What do you make of this study of glucosmine?

[hedgehog]

http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/gait/qa.htm

I see this study cited as proof that glucosamine is worthless, but the conclusions in the study itself don't make sense.

People with mild pain didn't see any difference bt glucosamine and a placebo, but people with moderate to severe pain did.

To me this suggests that people who couldn't ignore pain saw definite improvements.


but this paragraph is very confusing:

The original GAIT study included an additional, or ancillary, study to investigate whether these dietary supplements could diminish structural damage from osteoarthritis of the knee. In the ancillary study, interested GAIT patients were offered the opportunity to continue their original study treatment for an additional 18 months, for a total of 2 years. At the end of the ancillary study, the team had gathered data on 581 knees. After assessing the x-ray data, the researchers concluded that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate, together or alone, appeared to fare no better than placebo in slowing loss of cartilage in osteoarthritis of the knee. Interpreting the study results was complicated, however, because participants taking placebo had a smaller loss of cartilage, or joint space width, than predicted. The results were reported in the October 2008 issue of Arthritis & Rheumatism.

If anything, I would say the study indicates that something is going on, and suggests more research is needed using higher doses. I'm thinking back to research on Vitamin D. It was only when the dose was raised significantly above the old RDA that researchers saw changes in results.


on edit : the Mayo clinic seems to give a cautious thumbs up on glucosamine:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/glucosamine/NS_patient-glucosamine