Chondroitin Sulfate Vs Shark Cartilage

[Guest RedTigerJazz]

I stopped at Vitamin World today to pick up some Shark Cartilage for Jazz and they had Chondroitin Sulfate as well. I think I initially bought the Shark Cartilage because when I was shopping for Chondroitin Sulfate, they were out of it. Is there any real difference between the two? Which one is better?

 

The Shark Cartilage is 740 mg and the Chondroitin Sulfate is 500 mg. I've been giving Jazz one with each meal...combined with Glucosamine.

 

Thanks to anyone who can offer any help.

[Burpdog]

Shark cartiledge:

 

 

QUOTE

Researched Supplement Range: 1,000 mg 50,000 mg

Average Daily Intake: Unavailable

Notes: Should not be used by pregnant women or children, or persons who have had recent surgery, suffered a heart attack, or have a danger of stroke or any other vascular condition.

Shark Cartilage has an angiogenesis inhibition effect, meaning it suppresses new blood vessel development and shrinks existing blood vessels. This effect could worsen heart, brain, or kidney vascular diseases. Although shark cartilage is known to be used for arthritis it appears to be an unwise choice, since an arthritis supplement program needs enhanced blood flow for the joint to receive nutrients and make repairs.

 

Cancerous tumor often grow because they stimulate the body to get them nutrients through new networks of blood vessels. It is easy to see that shark cartilage is a valuable advocate for fighting the growth of cancerous tumors; and studies document that shark cartilage has been effective in shrinking cancerous tumors. Shark cartilage also stimulates the immune system. It has been used successfully for macular degeneration, inflammation of the bowel lining, and diabetic retinopathy. http://www.healingwithnutrition.com/access...#sharkcartilage

END QUOTE

 

I won't feed shark cartiledge.

 

 

[Guest RedTigerJazz]

Thanks, Burpdog.

[ahicks51]

There have been no studies to indicate the efficacy of shark bits and pieces on cancer in controlled studies (where all values of "controlled" = "funded by anyone other than people hawking shark cartilage"). It's based on a huge misconception that sharks and related species don't get tumors, which is bogus.

 

Chondroitin, on the other hand, seems to have some decent science backing it up:

 

Clegg DO, Reda DJ, Harris CL, Klein MA, O'Dell JR, Hooper MM, Bradley JD, Bingham CO 3rd, Weisman MH, Jackson CG, Lane NE, Cush JJ, Moreland LW, Schumacher HR Jr, Oddis CV, Wolfe F, Molitor JA, Yocum DE, Schnitzer TJ, Furst DE, Sawitzke AD, Shi H, Brandt KD, Moskowitz RW, Williams HJ (2006). "Glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, and the two in combination for painful knee osteoarthritis". New Engl J Med 354 (8): 795–808.

 

Forsyth R, Brigden C, Northrop A (2006). "Double blind investigation of the effects of oral supplementation of combined glucosamine hydrochloride (GHCL) and chondroitin sulphate (CS) on stride characteristics of veteran horses". Equine veterinary journal. Supplement (36): 622-5.

 

Barnhill JG, Fye CL, Williams DW, Reda DJ, Harris CL, Clegg DO (2006). "Chondroitin product selection for the glucosamine/chondroitin arthritis intervention trial". J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash DC) 46 (1): 14–24

 

McAlindon TE, LaValley MP, Gulin JP, Felson DT (2000). "Glucosamine and Chondroitin for Treatment of Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Quality Assessment and Meta-analysis". JAMA 283: 1469–1475.

[Guest benson]

Additionally, most of the sharks weren't actually done using their cartilage when they were killed for it either.

[MarcR]

Considering the heavy pressure on shark populations world wide, and their relatively slow rate of reproduction, I'm opposed to shark fishing for any purpose... stepping down from soapbox...