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 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)

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 [9]. 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 [10] and WP:FTN [11] 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 [12]. 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" [13]. 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 [14]. 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 [15], 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 [16], [17], [18]). 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)