Talk:Glyconutrient

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glyconutrient article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Archival of old discussion & Newest revisions

I have substantially changed the content of this article to better fit demonstrable scientific fact surrounding the topic. I have further removed non-relevant sections tangential to the term (such as all of the "probiotic" original research that was in the first subsection). I have added references to the American Cancer Society and UC Berkeley Public School of Health that describe the true biology rather than the inferences that were previously the mainstay of the scientific portion of the article. I have made it more clear that the term is the origination of Mannatech and that modern science and medicine only adopt the term when dealing with these sugars in reference to Mannatech's products. The term glyconutrient is not a mainstream scientific term and a search of the relevant literature proves that. Furthermore, there was no discussion of the fact that the outlandish claims of alternative therapy/nutritional supplement made by sales websites were not supported by any fact and had even gotten Mannatech sued. That is now added as well. ju66l3r 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up and adding references. --Antelan talk 00:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The previous consensus glyconutrient article was developed in conjunction with a glycobiologist[1] and a neurologist[2][3] to better *inform* an ignorant public with a better *description*. Although the "old" article certainly had its limitations and that while I agree that the largest marketer wages a rather blatant marketing campaign, this new article mutated from a useful neutral, generic discussion about commerical products to a diatribe against a particular company and its rather blatant marketing claims. The original article attempted to identify various materials utilized, some idea of their historical background, their economics, and to identify unscientific and highly questionable claims. When relevant physiology references were introduced by a specialized medical reader, no one else was too eager to sort through them, discuss pertinent mechanisms that *are* reported in reliable sources, and connect them phrase by phrase to the article's text. Ultimately the reference slug was criticized for insufficient context to specific text and removed[4] until someone was willing to do the legwork (those on top of a medical school library would find it much easier). Other editors' contributions for such an improved technical presentation would be welcome.
It is a priority to describe what kinds of ingredients are and have been used in such products, and what background history and mechanisms are associated with them in a coherent article. Consumers are mostly indifferent about scientific nomenclature, they need and want *locatable* encyclopedic information about a relevant subject. This question has already been addressed at length. Although I felt the previous article wound up being significantly "dumbed down", some outside reviews warned that it might be more technical than many readers prefer. As far as a scientific nomenclature requirement at Wikipedia, many commercially originated and trivial terms are used at Wikipedia, aspirin probably not being the first.
The article as of 12 Mar 07 focuses on criticism about advertising by a marketing company, not the topic itself. I would suggest that the corporate criticism be addressed at Mannatech. Restoring previous structure and adding most relevant, recent portion to the criticism section.--I'clast 05:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, credentials are not given significant weight especially due to recent controversy on Wikipedia. Name one other company that sells "glyconutrients" other than Mannatech or one of it's multi-level marketing subsidiaries. The source of glyconutrients for sales would be interesting, but what was presented was a laundry list of vegetables with no reliable sources. Honestly, nearly any vegetable probably has some level of polysaccharides in its cellular wall and could be refined into a sugar stew that would meet one of the 8 "essential sugars". What would be relevant is not 40 kinds of veggies, but a list of the ingredients currently in Ambrotose...reliably sourced. The article in its current form is clear and detailed in the scientific relevance and pseudo-nutritional claims of glyconutrient sellers (of which Mannatech is de facto the leader by creation of the term and associated products). The fact that the company has been sued for its overstated claims is relevant to the debunking of its reputed health benefits as an alternative therapy for improved nutrition. An extended manifest of the lawsuits and related parties would be appropriate at the company's article, but their product should be shown for what it is here and it is necessary to include information regarding the lawsuits to do so. It's not as if the article contains information on how Mannatech was money laundering in an attempt to disparage them in an unrelated way. The lawsuit is directly related to the product itself and it's claimed benefits. I read through the previous archived discussion, and it read as if a handful of people were happy to agree with each other on how to best phrase the article in a way that benefits the product in the least affrontive way possible. That's not neutrality. Neutrality is met now that the term is given for what it is (a pseudo-medical term used to trump up sales for an alternative health treatment of no useful benefit...particularly for the more serious claims of curative properties related to cancer, Down's Syndrome, MS, etc.). Furthermore, the probiotic lilt that was removed has no relevance to whether polysaccharides are an essential nutritional need and whether these products provide any health benefits. There is no reliable sourcing on any "probiotic" relationship to glyconutrient supplements any more than there is reliable sourcing for these supplements to cure lupus, chronic fatigue, cancer, etc. Basically, the article is currently in a much more regimented and corrected form now. If you don't agree, I suggest you submit a Request for Comment to get outside opinions on the two versions. We should attempt to write an article that fully describes the fact that there is nothing reliably sourced about any benefits claimed by the manufacturers of glyconutrients and only a series of warnings by anyone of merit against the product because of its questionable marketing, gross misrepresentations, and lack of research-based conclusions. ju66l3r 19:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
What you are ignoring is a previous consensus by four non trivial editors. Three highly involved, and another one fairly expert (the slug of science references), but not willing to engage in the extended back and forth. Your version leaves out significant material and real scientific issues where reliably reported relevant, scientific results & concepts seem alien to you. Bear in mind this is not about an FDA medical drug discussion either. The new article[5] reads like an encyclopedia ca 1990 adding an article, "Automobile" - Work of the devil. Yugos suck. A laughable consumer disaster on an entire country...Pintos are lawsuits, not horses..."
The idea of the old article was to more accurately inform readers, to remove the marketing hype (99.9% of related paper and electrons) and to identify the science, apart from the partisans - whether salesmen or self styled witch hunters. The previous version's LEAD dismisses the "8 ess s" nonsense dispassionately, encyclopedically, and informatively. The old lead reflects what modern science says is the primary fate and function of various polysaccharide fiber. It notes that modern literature does speak to immuno stimulating properties of exotic high molecular wt materials that are used in such formulas. We did not get into lectins last year either.
Credentials? You are treating previous work like that of illiterates on commission from a certain company. There are plenty of companies selling related components and formulas[6][7][8] and apparently home mixers experiementing with different formulations. I am not involved in either one. The article was prepared when Wikipedia and I were newer at this, the article was written to look/read like a World book entry, not Britannica. After the initial AfD and scope & structure work, I felt like I had already spent too much time on the article. The primary sources obviously need to be referenced now and I need help with those articles.
RfC/AR are a massive drain on time for everyone, productive editors don't go looking for them. In such articles, the process burdensomely draws in people that are usually totally unfamiliar with the subject, a wiki version of SPOV is a better way to collaborate. A clear anti-Mannatech POV appears to be in the way of any scientific assessment, balance and reporting for many editors. I am kind of hoping that you will settle down and *look* long enough to contribute more than a diatribe. In simple marketing theory your detested company may stll be winning, you are still spamming the idea and company name, albeit with as much vitriol as you think you can swing here. My idea was to starve name and unfounded claims with more factually and scientifically relevant material.
Problems & misconceptions (not exhaustive):
  1. The new article violates WP:LEAD and gives primacy & undue weight to criticism. The article no longer reflects many facts previously developed, obsessing on the spammed edible essential sugars theory. e.g. not all potentially physiologically active components are even carbohydrates in many formulas.
  2. The previous version doesn't use the word "probiotics"[9]. Prebiotics, somewhat lower molecular weight carbohydrate polymers, are much different materials than probiotics (live culture, fermented products like yogurt, keffir, etc) This "probiotics" error misunderstands a concept fundamental to the article.
  3. Mannatech is not lonely, there are a lot of little companies making different "flavors", and other formulas are widely known.
  4. Anti-consumerist: removing facts about components, economics and current science does not allow the reader to decide or to even form questions.
  5. Sourcing - Ambrotose is only a formula, arguably a patentable knockoff of a pre-existing cottage industry. (There is discussion that the 8 sugar bs was a patent angle before it was a marketing angle) One of the reference problems here is that commercial sources that list the various components contained are often full of marketing fluff, like most of America, and I didn't want to be accused of spamming the fluff part last year, either. So I just reported the source based text research (WP:RS). These articles are hard enough w/o an extra accusation even scrupulously done on policy.
Given the lack of authoritative vendor support and the variety of ingredients used, it would be better to describe what materials are used, what those materials have been reported to do in reliable literature, and report on consumer friendly material that empowers readers to see issues unclouded by hype, politics and byplay. The pile of source articles to be mined[10][11] has been previously shown, I would appreciate help from someone near a decent research library.--I'clast 23:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You need to assume good faith. RfC is precisely for situations like this. You continue to flash credentials as if that's supposed to somehow validate their opinions without the need for good sourcing. There's no point in discussing changes to the article if you're going to appeal to authority and then ignore any new opinions because to deal with the changes would be too much hassle. You then go on to claim that all I contribute is diatribe (not civil), when the reason we're having this discussion is that I substantially improved this article by founding it on good sources (2 added) and included information from those sources in this article. I'll submit it myself since you seem adverse to the idea. The previous version of this article presented unencyclopedic information that was time-sensitive and irrelevant to what is actually known (vs what you believe to be true). The laundry list of ingredients, for example, was creeping without a single reliable source.
  1. There is no undue weight on the criticism, since what is reliably known is that the term glyconutrients is a marketing term that has no support in the medical research community.
  2. Prebiotic and probiotic are two sides of the exact same coin. To claim that one is not relevant/related to the other is either disingenuous or naive.
  3. Name one other company besides Mannatech.
  4. This is an encyclopedia article, not a purchasing guide. Information like price per unit is not relevant to the writing of a good article. Unsourced conjecture about what might be an ingredient in glyconutrients is original research.
Finally, this isn't about "marketing". This is about inclusion of scientific research and glyconutrients' relevance to nutrition (i.e. not relevant according to everything currently known). You are correct that marketing fluff is not acceptable sourcing, but neither is unsourced conjecture about what might be true from that fluff being hand-picked and inserted as if it were assuredly true (you know, because 4 degrees and you agreed on it). ju66l3r 04:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I do assume good faith, my first discussion[12] is *very* civil in the face of a major negative rewrite over previous consensus with a number of fact deletions and inaccuracies. I have shown you several policiy problems and questionable knowledge, I am quite questioning your rewrite. Flashing credentials? You can't find mine, not even a high school diploma. I would refer all to the previous editors' edits & edit history. You have the clearest credentials showing but you have dismissed in major proportion the 3+ week consensus of four editors where the primary issue, now, is updating the references to current 2007 WP practice.
There's no point... sounds premature if not prejudicial. any new opinions... "Just" a broadside with wholesale changes? I did extract some of your sentences to add to the criticism section, that's not ignore[13]. As far as "diatribes", I have corrected my text to the singular. Here's what Cambridge Dictionary online says "an angry speech or piece of writing which severely criticizes something or someone." Exactly how it looks[14], the kind of stuff Wikimedia starts to worry about those phone calls, no kidding. For the record, *I* have had my hand slapped by an admin for criticizing MT for less. The primary time sensitive item in the previous version was the cost data, fixed in time for reference. AGF/"ignored? I have agreed to the need to cite references, it is time consuming in these kind of articles, ({cn}} is a more appropriate and AGF response.
1. There is no undue weight on the criticism, since what is reliably known is that the term glyconutrients is a marketing term that has no support in the medical research community.
I sharply distinguish common news(letters), medical, medical research, alternative sources and science sources, and none are monolithic. I will agree that MT started the 8 ess'l sugar marketing push and original label. The label seems to have outgrown them as Bayer and Xerox have also experienced.
2. Prebiotic and probiotic are two sides of the exact same coin. To claim that one is not relevant/related to the other is either disingenuous or naive.
I did not discuss prebiotic / probiotic relationships, such as where an input affects an output. I doubt most knowledgeable editors here would confuse my comments between filet mignon going in and the resultant product day(s) later. But a lot of less knowledgeable editors, much less readers, might confuse your usage of probiotics and omission of prebiotics.
3. Name one other company besides Mannatech.
I linked three companies in the edit before, that have a somewhat higher quality technical content too.
4. This is an encyclopedia article, not a purchasing guide. Information like price per unit is not relevant to the writing of a good article.
Doing remedial composition of matter work is very encyclopedic since this information is not generally well addressed, The componments are in fact key to historical development of related products, mechanisms of action, and the relevant science articles.
Unsourced conjecture about what might be an ingredient in glyconutrients is original research.
Unsourced, no there are internal links and bibliography, I explained the situation, you have not registered it yet; inadequately sourced would be closer, again use ({cn)). Conjecture? I told you it was source based research not OR, again ({cn}}.
...irrelevant to what is actually known (vs what you believe to be true) You think you know what 'I believe?
I am probably working closer to the primary source bones than you are. There is huge difference betweeen different degrees of establishment, and you are content to state the unknown and unproven in rather concrete negative forms that no matter what the merit, are getting disparging, an unsafe editing practice for such rapid changes.
On the composition of matter I will need to spend some time parsing WP:RS, WP:V etc. how to best handle this, I am not wild about free links to commercial sites, but those are most likely to accurately state actual contents of varied formulas and contents.--I'clast 09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This RfC is premature. This is pre-emptively going to RfC without meaningful discussion as above. I apologize to any inconvienced and thank all for their careful participation.--I'clast 09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Latest revisions to Glyconutrient

This is a dispute over the latest set of revisions: Is the article improved from the previous version to the current version? 04:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • I have recently revised the content of this article to accurately portray and emphasize the facts surrounding "glyconutrients" that were not present in the previous version. Namely, (1) that the term glyconutrients is a creation of a company, Mannatech; (2) that claims for nutritional supplement/disease repair surrounding glyconutrients are not founded in any research and are actually contradicted by what is currently known; (3) that there is no relevance to pricing of these products as Wikipedia is not a consumer buying guide; and (4) that the previous version contained an ever expanding laundry list of potential sources of "glyconutrients" without reliable sourcing and with claims and weight to unsourced prebiotic/probiotic arguments for potential nutritional benefits (both the list and prebiotic comments being unsourced, were removed). ju66l3r 04:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
1. I may agree that the term "glyconutrient" was *introduced* by Mannatech, I just did not think one more commercial MT plug was necesary, neither did User:Stauffenberg (also a V RS issue, MT claims honors, but...). 2. Most substantial/SPOV Wikipeidans agree that the MT 8 sugar theory is unsupported. 3. The famed Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, a standard chemical reference for over 40 years, includes price data in standard articles. They might know something about the encyclopedic need for price data on materials. 4. I have said that I will work on WP:V, RS about compositions and that I would like to collaborate on various references. This article has turned into a slag heap, of inaccurate, incomplete or misleading statements. Where if I didn't know better, I would not know that "glyconutrient" formulas also frequently have marine peptides and other non carbohydrate materials in them...--I'clast 10:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments by those not previously involved
  • Great, except that you did not go quite far enough. I have removed some remaining duplication in the article, though perhaps not all. . There is no point in going into any detail about genuine glycobiology here--a reference is enough. There is no point saying repeatedly that there is no scientific basis, one paragraph says it pretty thoroughly.
I suppose the FDA suits show notability.
I have not yet check for duplication with the article about the company. But certainly this article needs at least the company website.
I guess I am involved now. ;) DGG 07:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)DGG 07:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think everyone has been in agreement that the glycobiology part is unfounded. That is why I think it should be only a small part of the article, MT too. The problem with this kind of referencing moving from general bibliography to a specific reference in a hot topic area like this, is that it works best if someone who is familiar reads the whole thing and then excerpts it, quotes it, links it.--I'clast 09:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment

I'm in favour of the article just sticking to glyconutrients with small reference to Mannatech. This is only as there is a separate article for Mannatech where discussion on Mannatech should reside. Hence I agree I'clast in this regard. Perhaps the two should be merged given User:Ju66l3r's comments above (especially point (1))? Shot info 07:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

About the earlier references. The abstracts of all of them are available on Pubmed. I agree with a prev. ed. that anyone with a dictionary should be able to see that not one makes references to the consumption of anything resembling this company's products. If challenged, I'll read and report on the articles in more detail--I have similar qualifications to the prev. ed. DGG 07:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree with any merge proposal, the Mannatech article is controverted and changes like a Cephid variable star, where I get to join in the fun, too. The rising number of legal actions and criticism around that company suggest that its own article is quite appropriate.--I'clast 09:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the articles being separate, but I'm curious about the 4 points raised above and if glyconutrients are really just a "brand name" (which I know it isn't I just need a couple of words to use) of Mannatech, then does it deserve notability outside of Mannatech? Mind you, I don't agree with not merging articles just because the other article is "bad". We would all just have to head over there :-) All in all just my 2c worth. Shot info 10:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Glycontrients are not a branded use, and are not a well patented one either. The MT article is not (always) "bad" just highly unstable. The focus of each article is different and it also would be disruptive and misleading to more academic presentations of this much broader topic, where I can wallow in disfavor from two "sides" :-/ ,I'clast 10:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by an editor of the "previous version"

After reading the current version of the article and the dialogue above, I feel that reversion to my edit (the "previous version") would be detrimental. The "current version" (which differs from the actual version that is present right now, hence the double-quotation marks) is better than my previous version. It cleaned up the litany of marketing statements and it clarified the actual status of glyconutrients. That being said, I feel that the actual version that is presently displayed is superior to both versions under discussion. I would advocate for the removal of one sentence: These have been found to be important to cellular communication and the immune system. That sentence is not relevant to the glyconutrients discussion, except insofar as it is an argument used in the Mannatech marketing CD, which I have listened to. --Antelan talk 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you pls identify what you consider a "litany of marketing statements" in the old version? Thank you.--I'clast 22:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Here you go:
Components of various mixtures have included high molecular weight extracts from aloe vera, high molecular weight arabinogalactan fraction of Larch extract, gum arabic (gum acacia), ghatti gum, gum tragacanth, oat fiber, fenugreek seed, kelp, Shiitake mushroom, Shii-ta-ke concentrated extract, Reishi mushroom, cordyceps, psyllium husk, bovine cartilage powder, xylitol, Red Roselle as glucosamine precursors and glucosamine. Many of these components have long been used in food processing and health remedies.
This is a litany because of the list of terms thrown out. These terms are converted into marketing statements by the final sentence.
Nutritional and medical sciences have long noted soluble fiber, including polysaccharides, as largely undigested in the small intestine. The soluble fibers are then fermented in the colon into highly beneficial short chain fatty acids, n-butyrate being especially beneficial. Anti-inflammatory benefits are associated with various polysaccharides, including gum acacia,Red Roselle Polysaccharides and glucosamine.
This is unrelated to the article at hand, since acacia and glucosamine contain amino acids and are not glyconutrients, as defined in this version of the article. --Antelan talk 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
These are major points in contention - you can call it litany, that's your POV. But the "old version"[15] *is* descriptive of the actual contents of various commercial products of an admittedly commercial term and alerts the reader to technical background(s) that *is* supported in the literature. This approach should be considered especially informative, about hard to collate information and defined by common commercial usage. This situation occurs because of the 8 sugars market campaign and the unscientific, commercial nature of the label. I think the primary issue to the list would be the length & water's edge - that an item is used in commercial formulas, contains substantial saccharide units/content of some kind, and that the component is not a minor variation, e.g. Fijian farms kelp vs NZ or HI. I think the "new" approach[16][17] begs for a never ending supply of Mannatech fans from "offplanet" if not other troubles. Btw, I don't think I have any Mannatech fans based on previous edit wars & sparring over spamming, references & external links, e.g. [18][19][20][21][22][23], among others.
This is unrelated to the article at hand, since acacia and glucosamine contain amino acids and are not glyconutrients, as defined in this version of the article No, both gum acacia (arabic) and the aminosugar, glucosamine, contining monosaccharide unit(s), are explictly identified by MT in their glyconutrient Ambertose formula and their patent. Glucosamine is part of a specific example in the patent. Since McAnally apparently made up MT's term, I doubt he/they are confused about what he/they meant.
One can address two somewhat different views about scope of a Glyconutrients article as materials identified as "glyconutrients" or the formulas also containing "glyconutrient" materials. The actual commercial usage is a major point of the original article about the *actual* commercial "glyconutrient" compositions which may be largely saccharide unit containing molecules of various kinds such as the aminosugar, glucosamine, and, implicitly, more complex materials containing both amino- and saccharide units, such as gum acacia (arabic). Now *I agree* that "glyconutrient" is a marketing oriented term, that it IS scientifically meaningless and only slightly technically restrictive (implicitly monosaccharide(s) containing); nevertheless it is broadly topical, in large part due to the commercial offering in the area. Vegetal materials that contain substantial amino acid / peptide content *as well as* monosaccharide units appear to be commonly accepted as "glyconutrients" in the industry.
Nutritional...sciences have long noted soluble fiber, ...largely undigested in the small intestine...fermented in the colon into ...short chain fatty acids, n-butyrate being especially beneficial. Anti-inflammatory benefits ...including gum acacia,... and glucosamine. As far as marketing, no, this is the actual science part. Precisely where both the new article and Mannatech et al deviate into less meaningful statement, Mannatech into the wild blue yonder hypothesis, the "new" article into negativism, errors & omission and the unproven. This is where wikipedia would like the linked references I mentioned earlier. There is nothing fantastic about colonic short chain fatty acids, long a staple of animal and human bioscience, n-butyrate is not controversial. Anti-inflammatory and viscosifier for gum arabic/acacia is long part of the medical literature (longer than anyone alive). Glucosamine, lots of related literature. The immunostimulatory ultra high MW part is more recently in the science literature. The science part exists and should be useful content to an otherwise uninformed and misinformed public.--I'clast 07:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is so contaminated by commercialism that I think it would be more practical to start over, but we could try a further rewrite. If you want to add an appropriate science section, with some useful slightly more technical refs., I will remove the rest of the nonsense. DGG 10:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ....comment, threaded & cont'd

These are major points in contention - you can call it litany, that's your POV.--I'clast
As the Oxford English Dictionary defines litany as "a continuous repetition or long enumeration resembling those of litanies" (yes it uses the word in its own definition), the "long enumeration" that I cited is a litany, and not just in my POV.--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The "litanies" part is where it lurks.--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
OED is a stronger reference than Wikipedia, which is not a dictionary but an encyclopedia. I'm aware that, etymologically, 'litany' derives from religious origins. The word "arrogant" has interesting origins, too, but etymology of common English words is not what is under discussion here. The focus on wordplay sidesteps the actual point I made about the "long enumeration". Antelan talk 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately my point is that establishing a compositional range of ingredients, since there is not a unique chemical identity, with substantial reference and citation, not an exhaustive enumeration, is encyclopedic. A "vtiamin C" article without mentioning "ascorbic acid" seems dubious.--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
But the "old version"[15] *is* descriptive of the actual contents of various commercial products of an admittedly commercial term and alerts the reader to technical background(s) that *is* supported in the literature. This approach should be considered especially informative, about hard to collate information and defined by common commercial usage... --I'clast
What you suggest is one possible approach to this article. The company that invented the term wants people to think about "glyconutrients" scientifically, and in that way it can be subverted as a commercial term. I think we must approach the article more objectively. The commercial usage is why people will seek out this article, but it is not actually germane to the issue at hand; glyconutrient is nothing more than a neologism coined by a company for marketing purposes. It does not appear in authoritative dictionaries, nor does it exist in the relevant scientific literature except as used in rebuttals. The article should only focus on the fact that this is a marketing term, and it should bring science to bear only to demonstrate that the term is not one used in the scientific field (and that there is no evidence of any general deficiency of these substances).--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Totally disagree about encyclopedic scope on the last part. The market size and global presence of such products suggest that the "new" part has worn off the "neo-" label. The marketing problem is notable but fractional in such an article, and gives even more impetus to the components approach of the previous version. An adequately informed reader can then decide what is what, or at least what the questions are. This was also favored by User:Ikkyu2 and others, repeatedly last year[24]--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia entry on neologisms: "The term e-mail, as used today, is an example of a neologism." Laser and black hole are listed as other examples of neologisms, and those were coined more than 40 years ago. Hence my claim that the term "neologism" still applies here. Antelan talk 00:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
A point we agree on, I am just saying that the word, for better or worse, is established enough to be encyclopedic and not "too new" neo-.--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I do agree that the word is a neologism, and but being a neologism doesn't prevent a word from being encyclopedic. At the moment I cannot comment on the encyclopedic-ness of this actual word, however. Antelan talk 23:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No, both gum acacia (arabic) and the aminosugar, glucosamine, contining monosaccharide unit(s), are explictly identified by MT in their glyconutrient Ambertose formula and their patent. Glucosamine is part of a specific example in the patent. Since McAnally apparently made up MT's term, I doubt he/they are confused about what he/they meant.--I'clast
As I said, it is contradicted in the opening line of that version of the article. The article calls glyconutrients individual carbohydrate nutrients, whereas those products contain amino acids. As such, they cannot be glyconutrients, as defined in the first line of the article. Thus, we're left with an internal contradiction. This is easily seen by applying propositional calculus.--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The opening "definitional" presentation is oversimplified and needs work.--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
One can address two somewhat different views about scope of a Glyconutrients article as materials identified as "glyconutrients" or the formulas also containing "glyconutrient" materials.--I'clast
See my comments above with regards to my views on giving this term such validation.--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Such mixtures are going to be difficult to scientifically "chunk" into a purist name in any case. "Conventional somethings etc" fooled around and let their competition steal a march on such mixtures with a fiat accompli, one of the problems with denial strategies in marketing.--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify what you mean by this statement. I'm especially unsure of what you mean by "conventional somethings etc". Thank you. Antelan talk 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Many groups from pseudoskeptics to various political & professional bodies to various researchers, some pretty dogmatic, claim to be "scientific", "mainstream scientific" or preferably, "mainstream something else". The claims can conflict a great deal.--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The actual commercial usage is a major point of the original article about the *actual* commercial "glyconutrient" compositions which may be largely saccharide unit containing molecules of various kinds such as the aminosugar, glucosamine, and, implicitly, more complex materials containing both amino- and saccharide units, such as gum acacia (arabic). Now *I agree* that "glyconutrient" is a marketing oriented term, that it IS scientifically meaningless and only slightly technically restrictive (implicitly monosaccharide(s) containing); nevertheless it is broadly topical, in large part due to the commercial offering in the area.--I'clast
So we are, by almost all measures, in agreement. Nevertheless, the vast list in the 'previous' version muddles, rather than clarifies, the issue.--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
We would agree about nonconformance to scientific nomenclature, this article is about the actualities of a notable generic commercial product area, not the bs "scientific" theory part which is a noted criticism. The problematic marketing dimensions and other altmed issues seem to hopelessly prejudice many editors here. Better presentation and individual reference links will help clarify the components issue.--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, the previous version of this article defines the term as a "technical scientific term." Your response supports the notion that reversion to it would be inappropriate. Antelan talk 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah. "Technical scientific" is a separate word treatment insisted upon by User:Stauffenberg, the glycobiologist, to differentiate his claim of a pre-existing word usage in his lab experience, according to him (I asked[25] for a citation, no luck), from the commercial usage such as MT, et al.--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Vegetal materials that contain substantial amino acid / peptide content *as well as* monosaccharide units appear to be commonly accepted as "glyconutrients" in the industry.--I'clast
I believe you are giving too much deference to "the industry". A brief discussion of what the industry considers to be "glyconutrients" does have its place, but it should be couched by the more important discussion about the origins and present scientific invalidity of this term and the claims surrounding it.--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The industry, such as it is, is what defines the term, period. Disparagement of the term's origin beyond criticism of the actual marketing campaign seems as fruitless as railing about the "allopath" box on the MCAT registration. As far as strict obedience to scientific nomenclature, industries that live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks carelessly, there are somewhat similar chemical nomenclature problems in NEJM/JAMA etc all the time.--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you be able to provide one or two references to support that claim? It would greatly help me understand your point of view. Antelan talk 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
"Vitamin E" is a frequent guest of these journals, their identification by accurate nomenclature is typically absymal, one has to usually guess which molecule(s) are involved amongst RRR-alpha tocopherol, RRR-alpha tocopheryl acetate or succinate, ambo alpha tocopheryl acetate (the original "true" D,L), all racemic alpha tocopheryl acetate or succinate (the nominal D,L with 8 R/S, R/S, R/S stereoisomers, only one bioequivalent), varying mixtures of RRR-alpha, RRR-beta, RRR-gamma, RRR-delta tocopherols (e.g. mixed tocopherols, high gamma tocopherols). This incomplete "E" list doesn't include the other esters or the 4 tocotrienols either. There is a substantial difference between natural isomers that has been long recognized by some, and in Europe, only belatedly in US mainstream medicine. Vitamin E, forms, tissue & membrane distributions and functions are a whole book onto themselves. Nor do they rationally measure or control for known co-factors. Jialal (UTSW, UCD) has made a career partly closing this gap. Also excipients and possibly active "placebo" materials are frequently not identified.--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your description, but I'm looking for external references (especially to peer-reviewed, published articles) to support your original claim. Antelan talk 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Statements about the identity of glyconutrient materials and formulas would likely be most comprehensively based on the primary sources: the ingredients lists, Mannatech's patent, McAnally's early statements. Maybe something in the glyco- related journals.--I'clast 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Nutritional...sciences have long noted soluble fiber, ...largely undigested in the small intestine...fermented in the colon into ...short chain fatty acids, n-butyrate being especially beneficial. Anti-inflammatory benefits ...including gum acacia,... and glucosamine. As far as marketing, no, this is the actual science part.--I'clast
Without references, this cannot be considered science. More importantly, it is pertinent to an article about soluble fiber, not glyconutrients.--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
For fiber, fermentation and butyrate, try this abstract.. Acacia, next, below.--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The scientific paper you have referred to could be a good contribution to the butyrate page. On the glyconutrient page, however, there is no reference suggesting that these supplements contain such substances. Antelan talk 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
A major point of varied fiber compositions is the difference in bacterial ecology, fermentation, and short chain fatty acid production and distribution of C2, C3, C4s fatty acids. Very much a relevant subject to be *mentioned* here.--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said, there are no references supporting the statement that these are actually contained within supplements sold as glyconutrients. Antelan talk 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Massive text deletion has made it harder to add references and carry a conversation. This is somewhat like a discussion on what is in a can of Pinto beans - read the label, a primary source. e.g.[26], [27] --I'clast 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing fantastic about colonic short chain fatty acids, long a staple of animal and human bioscience, n-butyrate is not controversial. Anti-inflammatory and viscosifier for gum arabic/acacia is long part of the medical literature (longer than anyone alive).--I'clast
Interestingly, even the Wikipedia article on acacia makes no claims and cites no such references.--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Merck Index, 5th ed, Acacia U.S.P.XI, ...bronchial and pharyngeal inflammations ...thickener--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, the more important point is that such claims belong on the the butyrate/acacia pages, not the glyconutrients pages - unless there has been a demonstration that glyconutrients confer the same benefits as butyrate/acacia. Antelan talk 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Many individual components have such scientifc/medical articles and bear a mention with references.--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless there are references demonstrating that glyconutrients confer the same benefits, no claims of health benefits should be made in this article. The reason for this is that combinations of substances can interact in inhibitory ways. Some digestive enzyme supplements containing lipase, for example, were shown to have little lipase activity because the lipase itself was degraded by other enzymes. It is important to make claims about mixtures that have actually been demonstrated - not inferred claims from their constituent components. Antelan talk 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Obviously the material did not contain much (undegraded)lipase did it? The article is not about "making health claims" but presenting facts and background about the materials, and their individual properties, and pointing to relevant information and science about those components that may be mixed in many ways. The encyclopedic way to overcome bs is to provide basic, useful information, not to create an information vacuum filled with disclaimers (unproven) and invective about unscientific marketing claims.--I'clast 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Glucosamine, lots of related literature.--I'clast
Yes, there is lots of literature. Studies have shown that it has very low levels of toxicity (e.g., that it's not harmful, which supports your statement). However, the JAMA article regarding studies of glucosamine supplements (all performed by their manufacturers) concluded, publication bias suggest that these effects are exaggerated. Nevertheless, some degree of efficacy appears probable for these preparations." In other words, the strongest credible affirmation of glucosamine's efficacy currently is that it "appears probable" to be efficacious. Even wikipedia's article on glucosamine attests to the fact that the debate is far from concluded with regards to glucosamine. At any rate, these claims would not belong in the glyconutrient article, but instead in the glucosamine article.--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, repeated examination of the tests suggests that often the experimenters and/or the readers don't know what the heck they are talking about because the tests don't reflect the reported conditions required. This is often a Richter 9 fault line between (relegated to) altmed and the latest patented snake oil. Take the multifactorial, multicompartmental nature of arthritis. Can you separate the patients either by diagnostics or empirical trial? Sometimes the altmed proponent has found, (sometimes unwittingly) a favorable population (other times a critic may load unresponsive populations, sometimes unwittingly). In the case of glucosamine, there are several adjuvants that are reported to be synergistic, where dose and time are important variables and proper dosing is by empirical titration or a high initial load. e.g. if (x, y, z, t) is necessary and the test is replicated run as ( 0.3x', 0.1y, 0, 0.1t), say, where Result = wxzt, or Result = wxt + wzt + wzt + xzt where a competitor can claim "unproven" if the result is diluted under 1.74 std deviations positive change? Chalk up one more for the big (mktg) boys. That's how the game *is* played and the pharma-med complex isn't the only one. You may say that is conspiratorial, but others may mention naive and boring. This is a major basis of altmed's frequent complaints[28] about subreption, among others,[29] and part of why neither literature trusts the other.--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Your doctoryourself.com reference states, "If a media article is critical about twice Nobel prize-winning Linus Pauling, you can be confident it has been spin-doctored." Linus Pauling was an excellent scientist, but he was fallible. For example, he believed that DNA was a triple helix. That website is not a reliable resource. Citing a book on Amazon.com is equally unconvincing; see this book on the wild 9/11 conspiracy theory, for examplehttp://www.amazon.com/11-Conspiracy-James-H-Fetzer/dp/0812696123. Also, complications that could arise from 'competitors' is avoided by the fact that the manufacturers published studies of their own products. Antelan talk 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Pauling corrected himself much faster on an emergent area of science than his numerous critics could even acknowledge the differences between oral and IV, or 1 and 10. The website is a reasoonably reliable view of that subject's expression (an editor of JOM), more than adequate for a Talk page. The book linked is by a respected, former Editor-in-chief of NEJM, who had a priviledged position to develop her insight & report, again it's a talk page.--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If you can find sources that would be acceptable on an actual article page, I will be much more receptive. When I cite sources I choose sources that would be strong enough for an actual article in order to strengthen my arguments. Unreliable articles are unreliable for any discussion, whether or not we're on a talk page. Antelan talk 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Your interpretation of reliable source "requirements" here at Talk will not be reliable in several cases. 1. for Talk pages, 2. sources about themselves, 3. illustrations. Requiring such documentation on basic Talk points is burdensome.--I'clast 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The science part exists and should be useful content to an otherwise uninformed and misinformed public.--I'clast
There is no science part to the term "glyconutrient". This is not a normative statement on my part - if science decides to adopt the term and engage in "glyconutrient" research, I will have no objections. If you can produce scientific references from peer-reviewed journals to substantiate your claim that "the science part exists" with regards to glyconutrients, I will, again, be the first to withdraw any objections.--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There is science to the components, that you apparently are unfamiliar with. I have agreed in principle to work on the references. However it is hard work - I am not the one sitting on top of a med school research library. Just because it is a commercial term for various mixtures doesn't mean that known facts about the mixtures and the real science & backgrounds related to common components can be ignored.--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
In accord with WP:ATT, I'll believe it when I see it. the burden is on you. (and I am always ready to learn something new, especially if it is surprising. It is not up to us to determine the scientific status, just to report it. (but it is up to us to use common sense and look for a connection between the scientific article and the claimed use: discussion of particular components otherwise goes to the WP article about that chemical. This is "glyconutrients", not "polysaccarides" etc. DGG 09:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That is a yes for an enhanced version of the previous version if I cough up the references?--I'clast 09:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The current version of the article is more streamlined than the previous version. It makes more sense to progress from this version of the article, modifying and adding (with citations) statements as is appropriate. If statements with valid corroborating sources are added, the only editing that would need to be done would be editing for style. Antelan talk 01:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The current article is still inaccurate, not very informative, disparaging in nature, focused on a brand, and a little off topic (more MT status verbiage belongs at MT).--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The current article has references supporting its claims. As always, if valid references can be found to support making changes, please add them. Antelan talk 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The new version's format makes that awkward (fitting in transitional phrasing), that is the reason to start with something akin to the older version and use ({cn}} liberally.--I'clast 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreements?

After reading through everything presented, it seems that multiple editors (including uninvolved editors willing to respond to the RfC so far) believe the current article should be, at the very least, the current starting point for further development of this article. I believe it is therefore incumbent upon anyone who disagrees with statements in the article to quote the disagreeable portion and provide a viable replacement/enhanced version here for discussion so that the RfC can be closed satisfactorily. What specifically of the current version can we all agree upon and what of the current version proves too disputed to remain in its current state? It would be beneficial that this discussion remain focused on the details of specific text in the article and not on tertiary/heavily-branched discussion that will not be relevant for inclusion to the actual article text (and will likely drive uninvolved editors away). Thanks. ju66l3r 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement. If someone with Wikipedia facility would like to archive the conversation between l'clast and me, it would probably be a step forward in re-focusing this talk page on the actual subject at hand. Thanks for pointing out the tangents that we were running along. This page should provide a good forum for vetting references and proposed changes to the article. Antelan talk 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
We are not yet done by a long shot. The structure of the article is unacceptable, with misleading, runaway brand criticism that ignores a technical description; legal innuendo for a generic technically based presentation on an altmed topic. It ignores the usual format in this kind of area: mild neutral description, background, uses, facts, claims etc, *then*, Criticism. I have asked for help on getting the references and acknowledged the previous shortcomings about references where ({cn}} is more appropriate, but am getting nowhere if not the bum's rush instead. The current article might be more acceptable over at SkepticWiki. Also as I said before, the RfC was way premature. So far the RfC has had the effect of a vehicle to carry disparaging views against specific companies or pet marketing schemes for an unencyclopedic presentation and leave readers uninformed.--I'clast 04:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has said that we're done with the article. I'm glad we've found a point of mutual agreement. If you will find valid references to support changes to the article, the article should come along nicely. Antelan talk 05:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. As for us outsiders, one fewer for the watchlist. DGG 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/l/y/Talk%7EGlyconutrient_1953.html"