Talk:Taurine

taurine and ageing

Hey I have added information about the new research relating taurine and ageing. Can someone edit and make it more fit for Wikipedia and more accurate?ArmorredKnight (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The studies you added were done on mice and worms. It is not good evidence. It is also primary research, see WP:MEDRS to why we need reliable secondary sources for biomedical claims. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy, the Nature article is a reliable secondary source. It is a review of the Science magazine research. ArmorredKnight (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It is a not a review paper [1]. It is an article that contains only 3 references all to animal studies, see WP:MEDANIMAL. All 3 references are studies done on mice and worms. This is not clinical evidence. There is no human data here. It is not good evidence and does not belong on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why animal data does not belong to Wikipedia. This is not only about the role of taurine in humans. After it is mentioned that cats can not produce taurine by themselves. If taurine solves sown the aging of animals, it should be mentioned. after it is an article about taurine. It is not an article about an exclusively taurine role in humans.85.250.134.64 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

also the rule says to avoid over emphasize, not to avoid mentioning at all.85.250.134.64 (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. In many cases any mention at all is over emphasis. MrOllie (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll just note that the fact that the study only applies to animals is not relevant in terms of applicability to this specific article. This topic has been all over the news, so it is clearly notable. I'd suggest including cited concerns rather than dismissing it out of hand. Praemonitus (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You are correct it has indeed been all over the news at the moment but it is nutritional misinformation from news sources which are not reliable sources for biomedical information. Many of these news sources have misrepresented the study [2], [3], [4], [5][6] and are making far-fetched claims. None of these are reliable to making biomedical claims about taurine. The paper notes that there is no clinical evidence as there is no human data currently [7]. In 10 years maybe we will know more. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Per WP:BMI, the concern regarding biomedical information is relevant to human health, not animals. Let me make the compromise proposal then to move a modified version under the "Animal physiology and nutrition" section, where it is also applicable. Would that be acceptable? My original addition made no claims about the study applying to humans; that was just speculation by the authors. Praemonitus (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to well sourced content about animals in "Animal physiology and nutrition" section so if you want to add something about rats or worms from the study. The only issue here is because the topic of aging was mentioned then other users might start adding in suggestions about human health. It's worth watching the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Massive undue weight, content is now being added to the lead [8]. We shouldn't be citing mice studies in the lead per WP:MEDANIMAL. The paper in question is already cited in the "Animal physiology and nutrition" section. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I will not update the lead of the article as to not reverse whatever edit you are referring to here. However, I have included the relevant claims from the paper in question by (Singh et al., 2023, Science) that are also supported by data from their human participants in the EPIC-Norfolk study. I'm assuming we're acting in good faith, but a quick note that reading your comments here makes it very clear that you didn't read the paper in question which isn't very helpful for the discussion at hand. I appreciate that the paper is behind a paywall and I am not sure what the official policy on wikiepedia is for this, perhaps the policy should be for you to defer to individuals who have actually read the primary source? 198.254.126.140 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I added some text to the header (now deleted) with the intent of clarifying upfront that taurine deficiency has *not* been shown to increase aging and that taurine supplementation has *not* been shown to slow aging. There is a lot of misinfo about taurine on this. In my view, there ought to be something in the header that mentions that despite the possible effect in other animals, this has not been shown in humans. Thoughts?sbelknap (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if the formatting here isn't right, although I have extensive experience in biomedical research, this is my first contribution to wikipedia. I would strongly reccomend including relevant facts from Singh et al., 2023 published in Science. The paper has extensive data from humans showing circulating taurine declines with age, that taurine increases with following excersise, and individuals with poor health have lower circulating taurine. However, we should also be clear that this does not prove that taurine supplementation shows a clinical benefit in humans, as noted by the researchers themselves we would need a randomized clinical study to prove this. The effect of taurine on animals shown by the research paper is fascinating and highly relevant to someone who is interested in taurine as a molecule. I understand that contributors are acting in good faith, but excluding relevant information to a wikipedia article because it's only in 'mice' and 'worms' is highly odd. It's worth noting that research teams spend years studying model animals such as mice. Animal studies are really interesting, least of all because we learn more about animal biology even if this is not relevant to humans. It's worth noting that the work by Singh et al., 2023 was done not only in mice but also rhesus monkeys, C. Elegans, and yeast. It may be worth creating an additional section for the animal studies to avoid confusing and misleading readers, but create a culture of excluding relevant data seems odd and highly offputting to someone with experience in the field like myself who could make genuine contributions to this article and wikipedia in general. 198.254.126.140 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a review of preliminary lab research in animals (WP:MEDANIMAL), and inconclusive early-stage human research years from being put into context or confirmed as accepted, evidence-based facts. The encyclopedia is not a journal for documenting work in progress, WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-7. Zefr (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I updated my contribution to exclude data from animal studies entirely. I then read through the WP:MEDRS as you linked and updated my contribution to fit that guideline. 198.254.126.140 (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This paper you added [9] has already been cited many times on this talk-page and elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is not reliable for several reasons. If you read the paper it says "taurine deficiency may be a driver of aging because its reversal increases health span in worms, rodents, and primates and life span in worms and rodents. Clinical trials in humans seem warranted to test whether taurine deficiency might drive aging in humans". Basically there is no good clinical evidence at present. The correct attitude to this is a wait and see position, to wait until further trials are done and the results are published. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I know that a core principle of the culture here is to assume positive intent but I do not feel like this is being given here. Apologies if I am not doing it right, this is my first ever contribution to wikipedia. I agree with every statement you have made and go to lengths to make sure my contribution meets your standards, yet it is removed and I don't fully understand why. My original contribution was removed under the WP:MEDANIMAL principle, but it didn't include any data from animal studies. You seem to suggest here that my contribution imply Taurine is some kind of health supplement, but I said the exact opposite. So why are you making this claim about my work in the discussion page? It seems now you take issue with the title of the resarch paper, which isn't the same as the contribution I made or the data which supports the statement I added to the page. I went to lengths to make sure the contribution referred only to large human study (12k participants) which shows only that taurine levels fall with age. I did this because I read through WP:MEDANIMAL which you suggested that I read, and I replicated the style and writing as reccomended there. I took time to read that on your suggestion because I am making an active effort to learn and be better. I would much prefer you explain in good faith to help me understand how to best contribute. Another point, frankly, your tone is abrasive you are happy to undo my work, but don't go to any effort to help or explain so I can learn and contribute in a more productive way. I am taking time out of my work day (postdoc) to try and be part of the communit. Frankly I don't think I will contribute to wikipedia again. 198.254.126.140 (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You were directed to a particular section of WP:MEDRS (WP:MEDANIMAL). You need to read and comply with the whole policy. Avoiding one (of many) pitfalls is not good enough I am afraid. You're still relying on primary sources (single studies) where a review article would be needed. - MrOllie (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Fringe claims being made about taurine

This article had heavy traffic in June because American and British newspapers misrepresented a study claiming that taurine has been shown to reduce aging and several chronic diseases in humans. This has caused a lot of fringe claims being promoted about taurine on social media. This is despite the fact that the cited study does not mention clinical data, it bases its conclusions on short-term studies done on mice, monkeys and worms [10]. There is no clinical data here, so we cannot be making biomedical claims about humans. The paper admits "To test whether taurine deficiency is a driver of aging in humans as well, long-term, well-controlled taurine supplementation trials that measure health span and life span as outcomes are required". To date there are no long-term trials. We should not be making biomedical claims about disease without good evidence.

I have raised this at WikiProject Medicine [11] and WP:FTN [12] to get advice and opinions from experienced users. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The article was in dire need of a major cleanup, leading to this as a first pass to eliminate decades-old primary research and the speculation and misinformation resulting from it. Although there are reviews and meta-analyses shown in a PubMed search, none of these would meet WP:MEDRS standards, and there are no government regulatory or clinical guidelines recommending the use of taurine supplementation.

There are no dietary intake recommendations for taurine, indicating it is not essential to the human diet. For human consumption, it is only a dietary supplement having weak clinical trials conducted to date and with no MEDRS reviews supporting any dietary value for a role in human health.

Although it is present in human organs, a good review for its putative physiological roles is absent from the article. Zefr (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that, thanks for cleaning up the article. They are only just in the early stages of conducting clinical trials on taurine supplementation, a recent example here [13]. So far few randomized, placebo-controlled have been done. I believe it will be a decade or more until we have a serious review of clinical data. Nearly all of the studies that have been done are on mice. There is a lack of human data. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

There is enough data on taurine in humans to mention in this article. Hundreds of peer-reviewed published research results. This includes clinical trials, reviews, and academic books. These findings about the role of taurine in humans results in ideological objections from some people favoring a plant-based diet. I've added a statement on taurine & aging in humans citing an authoritative source in the same issue as the allegedly controversial article just deleted.sbelknap (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

A statement on the clinical effects of taurine, supported by a high-quality secondary source, has now been deleted. Why are editors substituting their own judgement for that of the authors of a high-quality secondary source? This is an encyclopedia, not a place for original research.sbelknap (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You added this content and source where the abstract clearly states only small clinical trials have been done. See WP:MEDASSESS - the Science review of lab and preliminary human studies falls within the category of primary research, and so is not useful as a source supporting evidence of effects on "metabolic and inflammatory diseases", as you stated. You also wrote that taurine declines by 80% over life - of what significance is that statement?

In your other statement, you claim there are hundreds of reviews or books on taurine and, supposedly, its effects on human health. Show us two that meet WP:MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Sbelknap the problem is that they have only just starting doing clinical trials into this in the least few years. We are going to have to wait years until a good review of such studies is published. The clinical data does not exist yet you seem to be claiming that it does. This is the only clinical trial I could find that looked at taurine and "antiaging" [14]. The trial was 16weeks so not long-term and the sample size was 24 women. Your claim of "clinical effects of taurine" is not supported by any evidence. It is best to be patient and wait until we have the data and good sources on this topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Really?

doi.org/10.1016/j.fochms.2022.100106

doi.org/10.1038/s41430-021-01010-4

doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17505.3

doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2020.173533 sbelknap (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread what I wrote. I noted that there are hundreds of peer-reviewed published research results. This includes clinical trials, reviews, and academic books. See above. sbelknap (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Just because a review or trial has been published, does not mean it is good evidence. I have read over these reviews, they are not high-quality. For example, your third DOI is this [15]. The review admitted "Only one paper was deemed "high quality" using the NOQAS tool." Only one paper? The conclusion of the review was "A formal clinical trial is needed to address whether taurine supplementation is beneficial to the approximately 1/250 individuals with DCM in the population." So there is no good evidence here. We do not have enough data. The same can be said for this review [16], no significant effects were found. If you wait 5 - 10 years there will be more data and reviews. Per MEDRS we should only cite reviews reporting high-quality and good evidence. There are not enough studies on this topic right now and many of the trials that have been done are not high-quality. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The quality & strength of research results varies according to indication. I propose that we start with the best indication and cover these results in descending order of evidence quality and effect size. sbelknap (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This secondary source seems to be worth covering in the taurine article: doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2020.173533 sbelknap (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Use as a biomarker for meat consumption is doubtful

This statement in the article, "Taurine may be a biomarker for intake of animal-based foods", is not well-supported by the 2019 source used or in any other literature.

The 2019 review defines that "Good biomarkers for meat intake should reflect total dietary intake of meat, independent of source or processing and should be able to differentiate meat consumption from that of other protein-rich foods," then concludes its section on taurine by saying that taurine "does not appear robust enough to assess total meat intake."

There are no reviews retrieved when PubMed is searched for "taurine biomarker meat review". One study concluded that taurine was not useful as a biomarker for red meat consumption due to variability in taurine excretion among dietary groups. Methylhistidine excretion was a better biomarker.

As taurine is produced endogenously, its excretion as a meat consumption biomarker is clouded by its two origins of production. If taurine was useful as a meat consumption biomarker, it would be established by now in reputable epidemiological studies. But it is not in such use. The sentence and source should be removed. Zefr (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a fringe-like claim not supported by any other sourcing. I would support removing the source. Apart from octopus, tuna, crab or raw lamb muscle and a few others, most common animal-based foods do not contain high amounts of taurine. If someone is really concerned about taurine the best way to get it in the diet is to take an energy drink or supplement. There doesn't appear to be any good evidence to suggest this is a good biomarker for animal-based foods. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

"(B)eef is an abundant source of taurine, creatine, carnosine, anserine, and 4-hydroxyproline as physiologically important nutrients for infants, children, and adults to maintain their health and prevent chronic diseases. For example, 30 g of dried beef can provide 80.4 mg taurine, which can meet 107% of daily taurine requirement of the 70-kg adult." doi.org/10.1007/s00726-020-02823-6 sbelknap (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

30 g of dried beef may contain 80.4mg of taurine but look up when the beef is cooked, you will get less than half of that (there are many studies on this [17], [18], [19]). The author of the paper you cited had obviously not done his homework. A single serving of cooked beef contains between 33 and 35 mg of taurine. That is hardly anything and is unlikely to have any effect. You can get 500-2000 mg of taurine in an energy drink. If you are really looking to boost your taurine you would take a supplement (between 500 and 1000mg) or energy drink but there is no good evidence that people need to supplement with taurine. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Homework? The paper I cited was about dried beef and the author reported taurine content of…dried beef. Seems to me he got that right.

What serving size are you assuming in your calculation? A typical steak dinner in the US would feature (at least) 350 gms of medium–rare beefsteak.

Vegans have lower taurine levels than carnivores. How do you suppose that happens if meat does not provide significant amounts of taurine? sbelknap (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

What a funny discussion this is. Austria is the country of Red Bull energy drinks. We drink millions of cans per year with a small can containing 1g of taurin. So if you want to search PubMed for claims about taurin supplementation, the best cohort you can watch out for are the millions of people who swapped coffee for energy drinks. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Most people would not eat dried or raw beef (I have never come across anyone eating dried beef before!). Baby and infant formulas contain taurine, so certain foods are fortified for taurine. Mainstream medical advice is not telling people to eat red meat to get taurine. What you have said is true, animal-foods do contain taurine but if you are talking about good amounts of taurine they are found in crab, raw tuna, uncooked lamb muscle and octopus and other seafood, typically in the west these foods are not common consumed. But common animal-foods contain lower amounts of taurine but they all add up in the diet for omnivores. You ask why vegans have lower amounts of taurine, this is because those on an omnivorous diet consume a mixture of animal-based foods. They will obviously have higher amounts of taurine than vegans. The only plant-based foods that contain a good amount of taurine are seaweed such as dulse.

One 3-ounce cut of beef provides around 30 mg of taurine. A typical meal may include two cuts. I don't think many people would rely on beef for taurine. I see in various beef magazines a beefsteak gives 55mg of taurine [20]. A taurine supplement gives 500mg to 1000mg of taurine and its been shown that the bioavailability of taurine is best absorbed on an empty stomach. You seem to be on this taurine promoting bandwagon, if you are really concerned about getting taurine then you would take a supplement or as mentioned above an energy drink. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

My goal here is to improve this article. Please stop your accusations of bad faith. ("taurine promoting bandwagon")

Dried beef is just unsalted plain beef jerky. Beef jerky is sold in most every grocery & gas station in the USA.

A typical steak meal at home would be (at least) 12 ounces. In an American steakhouse, portion sizes for beefsteak are often greater than 20 ounces.

Most of the taurine that Americans get in their diet is from meat, and particularly beef.

Instead of relying on the original research of editors, our task here is to rely on peer-reviewed medical literature, with an emphasis on secondary sources. That is *not* being done for this article on taurine. We have info with high-quality secondary sources that has been proposed for inclusion and that has repeatedly been reverted or removed.

Why do you suppose that is? sbelknap (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The typical American diet provides between 123 and 178 mg of taurine daily. You have not disclosed your reference for beef and taurine. I do not live in the USA but I find it doubtful beef would be the main supplier of taurine, if it was the typical daily intake for Americans would be higher. This paper has a table of taurine content of foods [21], it reports that dark turkey has a high taurine content. Milks and eggs had no taurine detected in the following studies. The highest taurine animal-foods are octopus, scallops and squid. Another paper on topic "Taurine content in foods" does not list beef as having high taurine content [22], nor does the paper "The taurine content of common foodstuffs" [23]. If you believe beef jerky has a high taurine content then you need a reference for that. I would support adding a table to the article to clarify which foods contain the highest amount of taurine. You will find that it is energy drinks and seafood. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

There are high-quality secondary source articles that review the effects of taurine. Why are these articles not cited in the wikipedia taurine article?

Americans eat dark turkey exactly once a year—on Thanksgiving. They prefer turkey breast & chicken breast. Oysters, squid & scallops are luxury foods for most Americans.

Dried beef is unsalted, unseasoned beef jerky. Go to any gas station in America and ask for beef jerky and you will get some. Or make it in your oven. sbelknap (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, it is fine to cite primary source research in medical articles on wikipedia. While it is true that secondary or tertiary sources are preferred, it is not the case that primary literature is never to be cited. For example, in this taurine article, citing certain seminal sources would improve the article. See: doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198501173120302 sbelknap (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Taurine Supplementation reduces glycemia

This meta-analysis entitled, "The effects of taurine supplementation on diabetes mellitus in humans: A systematic review and meta-analysis" concludes that

Taurine supplementation is beneficial in reducing glycemic indices, such as HbA1c, Fasting Blood Sugar, HOMA-IR in diabetic patients, but has no significant effect on serum lipids, blood pressure and body composition in diabetic patients.

Source: doi.org/10.1016/j.fochms.2022.100106

I propose that this text (reworded to avoid copyright issues) with citation of source be included in the wikipedia taurine article. sbelknap (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Ths is a low-quality publication in an unestablished journal not indexed on Medline - typically a disqualifier for claims of anti-disease benefit; see the MEDRS guideline here.

The section 3.2 on glycemic effects shows that only 5 trials with low subject numbers were first included in the review, but not all trials were used for each parameter claimed to have been affected (trial numbers of 5, 2, and 3 respectively).

Such results are too shallow and too preliminary to be suggesting an effect or use of taurine for people with diabetes. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" - WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Zefr (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a *new* journal (2020). It has a reasonable impact factor for a new journal. It has a legitimate publisher. The review itself reflects the published literature. sbelknap (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I proposed this meta-analysis: doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2020.173533 Thoughts? sbelknap (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The review you mention was on patients with liver dysregulation [24] (the trials were 15 days to 6 months), the finding was that taurine supplementation reduced blood pressure and total cholesterol. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This is an abbreviation of the full report, but otherwise there is a paywall to read the whole article.

Keeping skeptical, 1) the people studied had severe diseases (diabetes, hepatitis, fatty liver, obesity, cystic fibrosis, chronic alcoholism, cardiac surgery), so were likely under various therapeutic treatments with corresponding variable baselines. Adding taurine as a new treatment factor would be inconsistent across the patients studied, clouding interpretation of the effect; 2) the taurine doses and durations varied widely (0.5 to 6 g/d for 15 days to 6 months), making an effective dose impossible to interpret; 3) as with the above publication in Food Chemistry, a review and meta-analysis on weak, poorly-designed trials transfers into a weak source for medical content in the encyclopedia. European Journal of Pharmacology is typically a location for primary research; it is not a journal where WP:MEDRS-quality reviews would be published on anti-disease effects. Zefr (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the primary sources? If not, why are you making claims about them? Randomization addresses heterogeneity. European Journal of Pharmacology has always published reviews & meta-research.The primary clinical trials that were reviewed were well-designed & published in established journals. These objections are specious. As have been all the objections so far, in my view. Taurine has been studied in many clinical trials. The results of these trials have been reviewed in multiple meta-analyses published in journals and discussed in books. sbelknap (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

As stated above on 26 August, provide two sources that meet WP:MEDRS for editors to comment on whether the studies give adequate evidence for an effect of taurine. So far, we have seen nothing. Zefr (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a note on doi.org/10.1016/j.fochms.2022.100106 which is here [25], the source was added to the Wikipedia article by Sbelknap in December 2022 [26]. See reference 36. As of 3/9/2023 the review he added is still on the article in the "research" section. I find it odd that he is requesting to include this review on the article when it is already on the article and has been on the article for nearly a year. It has been established that the journal is very weak. I think the reference should be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

So far, no engaged editor has provided a plausible reason for omitting mention of the many clinical trials that have been conducted on the health effects of taurine. Perhaps one might forbear judgment on a review article that one has not read, in a journal that one does not access whether due to a paywall or other reason. The journal Food Chemistry is a well-established journal https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-chemistry (CiteScore 14.9; Impact Factor 8.8). Food Chemistry has several companion journals, one of which is Food Chemistry: Molecular Sciences (CiteScore 2.1; Impact Factor 3.3). The Editor of Food Chemistry: Molecular Sciences is Sian Astley, who is also an editor of Food Chemistry. The editorial board includes many established scientists.

I've read a half-dozen articles in this new journal. There is good science being reported here. It is absurd to claim that this journal is weak. It is *new*. The reason that new journals are being established in nutrition is because the field requires additional outlets for reporting research results. I ask engaged editors to rethink their position on excluding high-quality secondary source articles about the clinical effects of taurine. The objections raised seem specious to me.sbelknap (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

My advice is to wait 5 or 10 years then come back here when a good review has been published in a good journal. Right now there is no good review that has been published because there is a lack of clinical data. There is no good science here, it is very weak stuff you have cited with no conclusive results. We simply do not have enough data because not enough trials have been done and there is no long-term data. If you are not happy with what other users have told you here, you can always ask at the WikiProject Medicine for an experienced editor to weigh in on this. Zefr is an experienced user who has edited many medical topics and they have told you similar to what I have said, currently you have not provided any good evidence.

Just going on online and trying to find any old review will not cut it. Here are some good journals from the top of my head The BMJ, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, The Lancet, Diabetes & Endocrinology, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Advances in Nutrition, Nutrition (journal). I have never heard of Food Chemistry, it is not a good journal compared to what else is out there for this field. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I am an academic physician & scientist. I've taught evidence-based medicine for > 40 years. My current area of interest is the pharmacology of taurine & other nutrients.

There has been no discussion of the primary clinical trials here on this wikipedia page, AFAIK. It appears that engaged editors have not read much of the secondary or primary source literature. What I see is not consistent with good stewardship of wikipedia. sbelknap (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

If you are a professional researching this topic you must have access to academic nutritional textbooks that you could cite here. Do you know of any dietary or nutritional textbooks that have content on taurine that review clinical data? If you do, then that is a possible way to improve the article. There is no mention of taurine in Paul Coates, Encyclopedia of Dietary Supplements (2005) or Lyle Dean MacWilliam NutriSearch Comparative Guide to Nutritional Supplements (5th edition, 2014). I do not have access to Benjamin Caballero's Guide to Nutritional Supplements. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Taurine is commonly sold as a dietary supplement, but there is no good clinical evidence that taurine supplements provide any benefit to human health.[5]

I read the referenced article, #5. The original sentence in the Wikipedia article is slightly misleading. It would imply that large scale studies have been conducted, showing negligible benefit. I think what the author meant to say was that the existing studies have been too small to make the assertion of no benefit. There are many articles that suggest benefit. One example: "Taurine Provides Neuroprotection against Retinal Ganglion Cell Degeneration" by Nicolas Froger, et. al. (published 10/24/2012). The point is that the studies have been small, not that taurine has been "proven" to be ineffective. Billyarberry (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The text is correct. No good clinical evidence exists. The study you mention is not reliable, it is a study on mice [27] Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition - a good source?

I came across a 2021 meta-analysis and review of taurine's effects on some markers, and I wonder whether the journal is good enough. They report decreased C-reactive protein and malondialdehyde after taurine supplementation. My interest had been sparked by a recent news report on decreased taurine in the hippocampus in depression, in a small 7T MRI study on women. Cheers, --CopperKettle (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Although EJCN has an acceptable (but low, 4.5) impact factor, the issue is not whether the journal is "good", but rather what the review studied and found: only minor effects on two biomarkers, MDA and CRP. As reflected by the article's poor metrics (low cite numbers), the article has not had significant impact and is WP:UNDUE in related clinical disciplines, providing little value to understand possible effects of supplemental taurine. There is nothing encyclopedic to add. Zefr (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)