupid in the article though

"The preponderance of evidence currently available does not suggest that cinnamon has the ability to decrease a person's risk of heart disease by helping them control their diabetes or lower their cholesterol,"


Duh? I guess this is why volleyball presumed that the study was about heart disease. The one thing the study did not investigate was heart disease - the claim can not be substantiated or inferred from the results.

#13
Old man

Old man

    Junior Member

  • 500 plus
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts
Been taking cinnamon a long time and can't tell if it helps or not. I've done so many things at the same time that I have to guess at what caused which results. When I first heard of cinnamon benefits coming from the water soluble part I tried to use a coffee filter to make a tea. The boiling water and cinnamon simply made a gelatinous glob which would not pass through the filter even after hours. I suspect cinnamon behaves as any soluble fiber with similar benefits. Can't back it up but that's what I suspect.
4/06 HbA1c 10.5
Total cholesterol 195, LDL 137, HDL 44
07/07 HbA1c 5.4
Total chloesterol 174, LDL 88, HDL 75
Diet & Exercise, Multi-vitamin mineral, 6g fish oil. R-lipoic acid, biotin, calcium citrate, vit E & C

#14
Alice

Alice

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 1,587 posts
I think the ADA's caution on the low-carbing is the concern of people confusing it with "no-carbing"...

I think "low carbing" is very subjective. Someone who's been eating "super-size-me" truck stop portions will think they are low-carbing when only having 45 carbs in a meal. To an extreme low-carber, 45 seems high. (30-45 seems healthy to me...) So there ya go.

I think the ADA realizes that they can't prescribe a carb plan to fit everyone and correctly stayed out of that "trend" the author-docs started with the books.

Each person should be working that out with their own doctor/nutritionist...not the ADA getting involved.

#15
volleyball

volleyball

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 2,040 posts
I read Redlan's linked articles and I do not see how they are conclusive.
It mentioned a 90 day study which is a blip in out lives. It mentioned other things which I cannot see how they made those conclusions.
I believe that cinnamon will only help some of us. I believe it is no magic pill. Maybe it only is noticeable if you do not take pills.
Next to insulin, I think we are in the most remarkable time of diabetes discoveries. Because the progression is over a long period of time, it may be 50 years before any truths can be assumed.
I am risking my life on what I believe to be the best course for me. I will suggest my way and some will travel down the road I follow. Others will not. Everyone has to choose there own road. Maybe someday we will meet as our paths cross or join.
Diabetes is a condition that you have to manage or it will manage you. The care team is only there in a supporting role

#16
REDLAN

REDLAN

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 872 posts

I read Redlan's linked articles and I do not see how they are conclusive.


I think this is one of the issues around how scientific knowledge is disseminated into the media and then received by the public at large.

If you read the headline (and this one is no different), then you could be forgiven for thinking that the results are definitive and beyond question. The headline in this case is Cinnamon Does Not Control Blood Sugar Or Fat Levels unfortunately they forgot the very important phrase appear to, which was in the original conclusion.

Nothing is ever conclusive. And a scientific fact is not the same as a lay persons fact. I found and rather liked this...

Fact does not always mean the same thing as truth. Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.

In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vise versa.


back to the study....

The meta study - i.e. a summary of 5 controlled studies did not find sufficient evidence that cinnamon controlled blood sugar.

Typically they will use the term statistical significance - i.e. the differences did not reach statistical significance. what they mean is that any differences were probably just down to chance. When they say the result was statistically significant they mean that there was a low probability that they got the result by chance (1 in 20 that the result occurred by chance is the typically accepted minimum).

and yes you've guessed it saying that a result is statistically significant does not mean that it did not occur purely by the chance.

which is why the authors have to add the all important appears to in their conclusions.

the issue of the 90 days - there are at least 2 reasons for this.

Firstly it's cost. Double-blinded placebo trials are expensive, and the longer they go on, the more expensive they are. For something as controversial as a food having a pharmacological effect then you aren't going to get a lot of money for something that people know is unlikely to have any effect, but you might get some cash to conduct a stage I clinical trial, to see if there is anything there. The simple plain fact (and by this I mean an objective verifiable observation) is that the average plate of food, with flavourings from various barks and other plant parts, has no discernible effect on the body other than to stop you feeling hungry, which I think is rather marvelous all in itself. Double-blinded placebo controlled trials have drawn a blank when it comes to investigating the health properties of various foodstuffs, time and time and time again.

secondly - I do not know of a mechanism (except cumulative toxins) whereby a substance's pharmacological effect occurs outside of a 90 day window. Usually if you give someone something pharmacologically active it normally starts work straight away - the studies have chosen what is known as a surrogate end-points. A surrogate end-point is when you choose to measure something else other than the disease itself - HBa1C is a surrogate end-point - an A1c result does not in itself indicate that a person has complications from diabetes, but it does correlate with the risk that they might get them. the good thing about surrogate end-points is that they usually respond much faster to an intervention (i.e. cinnamon capsules) than the disease process itself.



on another point the blog entry - the no dose relationship is a big blow. Without dose relationship, there is no effect. It is the central tenet of pharmacology - give someone a low dose of something, then they will respond a little, give them a high dose, they should respond a lot.

In english then...

A few small studies indicate that cinnamon doesn't work. No one is going to be really interested in doing any longer/larger studies because a) nobody can remember a time when a foodstuff had a pharmacological effect on the body, and B) if it was going to do anything it should have shown up within 3 months, something, anything.

It's about as definitive as it gets, and by this I mean an objective verifiable observation

doesn't mean cinnamon doesn't lower blood sugar though.

#17
REDLAN

REDLAN

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 872 posts
forum nicked my link again :mad:

here it is for an explanation of surrogate end-points.

http://www.jr2.ox.ac...ary/surrog.html

#18
volleyball

volleyball

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 2,040 posts
That was a very good explanation. But I've read documents from the horse's mouth that also defy logic. When a researcher tries to quantify the results, they also tend to make assumptions that can be construed as facts. The methodology of the studies seem to defy reason sometimes.
While controlling blood sugar is a direct measurement, the goal is to avoid any complications, those are the things that will kill you. I exclude insulin and corresponding hypo's for this argument. a bad day of high blood sugar is no big deal, having many cause a cumulative effect on us. Logic seems to conclude that a period greater than 90 days would be in order to do a study. Many other studies go on for decades.
I expect never to see a proper study of something that cannot be monopolized.
Diabetes is a condition that you have to manage or it will manage you. The care team is only there in a supporting role

#19
DCaplinger

DCaplinger

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 847 posts
I don't believe that this was a valid experiment, nor do I believe for a moment that it was a double blind experiment.

No reputible drug company or group is going to spend the money to do a real test of a natural cure. The costs are very high, and there is no return for the investment. You can't patent a natural cure. It's all about the money.

I doubt there will ever be a "study" done by such a group that would support a natural cure. Afterall, why should they do something that would support a cure that would make their drugs worthless? THEY WOULDN'T! The drug companies don't care about your health. They need you to be ill, else you won't need to buy their drugs!

Call me jaded, but I call it the way I see it.

Regards,

Posted Image

Darian A. Caplinger, EMT
Medically Retired Deputy Sheriff
---
Dx Info: Misdx'd T2 on 12/20/2007; Dx'd T1 on 01/28/2008
Tx Plan:
Metformin 1000mg 2x daily (08/2011).
Pumps Novolog via an Animus Ping (Baloo IV) or Paradigm Revel 723 w/ CGMS (Baloo III) (07/2009).
Symlin 120mcg subq 3x/day (05/2010).
My Facebook

---
And now, Shakespeare by DCaplinger:
"Hath not a Diabetic eyes? Hath not a Diabetic feelings? Prick us, do we not test?"

#20
wiseguy

wiseguy

    Senior Member

  • 500 plus
  • 639 posts

I don't believe that this was a valid experiment, nor do I believe for a moment that it was a double blind experiment.

No reputible drug company or group is going to spend the money to do a real test of a natural cure. The costs are very high, and there is no return for the investment. You can't patent a natural cure. It's all about the money.

I doubt there will ever be a "study" done by such a group that would support a natural cure. Afterall, why should they do something that would support a cure that would make their drugs worthless? THEY WOULDN'T! The drug companies don't care about your health. They need you to be ill, else you won't need to buy their drugs!

Call me jaded, but I call it the way I see it.

Regards,

I couldn't agree more.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users