That’s the question 151515
Been taking it since 2015 and it’s still working as well today for me as it did then.
3 Likes
What kind of improvements have you notice?
Very minor boost to cognition. I feel more mentally sharp on it. It’s hard to say if it helps negatives. It’s more of a case of me feeling sluggish when I run out.
3 Likes
Be careful with sarcosine.
It’s a chemical.
It’s not something healthy.
And it makes me jumpy.
1 Like
This is based on … what?
This is not a genuine question.
You claimed Sarcosine is not healthy. What is the basis for your making this claim?
You folks wanna referee this?
1 Like
You got an answer. Now you have left the dialogue and don’t duplicate what I meant.
Sarcosine occurs widely in foods and is endogenously produced by catabolism of dietary methionine and choline (from membrane phospholipids such as phosphotidylcholine). To date, sarcosine has no identified adverse effects following dietary intake.
2 Likes
Quit dodging. What information are you basing your opinion on?
1 Like
Sarcosine is a chemical, yes, but everything on the planet is made of chemicals.
This chemical happens to occur naturally. Eggs is just one source.
1 Like
Maybe another time.
You have strong feelings towards sarcosine.
I have strong feelings towards inaccuracies being spread as truth.
Okay, be that as it may.
For balance, 5 patients is a very small sample size and there is no large scale or long term safety data. Although you could argue that there is no long term safety data in medication which is also true. Yet the FDA process is a lot more rigorous.
Scarcosine has been linked to but is not necessarily causative of tumor metabolism/growth in prostate cancer.
1 Like
My first link discusses how that data is misinterpreted.
In the first first link it is discussing glyphosate which is herbicide. That article is also 10 years old and science continues to be explored around the issue. If the entire body of researchers though there was nothing to it then they would not have continued to establish the evidence base and find data points. That article was basically one persons opinion 10 years ago, about an interpretation of science in realtion to a herbicide and the preliminary data available at the time. Not relevant to the discussion around supplemental scarcosine use in humans.
I do feel that where this is at with the actual evidence that you can argue either side but it’s important to use recent research and new data points as the research base isn’t infallible and the interests of this community would skew towards use since scz is the only real use I am aware of. I.e.confromation bias
As per chat gtp
- Increased sarcosine levels were significantly correlated with higher Gleason scores, which are indicators of more aggressive prostate cancer.
- In vitro studies have shown that inhibition of sarcosine production in prostate cancer cells can lead to reduced invasiveness and metastatic potential. This suggests that sarcosine may play a role in promoting the progression of prostate cancer.
Therefore if for some reason you were at high risk of developing prostate cancer or else you had prostate cancer without knowing it is reasonable to assume that there would an interaction and increasing scarcosine levels could correlated with increasing tumor progression. The relationship between scarcosine and prostate cancer is not well understood. As the evidence continues to be explored I think it wise to be risk adverse until exogenous scarcosine use has been fully cleared from correlation with cancer progression.
If at all you were going to get a definitive answer on this question, it will be many years away if not decades since scarcosine is in rare use within the population.
The data is not misinterpreted so much as it is in preliminary evidence and exploratory and research based stage. That does not mean evidence has been found for it to be safe or not in the case of scarcosine and cancer. The small piece of evidence we do have points towards the fact that there IS a corrlation not necessarily a causative one. However, the evidence to date does not bode well. I wouldn’t interpret this data as saying there is no evidence that scarcosine sign is bad you. Although it might be wrong to say there is good evidence that bad for you.
Still there is definitively no evidence saying it is safe. To say otherwise is not necessarily correct.
You can argue the case either way for it’s use dependent on your risk tolerance and a cost benefit analysis. Preliminary evidence of a correlation with cancer with the use case of unfounded evidence base in schizophrenia. Personally I choose to skip this one and use other nmda agonist.
The primary direction of conversion between glycine and sarcosine is from glycine to sarcosine, rather than the reverse. However, the conversion of glycine to sarcosine is not a major pathway and is not considered a primary metabolic route in human metabolism.
Personally I just use NAC & glycine and d-serine/l-serine.
Glycine can be found in decent amounts in collagen power and l-serine from protein is converted to D-serine. Admittedly but you need large amount of glycine and the conversation of l-serine to d-serine isn’t going to be massive but as risk reward ratio I would choose to avoid scarcosine and again I would put question marks around it’s actually safety