The history of Chromium picolinate: how the supplement became popular

Chromium picolinate was once one of the most popular supplements in the world: it was sold as a weight-loss aid, a "natural anabolic," and a sugar regulator. Today scientists' attitude toward it is much more reserved. The editorial team has traced how this compound made its way from laboratory yeast to the shelves of sports stores and what along that path has remained scientifically justified.

The beginning: the glucose tolerance factor

The history of chromium in nutrition begins with the work of Klaus Schwarz and Walter Mertz, published in 1959. The researchers fed rats a special diet and noticed in the animals an impairment of glucose tolerance that disappeared after the addition of brewer's yeast. The active component was named the "glucose tolerance factor" and was associated with trivalent chromium.

This idea turned out to be extraordinarily influential. Over the following decades chromium began to be regarded as a trace element necessary for the normal action of insulin. However, the exact chemical structure of the "glucose tolerance factor" was never unambiguously established, and later the concept itself began to raise doubts.

An important argument in favor of the essentiality of chromium came from clinical cases of people on long-term total parenteral nutrition. In 1977 Jeejeebhoy and colleagues described a patient who developed impaired glucose tolerance and neuropathy, which regressed after chromium was added to intravenous nutrition solutions.

These observations laid the foundation for further research and, importantly, for future marketing. The idea that "chromium helps insulin work" became the basis on which promises about weight loss, appetite control, and muscle mass were later built.

The emergence of picolinate and the first loud claims

The problem with inorganic chromium compounds is very low intestinal absorption: only an insignificant fraction of ingested chromium is absorbed, by estimates a few percent or less. Therefore researchers looked for a form that would penetrate the body better. One of the candidates was a compound of chromium with picolinic acid — a natural metabolite of tryptophan.

Chromium picolinate was developed at the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the 1980s, and it is associated primarily with the name of the researcher Gary Evans. The patent on the compound was licensed to commercial companies, which provided the supplement with powerful marketing support.

A turning point was Evans's 1989 publication, which reported that chromium picolinate combined with training increased lean body mass and reduced fat mass in students and football players. The work was small, and the methods of assessing body composition were limited, but the conclusions quickly made it into advertising.

After this, chromium picolinate began to be positioned as a safe alternative to anabolic steroids — a formulation that for the late 1980s sounded especially attractive against the backdrop of doping scandals in sport.

The boom of the 1990s and the testing of sports promises

In the 1990s chromium picolinate became one of the best-selling mineral supplements in the USA. It was added to fat burners, "meal replacements," protein shakes, and even chewing gums. The words "regulates sugar" and "burns fat" became standard advertising formulas.

In parallel, the scientific community began to test Evans's claims. In 1996 two more rigorous randomized studies were published: Hallmark and colleagues, and also Lukaski and colleagues. In both works men combined strength training with taking chromium or a placebo, and body composition was assessed by more precise methods. No convincing advantage of chromium regarding strength or muscle mass was found.

In 1999 Campbell and colleagues studied elderly men on a strength-training program — the result was similar: chromium picolinate did not enhance the gain in muscle and strength. A review by Vincent (2003) in the journal Sports Medicine concluded that claims about an anabolic effect and an influence on body composition in humans are not confirmed.

Regarding weight loss, a meta-analysis by Pittler, Stevinson, and Ernst (2003) found only a very small difference in body weight compared with placebo, whose clinical significance is doubtful. A later meta-analysis by Onakpoya and colleagues (2013) reached an analogous conclusion.

Safety disputes and regulatory decisions

In 1995 Stearns and colleagues reported that chromium picolinate in a Chinese hamster ovary cell culture caused chromosome damage. This work provoked a lively discussion: critics pointed to the high concentrations in the experiment, proponents of the risk — to the fact that the picolinate complex may behave differently from other forms of trivalent chromium.

At the end of the 1990s, isolated clinical descriptions of kidney and liver damage in people taking chromium picolinate appeared in the literature, in particular a report by Wasser and colleagues (1997) on chronic renal failure. A cause-and-effect relationship is difficult to prove in such cases, but they cemented the image of the supplement as not entirely "harmless."

In 1997 Anderson and colleagues published a study from China in which chromium improved glucose and insulin indicators in people with type 2 diabetes. However, subsequent studies in Western populations, for example the work of Kleefstra and colleagues (2006), did not confirm such an effect, and a meta-analysis by Althuis and colleagues (2002) found no effect in people without diabetes.

In 2005 the FDA allowed for chromium picolinate only a so-called qualified claim regarding insulin resistance, while noting that there is very little evidence and the link remains extremely uncertain. For marketing this became a compromise; for science, an acknowledgment of the weakness of the evidence.

• 1995 — in vitro data on chromosome damage.
• 1997 — a clinical report of kidney damage.
• 2001 — the IOM establishes an adequate intake rather than a recommended norm.
• 2005 — FDA: only a qualified claim with major caveats.

The modern view: is chromium needed at all

In 2001 the U.S. Institute of Medicine established for chromium not a recommended norm (RDA) but only an adequate intake (AI) level — an indicator used when there is not enough data for precise calculations. For adult men the AI is 35 mcg per day, for women 25 mcg, with lower values after age 50.

The European Food Safety Authority went further in 2014: EFSA concluded that there is insufficient evidence of the essentiality of chromium, and therefore did not establish any dietary reference value for it. In parallel, some researchers, in particular Vincent, began to regard chromium more as a pharmacologically active substance than as an obligatory trace element.

Today chromium picolinate remains on the market, but its role in sports nutrition is modest. The IOC consensus on dietary supplements and the ISSN reviews do not include it among supplements with a proven effect on performance or body composition.

The most scientific interest remains around the possible effect of chromium on appetite and carbohydrate cravings, and around particular groups of patients with disorders of carbohydrate metabolism. But here too the data are heterogeneous, and the decision to take it in the presence of a diagnosis must be made by a doctor.

Editorial conclusions

The history of chromium picolinate is a classic example of how a small study with a loud conclusion can define a supplement's reputation for decades. Subsequent more rigorous works confirmed neither an anabolic effect nor a substantial influence on weight loss.

The idea of chromium as an indispensable "insulin helper" grew out of research from the 1950s–1970s, but even chromium's status as an essential trace element is today being called into question by EU regulators.

The supplement remains available and, at ordinary doses, is generally well tolerated, but expectations of it should be kept at the level of current data, not 1990s advertising.

We also recommend reading "Chromium picolinate during cutting: does it help," "Chromium picolinate during a bulk: is there a point," and "How to choose a quality Chromium picolinate: what to look for on the label."

References

1. Schwarz K, Mertz W. Chromium(III) and the glucose tolerance factor. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1959;85:292–295.
2. Jeejeebhoy KN, Chu RC, Marliss EB, et al. Chromium deficiency, glucose intolerance, and neuropathy reversed by chromium supplementation, in a patient receiving long-term total parenteral nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr. 1977;30(4):531–538.
3. Lukaski HC, Bolonchuk WW, Siders WA, Milne DB. Chromium supplementation and resistance training: effects on body composition, strength, and trace element status of men. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996;63(6):954–965.
4. Stearns DM, Wise JP, Patierno SR, Wetterhahn KE. Chromium(III) picolinate produces chromosome damage in Chinese hamster ovary cells. FASEB J. 1995;9(15):1643–1648.
5. Anderson RA, Cheng N, Bryden NA, et al. Elevated intakes of supplemental chromium improve glucose and insulin variables in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes. 1997;46(11):1786–1791.
6. Vincent JB. The potential value and toxicity of chromium picolinate as a nutritional supplement, weight loss agent and muscle development agent. Sports Med. 2003;33(3):213–230.
7. Pittler MH, Stevinson C, Ernst E. Chromium picolinate for reducing body weight: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003;27(4):522–529.
8. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for chromium. EFSA Journal. 2014;12(10):3845.