Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anyone can alter or claim anything on it. It’s not a scholarly source. Can anyone steer me to something that is?
Sarcosine is a con the way its advertised on this site.
The NIH is a reputable source.
Sarcosine is an amino acid that is an intermediate and byproduct in glycine synthesis and degradation with potential anti-depressant and anti-schizophrenic activities. Sarcosine is a product of dietary consumption of choline and creatine and is rapidly converted into glycine. Oral administration of sarcosine with certain antipsychotics may cause increased glycine concentration in the brain, which may lead to increased NMDA receptor activation and a reduction in symptoms.
Pharmacology from NCIt
Check the sources, there are plenty of good ones on the Sarcosine Wikipedia article. You should not be so quick to dismiss the best encyclopedia since the dawn of written language. If you worry about bad revisions then you can easily check the history and talk pages and see for yourself if there is any controversy. But since the Sarcosine article is pretty short and has few revisions you can just stick to the scholarly articles they have in the sources section.
And if you want more scholarly articles then there are webpages where you can search for articles. Google Scholar is easy to use.
But unless you are studying/working at a university or college you probably won’t be able to read the full articles.
I use it. I find it works. I really notice the difference when I run out or a shipment is late. In fact, sarcosine is one of the very few supplements I’ve taken in my life where I can tell it actually helps (the other being vitamin D – I catch much fewer colds and flus when on it).
For me, it’s something of a mood stabilizer (better than my Effexor prescription to be honest) and an aide with short term memory. I’m about 30% better at remembering to take care of my personal hygiene when using it.