Talk:Forskolin

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled

Godard, M.P., B.A. Johnson, S.R. Richmond. Body composition and hormonal adaptations associated with forskolin consumption in overweight and obese men. Obesity Research, vol. 13(8), p. 1335-43, 2005.

Page Style

I personally do not think it is good that the article is comprised mostly of catchphrases without a coherent body of text. Also I think references should only be visible at the bottom of the page and links to websites or articles should be in a section "further reading". Would I have the consent to change it accordingly or is any one else willing to take action? Adeptus (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Apropos of nothing, this article is not very informative as it now stands (Oct. 2014). It mentions some medical journal articles - which are hard to access and even harder to understand - but does not bother to summarize or analyze them. Another website, which is less than enthusiastic about claims made for Forskolin, pointed out that the alpha testing was done on very small groups, showed very small effects, etc. One of the interesting details, that addresses Forskolin as a diet aid, is that nobody seems to have lost weight from it - but the proportion of muscle over fat improved slightly. It also showed some slight reduction of glaucoma symptoms. This "supplement" is being heavily promoted as a diet pill or for some other medicinal purpose, and deserves a RELIABLE analysis in Wikipedia. Sussmanbern (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Two years later this is still heavily touted as a diet pill and I would really like to see that aspect of it addressed in detail. Sussmanbern (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of name?

Does anyone know where the name "Forskolin" comes from? You've gotta admit, it sounds strangely like "foreskin." (I tried to make a joke about this at a journal club meeting one day and was met with a painful stony silence.) -- FP ^{(talk)(edits)} 12:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question, it comes from the name of the herb Coleus forskohlii, a member of the mint family. Nothing to do with foreskins. What a stupid question. Sigh. --

See Peter Forsskål in Wikipedia

FP ^{(talk)(edits)} 12:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbolin 19

Carbolin 19, the sale name for an anobolic dietry supplement. tablets contain 20mg of Colforsin 1,9 ethylcarbonate ester. I have not been able to find any papers about this particular compound. Is there any detailed info out there on its action on human subjects?

If it's an ester then I assume it just hydrolyses to give colforsin/forskolin

88.196.42.236 22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Chemical, biological and medical potential

Despite this not being a medical article (on disease or medicine) lots of material has been deleted (Oct 2015) citing WP:MEDRS. This seems lazy and heavy handed and leaves the article unbalanced. Rather than removing the entire section it would be more constructive to flag/identify the items that need better sources. Is WP:MEDRS applicable to everything here or just to medical claims ? - Rod57 (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I am writing to ask about the types of sources this article's curators would favor. Looking at WP:HEALTHRS, it just seems as if it would benefit from a review of the literature. The youngest article cited here is already six years old. Much has happened since. Would you share your thoughts about more recent sources like this one in Nature? Thanks. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 13:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cGMP section needed

There is a section on cAMP, but there are numerous studies showing this chemical also increases cGMP. There should be a section with at least a similar level of detail as the cAMP section for cGMP. I lack the editing prowess to create it myself 50.84.144.90 (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D2 long receptors up-regulation and sensitivity?

Took the drug and it without out doubt has D2 receptor up regulation and possible agonism. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7851491/.

The article I posted shows the testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:F83F:4F5A:111D:6AFC:7576:A84B (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]