Bitter Melon for Type 2 Diabetes, An Update
The challenge of managing type 2 diabetes has prompted some people to explore alternative treatment options, and one of them, despite its name, may be a sweet one. Bitter melon is a popular natural remedy for type 2 diabetes among traditional medicine practitioners, and the subject of various research endeavors that present varying results.
Could bitter melon help you?
Bitter melon (Momordica charantia), also known as bitter gourd, is alternately referred to as a vegetable and as the fruit of the Momordica charantia plant. In either case, bitter melon grows in tropical and subtropical regions and lives up to its name because of its extremely bitter taste.
Numerous studies in both animals and humans have indicated that bitter melon could be helpful in the management of blood sugar among individuals with type 2 diabetes. One reason for this interest in bitter melon is the finding of a research team, published in 2008, concerning four bioactive components identified in bitter melon.
In that study, investigators reported that the components seemed to active a protein (AMPK) known to be involved with metabolism and with the ability of the body's cells to take in glucose. The study's authors noted that bitter melon was not associated with side effects and that Chinese medicine practitioners had been using the vegetable for hundreds of years and seen good results.
Among the studies of bitter melon and diabetes is a recent open-label trial in which 42 adults with metabolic syndrome were given 4.8 grams of wild bitter gourd daily in capsule form for three months. Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a combination of five risk factors that can increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes fivefold: abdominal fat, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and high triglycerides.
All the participants were checked monthly during treatment and then for three months posttreatment. Metabolic syndrome incidence rate declined progressively for the first three months of treatment and reached a significant difference (19%) at the end of treatment and remained so (16.7%) at the end of month 4 before diminishing at months 5 and 6.