I once had a roommate that took all sorts of exotic dietary supplements that he said were good for your joints and stopping joint pain.
I took one for awhile but it seemed like it made things worse. I also do not now remember any of the things he was taking.
Before I go on a long search, I figured I would ask here in case someone knows something about it.
I am just wondering if there is anything you can take for your joints (preferably OTC) that has scientific studies showing significant evidence that it works (better than a placebo).
It might help to focus your question a bit more. You mention a roommate who took supplements that “were good for your joints and stopping joint pain” and then ask “if there is anything you can take for your joints (preferably OTC) that has scientific studies showing significant evidence that it works”.
Do you mean for temporary relief from joint pain? If so, there are a number of NSAID-style pain relievers that may help with pain and inflammation: Ibuprofen, acetaminophen, naproxen (sold under brand name Aleve).
Or do you mean a supplement such as glucosamine that will stop joint pain long-term and possibly help repair joint issues? I think the jury is still mostly out on those:
Long version:
I found glucosamine / chondroitin to be very helpful for the early stage discomfort of knees going down stairs. My now-deceased wife of similar age found the exact same pills from the same exact bottle to have no effect whatsoever for her for the same exact complaint. Why the difference? Who knows?
They’re cheap enough to try and in my case the relief was clearly evident within a week or two of starting them.
Now 6ish years later with 6 years of twice daily G/C, my knees (and ankles) still have zero discomfort on stairs. But my hands are just starting that slightly stiff aware-of-your-joints feeling. So is G/C helping the hands, or has it been doing nothing all along. I could try stopping it and seeing my hands got worse, but even that would not prove it hadn’t helped delay the inevitable discomfort a bunch.
It’s going to depend on what is causing your pain but, for some people in some situations, you would be helped by weight training:
Some pain is caused by muscle weakness. The muscles and ligaments should be helping to support the limbs through movements but, with weakness, all of the weight goes onto the joints and rubs on them. That seems to be the primary mechanism for this.
It’s not yet clear but it MAY also be true that healthy, regular activity on a joint helps to preserve cartilage as you age, and so you maintain the padding layer between the bones.
I have read several studies and talked about them with my MD. He & I agree that for some reason, they work for some people, but by no means all. The arthritis in my hands has not progressed in over 20 years.
Right, they may work or may not, but they are worth a try.
Why would taking more than maximum required supply of amino acids help ? we usually eat enough protein. Heard of anyone suffering diet induced amino acid deficiency ? We can make most of them in our bodies anyway. So why would eating some specific supply of amino acids help ?
Why would putting Chondroitin into the intestines help ? Such a Protein is not absorbed through the intestines ? its the amino acids that will be absorbed to the blood stream, the rest will stay in the intestines until pushed out the tail end.
Chondroitin was marketed after they maxed out sales of glucosamine ? How to increase sales… sell another cartilage specific product… sure its found in the cartilage… but its just food.
Same with protein and amino acids supplements for body builders. Just the same as any food protein, its a supply of amino acids. Maybe some slight change in the spectrum of amino acids… too small a change to think would have any effect.
Well-known and used as a SYSADOA for many years, glucosamine has been given a new lease of life with the demonstration of its beneficial effect in some chronic degenerative pathologies such as diabetes, obesity and atherosclerosis. While we know that its activity regulating O-GlcNAcylation is probably the reason for its effect on chronic inflammation, there are nevertheless numerous points requiring clarification such as optimal posology, the choice of salt (sulphate or hydrochloride), treatment duration, bioavailability and structural efficacy in primary or secondary prevention, before glucosamine can be considered as an anti-osteoarthritic drug of the future.
As I said upthread. It made immediate obvious unmistakable improvement for me. And did bupkiss for my wife for the same complaint.
A genuine failing of the double blind large scale clinical trial is it fails to answer the question of which specific subset (if any) are helped by treatment X? And how do we identify those lucky folks a priori?
The fact our trials and scientific method as used today are ill-adapted to answering this particular question does not mean there aren’t many such questions that have desirable answers for some meaningful fraction of the populace.
I’m no believer in woo.
But I do understand stats, and an underlying assumption of large trials is that pretty much everybody is essentially the same in the factors which matter. Which is a convenient assumption that’s not quite as valid as the statisticians wish it was.
The problem is that you also need to figure out which subset in the control group are helped by placebo Y, a priori, and why that subset isn’t different than the subset in the test group who were affected by treatment X.
I’m not suggesting Evil Big Pharma has the fix in. I’m suggesting that it’s genuinely difficult to rigorously identify the benefitted subset with falling prey to cherry-picking. And even once you’ve magically identified who has benefitted beyond the typical, you (almost certainly) have no idea how to distinguish them from the larger propulation. Given our current fuzzy knowledge of cause & effect at the bio-chemical level, this is a tall order; almost always an impossibly tall order.
I have family that has worked in almost all aspects of medical trials for many, many years. You are likely right in some trials. In many cases, however, the companies sponsoring the trials do, in fact, try to figure out which factors matter before hand, and try to guess what other factors might be important to at least look at. The inclusion/exclusion criteria of studies are often tailored based on this information. Additional information is often gathered that allows statisticians to analyze the results after the fact, and try to determine if specific populations may benefit more than others.
There is a very low success rate in new pharmaceutical trials. It’s absolutely in the financial interest of the companies to find any sliver of success so they can market their product.