The whole "glucose tolerance factor" thing seems to have been abandoned as a serious line of enquiry many years ago. Why are we still giving it so much weight? This was the subject of an edit war in diabetes mellitus a while ago. JFW | T@lk07:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My guess: this is fringe science
The article assumes that a biological role for Cr is established, when in fact the so-called problem of chromium deficiency is probably a construct of the marketers of nutritional supplements. Biochemically, the topic appears to be either unimportant and flimsy, based on the lack of references. I cant find much on beneficial bio-Cr either.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Chromium is linked to how the body establishes cholesterol and has a significant ability to reduce the bad cholesterol (LDL), why if this not the first port of call with the doctors to reduce peoples high LDL, then they still have the contingency plan which is to give patients STATINS!!!!!