Talk:Β-Sitosterol/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article Is Grossly Biased / Turns a Blind Eye Towards European Research

The term 'unassessed chemicals' shows a gross bias in the article against studies done in Europe. It is also irrational for American medical professionals to only cite American studies as being relevant.

The fact is that extensive studies have been done in Europe on Beta-sitosterols delivered primarily in herbs and the literature shows that larger doses, especially from Pygeum Africanum (rather than the lower levels found in Saw Palmetto) are very effective in managing BPH.

The comment (just deleted from the article) that study results only show limited results is therefore absolutely absurd and is likely the result of the American practice of 1) only considering American studies and 2) only considering studies of Saw Palmetto and not considering studies of Pygeum Africanum which has far higher levels on Beta-sitosterol.

The European system for studying the efficacy of herbal treatments is rigorously scientific and it's ridiculous to ignore the enormous body of European work as it is equally ridiculous to claim a substance has unproven effects just because one hasn't bothered to comprehensively read the European literature on the subject, or bcause one only reads about Saw Palmetto but not Pygeum Africanum.

Sean7phil (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In reply to the above: It is patently irrational to claim that there is "European science" and "American science", as if the rules of logic and scientific inquiry varied depending upon one's nationality.

The only thing that matters is whether the studies are sufficiently well-performed to draw firm, generalizable conclusions. This is a point of view shared by top-notch scientists in all parts of the world - American and otherwise.

Conversely, second-rate scientists and their advocates are all too often the first to cry "bias!" when their work gets rejected or ignored.

5-alpha-reductase inhibitor?

One of the cross-references is about 5-alpha-reductase inhibition. Furthermore, both saw palmetto and African pygeum contain beta-sitosterol as an active component and are said to act by inhibiting 5-alpha-reductase. Yet the article on 5-alpha-reductase doesn't mention beta-sitosterol. Should it, and should this article state that it is, in fact, a 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor? Unfree (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Beta Sitosterol Works!

Folks,

To me qustioning the effectiveness of Beta Sitosterol in helping symptoms of BPH is flying in the face of plain fact. I cannot believe that anyone who has actually had BPH and used Beta Sitosterol in sufficient quantity would say this. I have been taking 600 to 1200 mg a day for the past three years and believe me, it works. This is already past doing scientific studies. This is an observable fact that anyone can feel for themselves every time they urinate. You do have to take enough. Saw palmetto is useless because it has so little, but there are 300 mg beta sitosterol supplement capsules available from several sources, and 2-4 of those a day has been a godsend to me.

Tony Wicher Ontario, California —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.217.173 (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

please, improve this article!

"In Europe iβ-sitosterol plays a major role in treatment of herbal therapy of benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH)[citation needed].

It is also used in Europe for the treatment of prostatic carcinoma[2] and breast cancer[3] although the benefits are still being evaluated in the US."

I think that the biosynthesis and it's role in plants etc etc would be at least as important as these two sentences. By at least as important I mean that perhaps these two sentences are not that extremely relevant, since the main function of sitosterols is not curing anything in humans, it is just a use. It's like when talking about Abietaceae we would only talk about spars, but say nothing about forests or even trees. Please, somebody improve this article!Myrmeleon formicarius (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a vandal so I write what I would change here:

β-sitosterol is one of several phytosterols (plant sterols). Sitosterols are structural components of cell membranes, playing the the same role in plants that cholesterol has in animal cells. Sitosterols are white, waxy powders with a characteristic odor. They are hydrophobic and soluble in alcohols.

Or something like this. Rather more than this. Myrmeleon formicarius (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

---

As a year passed since the last comment, I would take the initiative and add a few words (including the ones suggested by Myrmeleon formicarius. Please feel free to comment. Thank you. Healthycare (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

The grammar is bad in some sections. I don’t have time to fix it (I’m at work), but it should be checked! CielProfond (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources

There are better sources for some of the claims, there is even a few Cochrane reviews. On the other hand the claim about breast cancer is very remote, mistletoe is way more popular in Europe. Richiez (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How much of it in plant sources

The Sources section lists plants but does not indicate which part of the plants or what typical concentration, or even a reference for the list of plants. - Rod57 (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Side Effects

There are no clinical research or peer reviewed articles which document the side effects of Beta Sitosterol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.8.4 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Article references 1995 : Berges RR, Windeler J, Trampisch HJ, et al. Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial of beta-sitosterol in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Beta-sitosterol Study Group. Lancet . 1995;345:1529-1532. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91085-9. PMID 7540705. Doesn't that count ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"beta"

What's with the "beta", "β" part of the name ? an explanation, please, or at the very least a wikilink to an article that does explain ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"Side Effects"

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. The *correlation* of sitosterol levels with heart disease could very well be due to reduced secretion of dietary Cholesterol, as the same transporters (ABC G8/G5, a heterodimer when functional) are responsible for secretion of sitosterols back into the intestinal lumen (normally, most of them are re-secreted by enterocytes rather than being absorbed) as for secretion of Cholesterol into the lumen.

In short, patients with high sitosterol levels would likely have them as a result of having low Cholesterol secretion levels into the gut (this would probably be under genetic/environmental control by other factors) anyways rather than the sitosterol itself causing heart disease. That is, a risk factor for heart disease would both cause the heart disease and the high sitosterol levels (Common Causation) rather than the heart disease being caused by the sitosterols.

Sitosterols actually inhibit Cholesterol absorption from the diet, and thus sitosterols in the diet would be expected to *reduce* the incidence of heart disease- but they are normally NOT passed from the gut to the blood (the presence of high sitosterols in the blood, regardless of dietary intake, would likely indicate a baseline malfunction of the intestinal epithelium).

Bottom Line: This so-called "Side Effect" needs more solid evidence that it is actually CAUSED by sitosterol intake. Simply being correlated with levels in the blood is VERY poor evidence for causation here, as sitosterols normally don't pass from gut to blood in significant levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.232.96 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)