Talk:Glyconutrient/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Article Improvement Drive
2 Going forward, a better rewrite
3 Censorship discussion
- 3.1 3 maybe 4 sugars absorbed
- 3.2 Duane's points
4 Brazen deletion
5 Unsourced text
6 Proposed & Off Spec Links
7 Misnomer
8 Ref and link dump
9 links priority
10 perceived individual performance
11 MT advertising
- 11.1 MannaSteve
12 re: definition of glyconutrient
13 Explanation of my modification of the first line
- 13.1 Technical Scientific
- 13.2 Agar

Article Improvement Drive

Can we delete portions of the discussion?

Just a thought here, but it would be much cleaner I think if we could remove sections that are presently no longer of much use. Perhaps we could provide links in the contents to "old" topics on archived discussion pages so that they don't have to continue to clutter up the most recent page? I don't know how this is dealt with on wiki, but perhaps others can contribute solutions. I just find it increasingly hard to edit the discussion page and put my comments in the appropriate place since this is becoming very large and convoluted. (Stauffenberg 06:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

Delete would be inappropriate, but choosing the most suitable archive method would be desirable. see How_to_archive_a_talk_page. A more fundamental problem is that we are dealing with multipoint discussions that extend and fragment. Won't be long and another page archive is needed.

Questions to be answered

Wow, a lot of work, I'm not sure the topic deserves it, but it is certainly a far cry from the Mannatech commercial it was originally. I still see some major questions that I think need to be dealt with:

1) I like the line describing glyconutrients as a commercially inspired term. I think however that we need to prove that these are really "specially formulated" mixtures. I think this was one of the major stumbling points earlier on. I can find no evidence these formulas have been studied scientifically at all. If one wants to assert that something is specially formulated for a given use, it should be something that can be proven, or am I wrong? Perhaps we could simply describe them as mixtures of polysaccharides until then? Personally, as a skeptic, I believe the people selling these have more than likely specially formulated them to ensure that they have as little effect as possible, thus avoiding the spectre of getting sued, or worse yet, regulated.

2) The section "use as alternative therapy" has some problems. Again, can it be proven that these formulas have been optimised? If not, it shouldn't be in the article, and the absence of such a statement won't affect the informational content. The line starting "Current research supports..." is particularly problematic. If there is such support, specific references linked to this line are absolutely necessary. These sorts of statements should not appear unless appropriately referenced. Or am I wrong? Is that not the wikipedia standard?

3) The controversy and relation to glycobiology section in my opinion is probably unneccessary. There is no controversy as far as I can tell. Glycobiologists don't sell effects that they can't prove, some companies do. As far as any potential beneficial affects of any of these compounds, if there is funding, I promise you, you will find a glycobiologist willing to study it. There seems to be this us vs. them mentality from the majority of those who believe in alternative therapy, with scientists as the them. This is a fabricated controversy, and I think it is probably used to great affect to help sell concepts that haven't been proven, or perhaps can't be. It equates to an ad hominum attack by diverting the debate to the motives and motivations of "soul-less minions of orthodoxy" that scientists presumably are in the context of this debate, rather than focusing on the complete lack of valid research supporting sometimes grandiose claims. The definition of glycobiology as focused on descriptive rather than treatment oriented is pretty innaccurate as well. No glycobiologist can get funding to do research unless they can show a potential payoff as far as disease is concerned. Granted, the medical and research communities have different focuses, the objective is the same. Describing glycobiology as simply descriptive is pretty disingenous, although I'm sure it wasn't intended that way. At any rate, I think the best approach would be perhaps one or two lines somewhere referring to the lack of research on the glyconutrient formulations, and link to the disclaimer on the Society for Glycobiology website. After all, this disclaimer is a consensus of the vast majority (if not all) glycobiologists doing research in this field right now (world wide). Could there be a better reference for a particular viewpoint than that? It seems to me it fits very nicely with the consensus based approach of the wikipedia concept.

I have made these points here in the discussion rather than making changes, even in the case of things that I know I am most qualified to comment on such as the description of glycobiology or what current research supports. My hope is that if there is disagreement with some point that I have tried to make, I can deal with it head on in the discussion first rather than having multiple edits for content. That way, once the content is fixed, only style will be an issue, which I'm sure others are much more suited to fixing than I am.

One other thing that has bothered me from the start. Are there really multiple companies selling this? If yes, can it be shown that they have made any fundamental alterations of the original Mannatech product, or are they purely cosmetic changes so as to allow someone else to get their finger in the pie? This is a pretty fundamental problem as I see it, because if the only existence of "glyconutrients" is in forms fundamentally similar to the Mannatech invention, then we really can't describe this as something multiple companies market. Such a statement tends to imply that this is a prevalent concept, taken up by multiple companies, each researching and marketing the effects, when the reality is quite different. Can we document who makes these supplements, and the origin of their formulation?

As is already noted in the article, any scientific references should be specifically linked to statements. More than likely, most of these will have to go as they simply serve as innuendo of scientific validity otherwise. I don't want to delete them however, in case the person who placed them wants to re-edit and use them. Could we get some feedback on whether anyone has a specific use for any given reference so we can weed out those that don't belong?

Thanks (Stauffenberg 22:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

Quick notes:

I think you have a lot pharmaceutical-FDA style drug regulatory assumptions that are not applicable in the US, especially after the 1994 DSHEA law about functional foods. INAL.

"specially formulated" mixtures for most specialty product companies are usually proprietary, quick and dirty testing and empirically tested (hokey but made some American companies great in other specialty product lines...)... "studied scientifically at all" - maybe, call back in 5 or 10 years. Certainly in the functional food biz one might expect a delicate dance through claims, lack of FDA regulated claims, funky patents to exclude competition.

MT is showing very small and limited clinical tests. That might be it in many cases. Forget Phase I, II, III. This stuff is often sold to individuals that are considered to have ill-served gut/food related problems not well addressed in the conventional medical market place and they pretty much fly by feel (rumble, rumble or other problems) and finance, hence often home brewed.

Other companies (MPS Gold; also the individual component suppliers compete); do-it-yourself formulations ("Dr Bird",[1])The competing commercial formulas use either fewer of the similar / same components or completely different formulas (Bird).

Actually looking at the formulas and some references, I'm pretty sure they (manufacturers) are trying to make functional food mixtures e.g. the idea behind glucosamine seems clear enough, and the component mfr (Larex) of the arabinogalactan seems to be trying to clearly differentiate the Larch extract subfractions in its on-line literature and differentiate from Gum acacia/arabic.

The glycobioBS I assume as a smoke screen, shrug (too common to get too worked up). " link to the disclaimer on the Society for Glycobiology website." I might suggest embedding a link in this sentence fragment: " ...they further promote physiological connections, broadly not accepted, to the established science of glycobiology as well as cellular phenomena such as glycosylation and formation of glycoproteins."

I am running behind on straightening the references out, I was hoping for some more help. I wanted to road test the verbiage first also. I am pretty wiped for time right now.

I think that one of the contrived points of "glyconutrient" is that is a catchall for glyco- containing materials. Lot so of flexibility for different lines and changes.

"Can we document who makes these supplements, and the origin of their formulation?" Web search, lots of talk, bits and pieces out there but time consuming.

"Current research supports..." still need to decide between general refs, and specific refs

"ad hominum attack by diverting the debate to the motives and motivations of "soul-less minions of orthodoxy" - I think Americans are pretty jaded about corporate behavior generally right now, by hard experience. Of course unless you are on the inside, one only guesses at the specific daily challenges and ethos that preoccupy the decision-makers.

I think the mlm catches a lot more flack here than pharmas.--66.58.130.26 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I made some pretty significant changes, since I didn't see anyone up in arms about what I wrote in the discussion. Hopefully this won't lead to more rancour. Anything I have deleted can always be put back. I would like to suggest, particularly in the case of specific references, that pieces returned not be done wholesale as in the past. I don't see how that leads to forward movement on the issues. I can't honestly see any purpose for specific scientific references regarding disease research under this title. If references can be found for some of the remaining problematic statements which I will mention below, then great. I think a second major sticking point leading to argument over this title is the need to address glycans and disease and would like to suggest again that the scientific research on this fascinating and large topic be discussed on wikipedia under that title, or one similar. Doing it under this title is innappropriate because any link between glyconutrients and beneficial effects in disease are highly speculative at this point.

1) I reworked the first paragraph. I think it fits a neutral point of view much better when a lot of the adjectives that only serve to inflate the importance of the term glyconutrient as a supplement are removed. The information content is almost unchanged, only moved around, except with the addition of a definition of the scientific term of glyconutrient with an example. Hopefully this serves to distinguish the two uses of the term clearly, right from the beginning.

2) The second section seems fine to me. I felt there was a need to again, emphasize the NPOV in the third section by removing a lot of the descriptive aspects. I tried to stick to the facts without making commentary. However, the line "Many of these components have long been used in food processing and health remedies." Needs to be fixed. Anything long used in food processing or health remedies should I think be specifically referred to and referenced rather than an all encompassing unsubstantiated claim.

3)I significantly altered the final section making it I think cleaner and more succinct and specific.

4)I deleted all the scientific references which can be returned as specific references to statements made in the text if necessary. The most obvious statement needing specific references is the last line in the Alternative therapy section.

5)I think we will need to discuss the use of external links at the end because we may not want to divert people to either Mannatech, or for that matter, debunkers. They should be able to find those on their own.

6)I will delete the words "penis face" contributed by the intellectual giant 70.94.23.193. Might I suggest that you consume copious amounts of "glyconutrients"? You seem to believe they are the be and end all, so prove it. Anybody want odds on whether he will receive a Darwin award this year if he takes me up on that suggestion? I'll even pay for the supplements. Let me know. I'll buy you as much as you can swallow. (Stauffenberg 20:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

" 1) ... 'specially formulated'... "

I would say that a patent that takes 9 years to get qualifies in the commercial sense and, again, think about commercial empiricism in general here. In the forums, one sees commentary that consumers have reacted strongly (nasty criticism, switch brands, self mix, cries of agony) when some premium component is quietly short changed or substituted. I credit companies with behavior & products to repeat their customers - good enough to keep them, not good enough to fix or educate them, and FUD, trademark, trade secrets, patents and lawyers to exclude competitors. --66.58.130.26 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this is supposition and assumption. "I presume because of said patent...etc." Does it really contribute so significantly to the information content of the article that the probability it will serve as veiled support for glyconutrient as a supplement is worth it? You know that I personally believe, based on a lack of evidence otherwise that glyconutrient as a term describing supplements does not even exist outside the realm of those trying to sell it. Shall I inject such arguments into the article? I consider them fact, I can prove my premise by doing a simple google search and only finding Mannatech, it's associates, and copycats, refer to the fact the term does not even exist in the english dictionary as far as I can tell and on and on. I think the article is best served by precise language in as succinct a style as possible. Anything apart from a succinct description of obvious or easily provable facts should need precise references. Your own use of the term "quick and dirty" has a very different connotation from the way the term "specially formulated" reads in the article. Statements that are this lacking in precision should be avoided I think. (Stauffenberg 06:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

" 2) The section "use as alternative therapy" has some problems. Again, can it be proven that these formulas have been optimised? If not, it shouldn't be in the article,..."

I mention optimization *as an commercial/individual attempt* and a local claim speaking generally, obvious from other forums and patent apps online. Not in any ultimate scientific claim. --66.58.130.26 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't read this way. When you write optimized it implies to most I think that some research has gone into determining what the optimum is. It implies techinical skill. It is a suggestive statement. As I wrote above. In such a contentious topic, precision should be key. (Stauffenberg 06:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

I rewrote a sentence for the individuals "attempt to empirically optimize" and remained silent on the commercial formulas. Pls check it out. Nevertheless, I leave the interpretation to the reader, it should do. You appear to me to project your assumptions about "optimization" unto the reader. I disagree somewhat. --66.58.130.26 10:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"The line starting "Current research supports..." is particularly problematic. If there is such support, specific references linked to this line are absolutely necessary. These sorts of statements should not appear unless appropriately referenced. Or am I wrong? Is that not the wikipedia standard?"

The dropped references slug had a lot of it. Not too thrilled about the wholesale deletes on the verbiage. I was kind of hoping for some help sorting out what is balanced, accessible and readable here, figuring to lose 50-60% of the refs as boringly excessive. Maybe someone could *add* a few, better refs or links to support the verbiage. I felt the verbiage was what a newbie reader would want to know, more balanced independent material with a number of facts - cost range information, rough usage information rather than a lowball (unfair) estimate, alternate options. Perhaps after a sales pitch, more information. Often here at Wiki, if one doesn't directly edit/contest a claim but is not satisfied with the general or direct reference support, one adds this tag - ^{[citation needed]}. Readers and editors will be looking for *constructive balance* on that verbiage. Word by word, hard science argumentation and specific referencing is for those things in contention or considered counterfactual nonsense, otherwise it detracts from the Wiki article. A Wiki article is not usually constructed like a scientific paper, wrong readership. --66.58.130.26 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

One very major (perhaps the most important) problem with this topic is that the vast majority of people looking at what the web has to offer on it will be assaulted by pages of very impressive looking scientific references on the sellers sites. None of these references even remotely support the statements they are supposedly supporting. I think we need to avoid even the appearance of this sort of thing. In addition, all of them as far as I could tell were scientific references in peer reviewed journals. They are articles containing precise information and conclusions. The should only be used to support the same. Making sweeping general statements and then tacking on scientific references doesn't improve the article in my opinion. Furthermore, I doubt there is any one means to construct a wiki article. I wouldn't expect an article on the history of the hippy art of Venice Beach in 1969/70 to be written resembling a scientific article. I would expect that in an article dealing with a scientific topic, at least in parts, the resemblance to a scientific article could be quite strong. If actual scientific references are to be discussed, that resemblence would be almost complete I suspect. (Stauffenberg 06:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

I think that this article is a good first step toward solving the advertising site "decoy problem".--66.58.130.26 10:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"None of these references even remotely support the statements they are supposedly supporting." - Are you talking about 1. the MT reference page external link and monosaccharide-glycosylation hype again; or 2. the reference slug that I put in about other mechanisms and you deleted? --66.58.130.26 10:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also you seem to assume a prior restraint on speaking about something if it is not scientifically blessed. Commercial development in the US has traditionally been pragmatic empiricism for most successful efforts, even if done by extremely astute technical b/g people. The "scientific" parts were later worked out to troubleshoot based on mechanism and to fine tune when there was surplus time and money. e.g. Petroleum and petrochemicals were big gorillas of US economic hegemony in the 20th century, initially based on 19th century "know how" - the published science parts frequently lagged extensive commercial exploitation by 20 - 50 yrs.--66.58.130.26 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not so. There was quite a lot in the article that wouldn't approach being scientifically blessed. I would prefer otherwise, but it is not a necessity. In rebuttal, I could say that you seem averse to accepting the fact that discussing specific scientific studies involving glycans is in fact not appropriate under "glyconutrients" in general but belongs under a glycobiology or glycans and disease topic. You seem interested in these topics so I suspect you would be interested in such discussions, but they are not topics that could be described as alternative I suspect. Indeed, I think that alternative medicine advocates tend to lose track of the reality that all alternative medicines and treatments that have real efficacy in fact can be improved by having science identify the active ingredient(s), and test how to apply them optimally. There seems to be this mystique surrounding the alternative that it is somehow better than pharmaceuticals because it hasn't been produced in a pure form. In rare instances (extremely rare) there may be a kernal of truth in that an efficacious ingredient when concentrated and purified has been removed from a synergistic combination with some other unstudied component. However, that would be an act of chance, and upon identification of the interaction of the two or more ingredients, science can uniquely identify how best to administer them in concert. The irony being that any alternative that has effects, given appropriate study, is doomed to no longer be alternative. There is I think a lot of resistance to this potentiality, at least subconsciously, on the part of many people who advocate for alternative treatments. It is unfortunate. Perhaps I am wrong that you might fall into this group, but at times I have to say I suspect that you do. (Stauffenberg 06:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

"In rebuttal, I could say that you seem averse to accepting the fact that discussing specific scientific studies involving glycans is in fact not appropriate under "glyconutrients" in general but belongs under a glycobiology or glycans and disease topic. (Stauffenberg 06:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC))"

Since it is a carbohydrate, glycan may "belong" to both worlds if it is edible and acceptable on some food basis, if one says the glycobiology part of MT's glyconutritionals definition is scientifically bogus. "Glyconutrients" pretty much becomes a catchall for carbohydrate mixtures of functional foods, whatever someone wishes to market. In the alternative medicine/nutrition world, I believe glycan containing extracts are already on the US supplements market.

Basically the remaining science references and deleted claims are treatable as claims in contention if we can't agree to their merits but we need to work on resolution of common ground first. I am posting the deleted science sentence from my rewrite as a new subsection discussion topic /*Current research supports" discussion*/ below at the bottom of this section. --66.58.130.26 10:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"The irony ... doomed to no longer be alternative.(Stauffenberg 06:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC))"

It is not that “alternative” is absolutely demanded, but rather that conventional medicine is dramatically incomplete and failing, so glaringly so, that many highly educated consumers finally vote with their feet when presented with plausible “alternatives” *even though they would strongly prefer not to have to* if they are allowed to. Of course their mileage may vary. --66.58.130.26 10:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"1) I reworked the first paragraph... neutral point of view much better..."

This is part of the of the normal edit process, back and forth, it carries a individual POV being sifted and negotiated.

"2) ... "Many of these components have long been used in food processing and health remedies."

I was speaking generally. The food science encyclopedia ref actually supports the statement as does the Kirk Othmer Enc of Chem Tech.--66.58.130.26 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Now this is an area where more detail would be good, yet to my frustration, you seem interested in details that I find specious or unsupported. Details in this instance would be interesting and informative. They would also be supported by an independent source. And I might add that you are referring to things here that are referenced, and yet not necessarily scientifically blessed. Yes I drone on about references, but this is an encyclopedia. It should only state facts, or if there is controversy, provide expert sources to be referred to from each point of view. After-all, two people asserting they are each correct can go round and round forever otherwise. (Stauffenberg 06:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

I am unclear which details here you find so interesting that need more support (the ancient history?).--66.58.130.26 10:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have hotlinked enough internet material to several ingredients to support the statements for "centuries", "millenia", "food" and "medicine". Unfortunately my Sanskrit skills are a little dull and my local library too deficient to also follow gum ghatti as guand Dhawda into Ayurvedic medicine into the mists of Vedic time. We're way deep into "Ethnobiology" now.--66.58.130.26 20:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"3)I significantly altered the final section making it I think cleaner and more succinct and specific."

Overcut for the reader seeking consumer type info. Getting a little promotional on the Society for Glycobiology.--66.58.130.26 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I find this statement somewhat insulting. This is not promotional for the Society of Glycobiology. They are a non-profit group such as exists for any major scientific discipline. Quoting their own description of their purpose merely frames for the reader exactly where their viewpoint lies. If anything you should welcome this since their conclusion flies in the face of what you believe. Furthermore, calling this promotional, considering you still cannot prove to me that food-scientists or nutritionists or glycobiologists, or even Department of Agriculture technicians are studying "glyconutrients" flies in the face of decorum. The fact that this article which was 100% specious when I nominated it for deletion is still here, largely if not solely by your advocacy makes your statement above quite innapropriate. I presume you wrote what you were thinking, it is hard to give appropriate consideration to everything, but I can't imagine a more perfect reference for any statement on this site. As I stated earlier. Scientists attempt to use language with as much precision as possible. The disclaimer does not hedge on its statement at all. They don't say "some" glyconutrients, or some companies. They condemn them all. You might interpret that as close-minded, but that would be coloured by your perspective. Scientists are not close-minded, they leave doors open unless they can prove to themselves and others they should be closed. They very clearly have closed the door completely, and unambiguously on the topic of "glyconutrients". No one else nor any other group could even remotely challenge their expertise in this area. It is in a word...definitive, when in science, that term is rarely, and most sparingly used. (Stauffenberg 06:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

"...somewhat insulting... " It was too long and I have tried hard to keep direct names out of the article. Go back over my discussions and watch me squirming with MT in the external links for a while. I finally put the link in with MT explicitly identified so the MT *bias* was immediately identifiable. Sorry if the writing style bothered you.

Re the actual disclaimer "...The Society does not endorse use of these or other nutritional supplements...", it *disclaims* the association of glyconutrient formulas with the society, it does not directly condemn (ie. this stuff is really bad for you, or even, it absolutely cannot work). We assume the Society means "glyconutrients" don't work through glycosylation etc. Disclaiming, and even repudiation of, the monosaccharides digestion/absorbtion and spurious claims of glycosylation should be clearly within its competence. The other medical claims and mechanisms you might go a little slower about those. I have provided the new subsection, /* "Current research supports" discussion */, below at the bottom of this section and just immediately above /*Vandalism*/.

I still think that the "8 essential sugar" hype should be directly addressed, this is an important encyclopedia point precisely because of all the spam sites. Where else will ordinary people or non-specialists see it correctly (better) addressed? --66.58.130.26 10:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"4)I deleted all the scientific references which can be returned as specific references to statements made in the text if necessary."

This is where I expected help from other editors.--66.58.130.26 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"...The most obvious statement needing specific references is the last line in the Alternative therapy section." (Nevertheless some "glyconutrients" have been associated with health remedies, various forms of medicine, special foodstuffs, and food additives for centuries and even millenia, across cultures, up to the present day.)

Actually I thought this was pretty much any US metropolitan public library stuff such as the food science encyclopedia, especially regarding gums, gum arabic and the Japanese components (check it out by Google search). With the gums and in some exotic locations, the phrase "since time immemorial" would be a consideration but perhaps only a few centuries...--66.58.130.26 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"5)I think we will need to discuss the use of external links at the end because we may not want to divert people to either Mannatech, or for that matter, debunkers. They should be able to find those on their own."

Actually Wiki readers, perhaps with some pointers, expect to decide for themselves, with the references respecting their time and intelligence.--66.58.130.26 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"6) ... I'll buy you as much as you can swallow."

Better be careful, might be an aggressive MT sales associate - $$$$. ;>--66.58.130.26 19 March 2006

I appreciate collaborative efforts. I encourage you to see this in the discussion and in the verbiage, not as skeptic vs "them". I did not mean to be much of an editor here (ha ha, forget that!), I set out to be a reader here (more about prebiotics and glycans, not MT etc. related - stuff which normally I simply tune out).

I might also suggest that you investigate your previous proposition about "Glycans and Disease" as a new Wiki article. Is there anything else that it would overlap? --66.58.130.26 23:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Current research supports" discussion

The following sentence was deleted along with the unlinked reference slug: "Current research supports benefits and mechanisms such as (1) increased beneficial bacteria (e.g. bifidus, lactobacillus) - a prebiotic effect, (2) a decrease in opportunistic pathogens, (3) immune activation and stimulation, (4) increased efficiency of digestion and absorption of nutrients, (5) decreased circulating free fatty acids that cause cellular insulin resistance, (6) decreased luminal ammonia concentration." I have enumerated the points as 1-6 for our convenience. I would appreciate your thoughts point by point but see Duane here.--66.58.130.26 10:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I am putting this here as a warning. Completely deleting an entire article containing many facts (some even referenced) and replacing it with fabrications is VANDALISM. I am required to make this warning before reporting Vandalism to an administrator. The current article needs to be reworked, or VALID references for all supposed statements of fact need to be provided. You have one week. After that, I revert it back to the original article with my fact based, REFERENCED responses to the innaccuracies in the article. If you can reference your claims in the article appropriately, I will check them out and we can have a nice friendly "consensus" based discussion on the future of the article. DO NOT use scientific references as innuendo as has been done in the past. I am a glycobiologist. If you claim a scientific reference says something that it does not, I will respond in detail as I have in the past. I will not delete what you produce, I will merely respond with facts beneath it. I will give you some help to start by listing the current factual statements in the article in case you aren't sure by now what is and is not the truth:

1) "Polysaccharides are large sugar polymers containing monosaccharides such as glucose, galactose, fucose, etc." 2) "The process of attachment of these monosaccharides to proteins is called glycosylation." 3)"There are at least eight monosaccharides (listed earlier) used in the encoding of glycoforms. These monosaccharides have several ways to bond, and branching can occur in the sequences. So the theoretical coding capacity of glycoforms is enormous and surpasses DNA by many orders of magnitude."

The last statement is awkward, but can be reworked, but the basic gist of the statement is correct so I'm feeling generous. In addition, because of the haphazard and slapdash manner in which the article was reborn by you naughty vandals, the eight monosaccharides have in fact not been "listed earlier". Everything else needs to be backed up by references. Some of your statements may be true, all you have to do is prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stauffenberg (talk • contribs)

I'm well aware of Wikipedia policy concerning vandalism. I agree with you that administrative attention to recent edits to this article would likely result in some pretty strong reprimands. I think, however, that your conduct has not been faultless, and in particular it has seriously violated relevant Wikipedia policy. I have called your attention to this numerous times, in as polite a way as I could manage given your contentious tone and clear lack of experience with Wikipedia policy. I therefore must warn you, in turn, that I expect your anticipated future contributions to the article will meet basic Wikipedia policy including WP:NSR, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV - to the best of your ability. If they don't - in particular, if you revert to your previous wholly inappropriate edit - you will not be able to plead ignorance; you may find that you become the negative target of the adminstrator attention you currently crave. In particular, that you may know, I am referring to this, your last, execrable edit. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, you appear to be under the misapprehension that you may order other editors to make edits to an article. Allow me to correct you: you have no such authority. I will make such edits to the article as I see fit, at any such time as I see fit, and I will bear responsibility for those edits I make. And you are going to have to live with that, because that's the way things are done around here. Honestly, though, I can't tell whether your comments are directed at me or the anonymous IP who keeps editing this article. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's quote Wiki:

It's always appropriate to ask other editors, "How do you know that?", or "Can you cite your source?" If they didn't have a particular source in mind when they wrote the material originally, someone will have to find a credible source. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question. (Need the Heimlich?)

I will grant you one thing. I've re-read the edits I made that you wholesale deleted. You're right. The tone is innappropriate. It still doesn't justify deletion. Nor did you request I edit it for tone or POV. You deleted. Unfortunately, I reacted quickly and simply reverted it. I should have edited to a more appropriate tone. It is a far cry from wholesale deletion while spouting wiki rules though. That has the hint of hypocrisy from my POV. And you certainly could have edited it for tone, but that was apparently less attractive an approach to you than a wholesale delete of all of the facts and references. You are correct in asserting that you can edit anything you want. I never said you couldn't. I simply followed Wiki rules and notified you that I will report the vandalism if it continues. I had to give you that warning, so I did. You took offence. Curious.

Thus, when the week is up, and you cannot prove your statements, I will not revert to the previous version. Until I see how this article evolves, I don't know whether mere referenced responses to falsehoods in the current version or the previous unedited glyconutrient or perhaps some amalgam of the two would be preferable. I'm sure you and others will have input to make on that question.

At any rate, I would appreciate you not presuming to tell me how it needs to be, yadda yadda yadda. I don't appreciate you creating a talk page in my name. This presumes I wanted such a thing. I have no interest in being harangued about how disruptive my fact checking and referencing is. Take the condescending tone somewhere else, especially since it was my tone that was supposedly so abhorrent. And the next time I see you use a word like execrable in reference to anything I write I will school you in the art of ripping someone a new one. You've been warned. To complain about my tone, violation of wiki rules etc. and in the same breath epitomize hypocrisy is really quite insufferable. I'm going to use the coming week to cool off. One would hope you do the same. If I have to deal with any more wholesale deletes of referenced facts, or threats of being "reprimanded" you can bet things will heat up very fast again. (Stauffenberg 01:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

I can certainly live with everything you said above. At the end of the day (or week, or whenever it is) I'm guessing we're pretty close to being on the same page, actually. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow am I tired!

While I appreciate that you want to make peace, I have to put it back the way it was. Removing the factual parts, and leaving up the fallacy contributes how? That isn't meant as a criticism by the way, but it is the result of what you did. You talk about deleting. I deleted NOTHING. You deleted everything so that argument also does not hold water. The reason I have responded inside the article is because after the first couple of rounds of this, I went back and read all the arguing, and someone had replied to my assertion that this topic is bogus with a response that we should balance any innacuracies inside the article, and that deletion was not appropriate. I disagree wholely with this statement of course, but fine, I decided to play by everyone else's rules.

What was the result? Everything I wrote gets deleted. I'm sorry if it made the glyconutrient topic seem bogus, but that unfortunately is what facts will do.

Some have made what I am sure are valid points about glycans having affects in the body. Arabinogalactan is one good example. Approved by the FDA as a source of fibre in the diet. Studies have apparently suggested that it can also boost the immune system (although I haven't read them, I remember reading this in a trusted source so I trust the assessment). Perfectly valid topic. What does it have to do with the term glyconutrient? This is our sticking point. I've tried a number of tactics in explaining why this term is unnacceptable. Nobody responds to the argument, they simply assert it is valid because researchers are doing studies on glycans and their affects. This is in fact Glycobiology! It has nothing to do with the term glyconutrient.

Appropriate ways to deliver these topics would be with titles like "Glycans and Disease", or "current glycan treatments in disease" etc. Perhaps listing documented examples, with links to articles giving specifics if someone wants to contribute such detail.

In addition, the term nutrient is being misused. Even with the documented cases (such as arabinogalactan), this is being used as fibre. It may be stimulating an immune response by some unknown mechanism, but it is most unlikely that it is having any affect by being digested, taken up into the blood stream, and being used as a nutrient (ie. entering the metabolic cycle of the organism). Of course the supplement/nutriceutical group don't care about facts. Their bread and butter is using the power of suggestion to associate their claims with valid science. They do this to gain credibility knowing full well that very few have the expertise to read and fully understand the relevant science and dispute them. And if anyone does, well, it more than likely will fall on the deaf ears of the indoctrinated. Sound familiar? I'm not against the "alternative". I can say with absolute certainty that if I were faced with a grievous illness I would investigate as much of the alternative as I possibly could. What I am against is fraud. That is what the producers of glyconutrients are committing, and that is what this article contributes to if the bright light of fact is not shone upon it. I'm sorry if the factual response to the article makes every single point other than the single line:

The process of attachment of these monosaccharides to proteins is called glycosylation.

look false. That's because this is the ONLY line in the entire article that wasn't bogus, or stretching, or innuendo, or supposition. I also take offense to the implication that what I have written is incorrect in some fashion. There may be small factual mistakes, I'm human. I don't see any, but if you can point them out, by all means.

I don't have time to deal with this. I will endeavour to add as many actual scientific references as possible to prove everything, although almost everything I have written could probably be found unreferenced in a textbook on glycobiology (save for the absorption of monosaccharides, but I can dig those references back up pretty easily when I get the time). The problem here, is some, most of whom have admitted no specific knowledge of the topic, insist on colouring valid scientifically rigourous Glycobiology as glyconutrition. That is innappropriate. I could be wrong. There may be some area of "glyconutrition" that isn't complete fraud, but I have yet to see anything presented here ostensibly validating the glyconutrition title that isn't in fact a case where valid glycobiology is being coloured as glyconutrition. Why should that be allowed? Because a small group is convinced there is a concerted effort by the academic/research/medical community to dismiss anything that can be termed "alternative"? I realise that this is their gut reaction to my attempt to have this article deleted, but that doesn't make it right. I would also like to point out that what I reverted was an almost complete wipeout of the previous glyconutrient topic that I had originally asserted was entirely bogus. I had to argue with people at length on that assertion, then someone demolishes the entire bogus article, replaces it with something else, and everyone on the alternative side seemed happy. Explain that one to me. If I was so wrong in the first place in asserting that the falsehoods and misstatements were so grievous as to justify deletion, how does the article essentially get deleted by the same people who claimed I was wrong and then reborn anew? You really want to argue there is some sort of intellectual integrity in that move? I realise the person who did it was trying to fix the grievous errors, but as I said in my comment on this page when I reverted it--restyling it under the same name, cleaning up the blatant fraud and giving it a shiny new look that better hides those flaws is not appropriate either. That is potentially even worse.

Finally, you mention self-referential in your criticism. I put the statement at the top of the page so that everyone reading would know where my comments came from, and any perceived bias that might contribute to them. Your perception from those comments that I'm livid shows that my statement at the top of the page did a good job of intimating where I am coming from. How is it then that you find this innappropriate? At worst, I have coloured my own statements that follow as potentially arising from something other than purely rigourous science. I know my statements will all be able to stand on their own so I am not concerned about this. I think my approach is a damned site more intellectually honest than the text of the original article or the bulk of the responses purporting to support the original article.

ps. If my revert has wiped out anything en masse, please feel free to add it. I can always add the facts in underneath it later on. No problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stauffenberg (talk • contribs) .

Hey, we have all the time in the world to make this into a great article that expresses your very valid criticisms. I want to help you do that. Check your talk page for more; if you are careful to make your edits conform to Wikipedia policy, then they will be stronger as evidence, and the bar for removing them is going to be very much higher (they may, in fact, be impossible to remove, if they conform to policy well enough). -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, folks, let's all slow down.

Can we all just cool it for a moment? This editing is getting a little bit heated, and I think we need to recall what we're doing here. Let's take a minute, maybe check out WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, and Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club for some pointers on the way forward for this article.

Remember, you don't need to delete something from the article just because it's not true. If you can find a source out there that states someone believes X, then X is encyclopedic. If you can find a source out there that states that X is quackery or pseudoscience, that's encyclopedic too. Encyclopedia readers want to gain information that's presented as neutrally as possible.

The current article is written in a first person, belittling tone and is self-referential, including references to the recent AfD and the editor's dissatisfaction with its outcome. That's understandable, but not appropriate. Recent edits have also deleted large amounts of text with no reason or justification given for these actions.

I've reverted the article a ways back - to the last, rather minor edit I made. I still don't actually know what a glyconutrient is, so that doesn't qualify me to improve this edit. But may I suggest that:

Folks considering deleting from the article: please instead consider moving text from the article to this talk page, with a brief explanation of why you did that so some discussion can happen; and
Folks considering adding to the article: please make sure that your additions are cited from reliable sources, that they are written in a neutral point of view, and that they don't attack others.

Finally, don't forget to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Everyone who has edited this article wants Wikipedia to be a better encyclopedia; I'm as sure of that as I am that the sun rises tomorrow. So let's all take it easy and make this a better article that everyone can agree covers all points of view fairly.

Start by adding to the subsections below. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Things this article is missing

i.(a) a factual, generic description of the specialized saccharide/polysaccharide containing blends used or sold as "glyconutrients", or a definition not self founded on strongly disputed and much hyped hypotheses; (b) current refs on generic components / blends and their biological effects, more independent of the multi-level marketing company (mlm) and its associates; (c) a more mainstream interpretation of the current literature that tries to reasonably analyze users' claimed benefits esp where most alt med seems to overlap conventional med; (d) its relation to related areas such as digestion, nondigestible sugars, short chain fatty acids (SCFA), intestinal fermentation, dietary fiber, prebiotics, probiotics, gut immune functions --66.58.130.26 05:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

ii. I'd like to see some of these disputed claims of glyconutrition (the ones that a prior editor said were "coloured as valid glycobiology"). I've yet to see a claim that these things have any effects whatsoever; continuing to oppose such claims of efficacy really looks sort of odd when there aren't actually any claims being made. Could we at least find a web site that says "What glyconutrients can do for you" or something? -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Dream: I would love to see Duane[2] write the main body draft (otherwise clean slate after we temporarily accept a GN description, probably will change many pov after a good main body) for a more conventional view of current research on the "glyconutrient" formulas, components, and biological effects/merits; one of us takes a shot at compressing the existing *entire* pro-con "8 essential sugars" into 1 or 2 clinical paragraphs - later sorting through the mlm cries & complaints in talk:GN according to Wiki and scientific reference policies; sort through Duane's refs (I think he has an independent, high quality trove) and have Stauffenberg do polite critiques somewhere (archive this page next week?) and Q&A to our questions. --66.58.130.26 11:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Things this article covers, which it shouldn't cover

Old article singularly covers too much mlm, doesn't cover much else (old March 4 edit). Should not waste too much space on is too-is not direct argumentation in the article. --66.58.130.26 05:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Things this article states as fact, but which really are in dispute

"8 essential monosaccharides", substantial digestion (hydrolysis and absorbtion) of specialty (exotic?) polysaccharides into "missing" monosaccharides as well as the sugar(s) and starch contained in the mix, benefit due thereof. A substantial digestion claim on the "missing" "esstential sugars" is represented/implied as crucial to the glycosylation claims and massive marketing literature. And broadly disputed as a hypothesis. --66.58.130.26 05:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Going forward, a better rewrite

Thank you. I think the article needs to be *completely rewritten* with a more generic science basis and description. Allow me to make a few constructive suggestions and observations that may allow broader collaboration going forward.

The current article is clearly heavily laced with POV from a "well known mlm concern". The dominating importance of the "8 essential sugars (monosaccharides)" part is not accepted by many with technical b/g in alt med either. My personal supposition is that the much complained about "junk science" is perhaps driven by the need for novelty in patent claims, differentiation, exclusion and hooked to the hype of mlm marketing. One can but imagine a "more than one monosaccharide molecules hydrolyzed off and absorbed" patent assertion. Not a good combination but separate from the performance issues of the category of materials. For this reason I think that subject matter, its technical basis, the various hypotheses, dominate corporate associations and advertising need to separated with the utmost care.

The first priority might be a better generic description of "glyconutrient" outside the proprietary patent's definition [3], "As used herein, the terms "glyconutritional" or "glyconutrient" refer to complex carbohydrates or saccharides or simple sugars that are synthesized in nature and are necessary for the biochemical synthesis of various classes of communication and signal molecules that may be free in interstitial cellular fluids, active in cell to cell communication (i.e., cytokines, growth factors, etc.), or constitute the molecular configuration comprising foci of highly specific molecular activity of cell membranes (i.e., receptor sites, ion-transport channels, antigenic identification, and the like). " (update: restarted article March 7)

Potential health benefits from short chain fatty acids (SCFA), especially butyrate, fermented in the colon, have been long described. Some conventional medical references on nondigested, fermentable oligosaccharide and disaccharide, linked from PDR Health: Transgalacto-Oligosaccharides [4], Prebioitics [5], lactulose [6] I do not think the "8 essential sugars" claims/debate should be highlighted or extended too much space; just note mlm's claim/dispute, maybe add an embedded link, move on.

Duane's comments, as below, offer a better, more conventional explanation of analogous mechanisms of action and benefits, for the glyconutrients article. --66.58.130.26 18:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship discussion

Dear 66.58.130.26,

Of course it is POV. About a POV masked as a legitimate article. I notice below you continually whine about degrees and M.D.'s yadda yadda yadda. Try B.A., B.Sc.(Honours), M.Sc., Ph.D. GLYCOBIOLOGIST. Can you beat that? Of course not. And a few quack M.D.'s who either go off their nut or decide to make some big bucks doesn't make it legitimate. Nor does M.D. mean ANYTHING. M.D.'s that know how to do research...even clinical, are pretty rare. Even M.D. Ph.D.'s are typically hard pressed because there simply isn't enough time in the day to be both. True M.D. Ph.D.'s with full research and clinical careers can be counted on your fingers and toes. If you insist on an M.D. Ph.D. I shared a lab with one during my Ph.D. I can give him a call. He'll say the same thing, only he probably won't be so polite. I've read the supposed research, referenced by these people (their choice). It simply does NOT say ANYTHING remotely close to what they imply it says. This indicates they are either con-artists, dupes, fanatic devotees, or REALLY REALLY poor researchers incapable of publishing in respected scientific journals on this topic. Searched Danhof on Pubmed. Nothing remotely close to this topic. Curious no pubs on "glyconutrients". Show me one REAL article with that in the title. Not a review. Not fluff "news and views" piece. A SCIENTFIC article. Just ONE. Riordan...same thing. All articles are ascorbate or fatty acids. Where are the glycobiologists? There are three pubs when you search glyconutrient. In two, the term is used in a more general fashion, and is not referring to the topic of this article. In the third, they threw the stuff on cells in a dish and saw affects. This is hardly scientific validation in any sense of the word. It is also in a low impact journal barely associated with any type of biochemical research. The fact that a journal titled "Integrative physiological and behavioural science" would accept a study like this for publication indicates that this journal is one which takes highly speculative data (because the research is outside the journal title's focus). Indeed this journal's impact factor is about 0.7, just above the 0.68 impact factor of the Journal of Medical Hypothesis. As the title suggests...most of the stuff is way out there. An example would be articles about getting AIDS from your Dentist or a toilet seat LONG after these routes of infection had already been disproved. HIGHLY SPECULATIVE and borderline scientific. These types of journals serve a legitimate purpose, but they hardly constitute legitimate scientific validation. You are simply dead wrong. If you insist on persisting with your attempts at a pseudo-intellectual justification of this article's existence you and I can get down to the biochemistry. Clearly, you cannot justify this biochemically, thus it dies. Give it your best shot.

And FINALLY. These are sugars. Nothing stopping anyone from swallowing them. No FDA approval necessary. Could there be an EASIER topic to do a trial on? No experimental drugs with unknown side-effects etc. Funny that they want to fund the Society For Glycobiology's conferences, and have oodles of money to market this quackery, yet there is no scientific studies out there. Explain why there is no data. The answer is obvious. These doctors you site can prescribe sugar pills as placebos, why can't they do the work and publish? Do you grasp the irony? EVERY SCIENTIFIC CLINICAL STUDY has used "glyconutrients" as the CONTROL you schmuck. The data is already there. In fact the amount of scientific clinical trial data on "glyconutrients" is as large as every single iota of data on every single drug ever tested in the history of man COMBINED. Game, Set, Match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stauffenberg (talk • contribs)

"Science is the search for truth - it is not a game in which one tries to beat his opponent, to do harm to others." - Linus Pauling

Surely you are not really suggesting all sugars have minimal effects on humans. I am aware that certain saccharides (or their alcohols) have been used for specific effects, even conventionally prescribed medically, e.g. FDA regulated (oops) lactulose for liver and enteric problems, with uses ranging from constipation to polyps to cancer (NH3 toxicity, not cancer cell kill). Or surely not that the placebos, using common sugars, cover the whole physiological range of sugars. I know that I can easily chemcially synthesize some C2-C7 monosaccharide witchbrews that are unpleasant if not more. And no, not *all* clinical studies use sugar placebos (oops) for the controls, but they are common. Jeez, not even out of the mono & disaccharides yet.

Check Danhof and "aloe vera". You missed these Riordan refs (oops). Meng, Riordan, Riordan developed a "high molecular weight saccharide/protein containing extracts of bindweed" adjuvant (angiogenesis inhibitor) for cancer treatments with IV ascorbate, US patents 6,083,510 [7], 6,596,322 [8], 6,599,538 [9].

Meng, X.L., Riordan NH, Casciari, J.J., Zhu, Y., Zhong, J., Gonzalez MJ, Miranda-Massari, J.R., Riordan HD. Effects of a High Molecular Mass 'Convolvulus arvensis' Extract on Tumor Growth and Angiogenesis. Puerto Rico Health Sciences J, December, 2002, 21:4.

Of course you don't find "glyconutrients" in Pub Med, it is a broad category relating to alt med uses of sugar/glyco- containing compounds. Any alt med terminology is carefully avoided or minimzed in PM, after all even bad publicity is publicity. Any compound studies are going to be under a more narrow, nomenclature name. (oops) As for Pub Med, it has a persistent bias excluding *any* alt med across the ENTIRE field, pretty much irrespective of technical merit, with a few tokens like Medical Hypotheses.

As for credentials, degrees are discussed for conventional credibility, this is a continual issue with the qualifications of different alt med segments: does this person have substantial conventional credentials? I avoid the "Hollywood Upstairs University" syndrome. On some points I may agree, i.e. differentiating MD's with research backgrounds and, separately, the common sales oriented literature. When I am doing my reading, I often prefer the old physician-scientist types (PhD+MD), raised in the wilds of science, rather than the common MSTP pharma raised tame ones ;> And as for researchers I prefer those with 100-500 patents, some with outstanding commercial/practical merit, over whether they are PhDs (most interesting scientist I personally know, 300+ patents, mostly with Fortune 50s, some truly revolutionary - continental scale impacts, cover of Time, NAS, but only a BS). As a youngster, I learned early how many PhDs threw away the interesting data that ultimately solved serious problems. Too dismissive again.

Actually I grasp hubris and ad hom (schmuck???). As I said earlier, below, this (glyconutrients) isn't my area, I am not one of the contributors of the article, not one sentence. (I slightly edited for format on restoration.) I'm looking for constructive edits for orthomolecular biochemical nutrition, not bully and bluster. I have stated two major issues (1) the deletion process without much discussion here or edit engagement at all, literally some historical lynchings took more than two hours, (2) there are legit glyconutrient products even if there are substantially questionable ones/claims, too. No edit process & dialogue, no article evolution - very anti-Wiki.

I think you should have to engage a proponent and chop (chip?) the article's structure, logic and refs, rather than be able to simply pronouce anathema. As far as I can tell, your primary objection is commercial hype in one prominent area. I would say the article needs to be rewritten, but unless that expertise steps forward, continued evolution is the only answer. --66.58.130.26 11:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

3 maybe 4 sugars absorbed

ENOUGH! Unless you can provide one shred of evidence that "glyconutrient" in the context used here (ie. diet supplement of "missing sugars") is anything other than a fabrication of those trying to sell it, shut up. You also perform the same sort of name dropping with your chosen "experts" without once providing an actual full reference. Why? Because they are NOT researching "glyconutrients". Quit trying to associate this topic with real research. Furthermore, the ONLY way these sugars will be functional on glycoproteins is by their absorption into the cell, and use in the normal biosynthetic pathways. They do not get stuck on proteins outside the cell, they don't function as disaccharides etc. etc. Your descriptions of the biochemistry mirror those of the glyconutrient crowd perfectly, and they are replete with clear indications of a COMPLETE misunderstanding of the biochemistry. The only sugars I can even be remotely comfortable suggesting MIGHT be absorbed when ingested are glucose (of course), mannose, galactose, and possibly (still checking) fucose. Do you understand? The glyconutrient concept is that the "essential 8 sugars" are more or less missing in our diet, thus the cells have to synthesize them. If we provide them, perhaps the cells don't have to work so hard. A potentially valide point, with not one single shred of evidence to back it up. We can't even say that the "essential 8 sugars" can be absorbed and used. As I said, there is data SUGGESTING such a thing only for mannose, galactose, and possibly fucose. What about GlcNAc and GalNAc? Very important. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they can't even be absorbed. Do we even have data showing we can throw it on cells and they will take it in? You ARE WRONG. Accept it. I don't give a damn if you don't like my style or you feel bullied. I could say the same to you with your holier than thou 'how dare we censor' attitude on a topic you clearly have no understanding of. Provide the evidence. No more name dropping. No more partial references. No more veiled allusions to this researcher does this with this saccharide yadda yadda yadda. Facts. Data. Prove once and for all the term glyconutrient in the context of this article isn't a fabrication of the con artists selling it. You can't because it is a FACT that it is fabrication.

Furthermore...the only reasonable conclusion with almost no data so far, is that if cells take these sugars up and use them, thus decreasing their workload, what happens when the cancer patient starts taking this? Let's ASSUME for a moment this is all true. The sugars are good, they get taken up and used releasing stress on the cells. Do you really want your tumour to be able to divert even more resources to growing faster? The growth rate of cancer is exactly how we target this disease. We poison the patient, knowing that the extremely fast growing cancer cells will take up the poison quicker, minimizing the poison available to healthy cells. In addition the cancer cells will be preferentially affected as they are synthesizing DNA, whereas most cells are not (most chemotherapies target DNA). Unless you want to now challenge this paradigm of oncology, explain to me how providing these sugars will help kill cancer? Much allusion by glyconutrient proponents to altered glycosylation in cancer. Absolutely correct. This is also almost certainly the MAIN way in which our immune system recognizes and targets cancerous cells. How would providing sugars that might allow more "normal" glcyosylation of cancerous cells be beneficial? I am frankly at my wits end. If you sense my contempt, it is because this is a BLATANTLY false topic. I am not someone who is trying to censor, nor am I someone who believes alternative means wrong. I am however a scientist, who believes that data speaks for itself, and the SUPPOSED data cited to justify this topic simply DOES NOT. And that will not change however many times you imply that it does. Give it a rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stauffenberg (talk • contribs)

I don't have to do squat - "not my article". I simply want to see what some others have to say in several areas, what they claim, how they organize it, how they support it in the teeth of opposition. Btw are you uni, pharma or agency? I am not satisfied with the article's scope. You (all) presently seem too narrowly focused on the glycosylation and oncology subtopic and the claims of one group, trying to narrow and (over)control it. The nutrient processing issues, including gastroenterology, among others, are broader. Direct -ose absorbtion is only a piece of the picture, what happens (and doesn't) in multicomponent biologically active "tubular reactors" is also of great interest, among others. "Alternative" to me only means another, not yet generally accepted interpretation / hypothesis - right, incomplete or wrong. Most theories start out as alternatives, the survivors evolve and correct. This article is about a subject area, not a specific theory. Cranks and cons, great, have at them. Just try to respect the general readers in your argumentation. Good luck if you can keep it together to engage the passerby's observations and comment. Thank you. --66.58.130.26 22:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Duane's points

"Glyconutrients" are a viable topic because they have significant benefits for human biology: However, the proposed "popular" mechanism of action is presently untenable for several reasons.

The original and still the highest grossing "glyconutrient" supplement on the market is a combination of Arabinogalactan (from Larch), Acemannan (from Aloe), gums tragacanth and ghatti, and glucosamine, with some rice starch as filler. Though there are variations on this formula, using complex polysaccharides from other plant sources, such as mushrooms, etc.

Note that there is only one saccharide listed - glucosamine. This has been shown to be absorbed in the intestine and has been used for the treatment of arthritis.

The other substances in this supplement are complex, large, mostly beta-linked chains of sugars (polysaccharides). Since the enzymes secreted into the human small intestine do not have the ability to break these bonds, these substances mostly remain intact through the small intestine. They then pass into the cecum portion of the large intestine where they are readily fermented by several microorganisms into short-chain fatty acids including butyrate, acetate and propionate.

There are some organisms, such as B. Thetaiotaomicron, which are found in the distal small intestine, that has been shown to hydrolize these bonds, possibly making some of the individual saccharides available for intestinal absorption. The amount of absorption of the individual saccharides is most likely insignificant compared to the amount of these saccharides that are synthesized by the body. So the absorption of saccharides is very unlikely to explain the the mechanism of action of these substances.

The comparison of these substances to vitamins and minerals in our diets to suggest that we no longer get these nutrients from our diet is not applicable, because your body cannot synthesize vitamins and minerals, but readily synthesizes all of these sugars unless you have a genetic condition preventing it.

Since the current evidence suggests minimal absorption of individual saccharides, and there is no evidence that even one glycoconjugate (glycoprotein or glycolipid) has ever been increased secondary to ingestion of "glyconutrients" does this mean that the supplements themselves are "bogus" as has previously been asserted?

The research on "glyconutrients" is decidedly sparse and weak. However, glyconutrients are not a substance, but a category of substances. Research on the individual substances reveals not only that many of these substances have been shown to have in vitro and in vivo effects on various organ systems, including the immune system, but also gives insight into the actual mechanisms responsible for many of these effects, and may explain why the combination is greater than the individual ingredients.

Some of those mechanism found in current research involve:

Increasing beneficial bacteria (e.g. bifidus, lactobacillus) - prebiotic

--Concomitant decrease in opportunistic pathogens (by many direct and indirect mechanisms) such as klebsiella (involved in spondyloarthropathies),

Salmonella, Candida, Proteus, e. coli, etc.

--Decrease in luminal ammonia concentration

--Bifidus/Lactobacillus directly and indirectly stimulate an increase in maturity and activity of the immune system.

--Have been shown to greatly reduce allergy and autoimmune reactions in animal research at seemingly unrelated tissues (such as lungs) by causing

a balanced T-helper cell response.

--Prevent and treat gastointestinal disorders

--Decrease micro-organism production of beta-glucosidase and beta-glucuronidase within the intestine (e.g. these cause de-conjugation of hormones,

such as estrogen, which increases re-absorption of these substances, as well as other negative effects).

Glyconutrients increase production of SCFA's (especially important is butyrate)

--Energy source for colonic epithelia

--Anti-inflammatory

--Immunomodulatory

--Significant stimulation production of galectin-1

--Anti-cancer (can actually differentiate a cancer cell into a normal cell)

--Decreases pH of colon (beneficial)

--Stimulates CXCR4 in bone marrow (stimulate stem cells?), but inhibits it in cancer cells.

--SCFA's (such as butyrate) may be an appetite suppressant, and a neurotransmitter needed for normal bowel function via GPR43 receptors.

--SCFA's stimulate white blood cells via this same receptor (immune activation)

--Butyrate increases production of POTENT natural antibiotic substance "cathelecidin" (anti-bacterial, anti-viral, anti-fungal).

Certain glyconutrients (arabinogalactan, acemannan) have structures that mimic the polysaccharides in micro-organisms such as candida.

--By binding specific receptors in intestines, such as Galectins and Mannan-binding lectins, it causes an activation of certain aspects of the immune system.

--activation of these receptors may have benefits in other conditions such as arthritis, auto-immune disease, etc.

--Different combinations of these polysaccharides cause different ratio's of SCFA's, so some combinations may produce more butyrate than others.

--Butyric acid causes an 8 fold increase in galectin-1 expression. This would magnify the effects of Arabinogalactan by increased galectin-1 binding.

Glyconutrients increase production/secretion of cholecystikinin, increasing efficiency of digestion and absorption of nutrients.

Glyconutrients decrease circulating free fatty acids (FFA). FFA's, among other things, cause cellular insulin resistance.

And other mechanism I have not mentioned, such as improving digestion and many which continue to be elucidated in the scientific literature.

So there is evidence that glyconutrients can have physiological benefits on health which are rationally explained by mechanisms other than the unsupported "8 sugar" hypothesis. It is also noted that the benefit of these substances are not duplicated by other nutrients, vitamins, minerals, fats, amino acids, etc.

Glyconutrients are important beneficial supplements which can have physiological influence on many organ systems and tissues of the body via its prebiotic effect, effects on efficiency and health of the digestive tract, stimulation of immune receptors within the intestinal tract (2/3 of immune systemt surrounds the intestines), secondary production of SCFA's, as a soluble fibers, and others. For this reason, some rational explanation should be found within the articles found in a comprehensive informational text such as this site. That's my two cents. -Duane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.131 (talk • contribs) ______________________

Brazen deletion

Looks like an assault on the nascent Glyconutrient article. (1)the glyconutrient redirect to Orthomolecular medicine is inappropriate and disruptive. I personally am interested to see what develops on Glyconutrient. Redirect to the current orthomed article is meaningless and adding a specific controversial minor subject would be very disruptive and intrusive to the orthomed article; (2) 0730 26Feb06 edit note on Orthomolecular Medicine was entirely disingenuous - after assassination of the Glyconutrient article, perp (Bobby1011) reports the article missing??? shades of Scott Peterson. (3) glyconutrients are an experimental modality in orthomed that do have substantial ongoing medical and scientific investigation in the area. Ivan Danhof MD, PhD, decades while at (prestigious) U of Texas Southwestern Medical School faculty for aloe vera, and cancer researcher Hugh Riordan, MD for bindweed come immediately to mind. (4) the 2 hour assault would not seem to meet Wiki guidelines of "5 days" (2 hours of edits on Glyconutrient article) (5) I found the putative AfD comments childish, ad hominen, pejorative and very POV;

This Glyconutrient article seemed to be evolving normally until prejudicially attacked at warp speed. I notice most of the authors of most "AfD" comments, who try so hard to authoritatively exert their expertise and demands, seem 1 or 2 degrees short of a pair and brand new identities on Wiki. The only points that I could divine were that they seem to be extremely upset with some recent marketing campaigns of various products by multilevel sales - a different issue and that they totally disagree with nascent "glyconutrients". Even if all products were junk (e.g. aloe for burns, gastro, skin products), I think the glyconutrient article would be necessary to better understand the alt med world around us. I think continued normal editing is appropriate. Perhaps linkage to examples of aloe and bindweed or common commercial products would be a good idea. 66.58.130.26 = 69.178.31.177

I am not a contributor to "glyconutrients" but am an expectant linker at orthomed. --66.58.130.26 13:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

____

The following discussion is an archived debate ... Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page ... Redirected to Orthomolecular medicine. Bobby1011 26.02.2006

Entirely inappropriate redirect of glyconutrient requests to orthomed. Orthomed needs to drill down in to glyconutrient, not vice versa. Orthomed is a much larger topic that would get bogged down in a specific subject, especially if it becomes an "is too" - "is not" shouting match on the edges. This two hour drill by outside opinion (didn't see one lick of science citation either) and antagonistic parties is a new low in my brief time at Wiki. Frankly I was looking forward to see what someone with some expertise would say about the various specialized sugars, oligiosaccharides, polysaccharides out to glycoproteins [10] and related materials. --66.58.130.26 01:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Glyconutrient

"Glyconutrient(s) is a term coined and used by con-artists to bilk cancer patients out of their money. There is no such thing. Every last claim they make is bogus." Stauffenberg 05:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)}

Sounds pretty pure POV, overgeneralized ad hom. If there are problems with the article's sources, statements, pls edit the article, discuss it. If MLM sites are a problem, address it. --66.58.130.26 01:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Every scientific reference they list says something very different from what they imply it says. There is no way they should be allowed to use Wikipedia to try and give the topic more credibility. These charlatans repeatedly offer money support to the Society for Glycobiology and their offers are repeatedly refused because legitimate scientists would never allow themselves to be associated with this in ANY way. This article needs to be removed, and any opinion otherwise is self-serving and should be ignored. Stauffenberg 05:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

An accusation of POV, edit the article, cite some technical support. This deletion is some kind of vandalism or lynching. You folks did not begin to follow Wiki discussion period and you obviously have no inkling about orthomed. I am not saying the glyconutrient article could not use editing. --66.58.130.26 01:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Clean up and add to List_of_alternative,_speculative_and_disputed_theories. Bobby1011 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Clean up as per above.Animalfanatic04 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge or delete. As a biological engineer, I'm quite offended by the lack of science present in this article. "Cellular braille"? And I don't see how a "glyconutrient" differs from a carbohydrate. The assertion that glycosylation is part of genetic expression is ludicrous. Glycosylation is only important when you're building a glycoprotein. The sentence about "glyconutrition" makes me want to abandon my career path and become a forest ranger. At any rate, if this article is allowed to remain I strongly suggest that we merge it per Bobby1011. Compare with thermic effect of food, which at least states that there is no source rather than making something up. Isopropyl 06:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not an engineer. As a college sophomore you are just barely starting to study engineering. MIT? congratulations, join the high SAT crowd, about 50,000/yr in the US. "Engineer" refers to someone with a real degree, commercial / professional practice and / or professional certification, the state prosecutors and engineering societies actually get pretty snotty about this in the US. See www.nspe.org/ . "Biological engineering" a new, boutique area; previously most universities used biochemical or biomedical engineering, traditionally/typically assigned to a mother discipline such as mechE, chemE or EE, depending. (I don't know the current university departments and their requirements, the university corporations are largely free to do as they please.) I am pointing out serious researchers that concern glyconutrients. A number of the contributors around here are professionally/multi- degreed. Science contributors that aspire to advanced degrees usually are expected to dig a little harder, shoot more carefully, and constructively. I think you are superheated about some sales types and perhaps the form of the glyconutrient article. Extreme exception is taken to these instant lynching tactics that blatantly ignore Wiki fair play.--66.58.130.26 01:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Orthomolecular medicine. I've just noticed that glyconutrients already get a mention on the List_of_alternative,_speculative_and_disputed_theories as Orthomolecular medicine. Therefore we need only redirect this page to that one, and no rewrite is required. Bobby1011 06:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Specious and objectionable. Orthomolecular has no specifc glyconutrient content and shouldn't. As an interested party to the orthomolecular medicine article, I am very interested to see technical contributions on the glyconutrients page. I do see controversy about it and I do see real technical work in the field. Redirecting specific subject requests to a more general topic is most unwelcome, and for those from orthomed, uninformative. --66.58.130.26 01:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete per nom and Isopropyl. Most of the "information" in this article is completely fraudulent. Not "alternative", not "speculative", not "disputed", but pure unadulterated bullshit. Whatever tiny pieces of the article are actually true can be merged by an expert into Glycoprotein, if said expert feels they're worth saving. Otherwise, nuke with extreme prejudice and salt the earth. --Aaron 06:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Very strong opinion, criticism and POV, doesn't even begin to make it right, just POV and lack of general knowledge. As above, see Drs. Danhof and Riordan, real researchers, real MDs, real published careers. If you have specific statements, please edit accordingly. I don't like any MLM sales aspect of things and certainly invite technical repartee'. (I am not the one for this area, hopefully you all can engage in a *constructive debate* in the best of Wiki aspirations, with your counterparts over several weeks or months). But I do take strong exception technically and processwise to a broad denunciation with thermonuclear deletion. Please leave the "pseudoscience" 'tudes at home, it is insulting and provocative.--66.58.130.26 01:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced text

The following text needs reference to reputable, reliable sources before it can go back into the article, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The importance of glycosylation has previously been overlooked. The functionality of tissue, and therefore its health, is critically dependent of this mode of transmission of information.

The discovery that exogenous glyconutrients can contribute to and enhance glycosylation of protein is a very significant breakthrough in nutrition. This has spawned a new field of nutrition called glyconutrition.

Most glyconutrients are missing from modern diets in efficacious amounts, even if 'healthy' organic vegetables are consumed. Glyconutrients or "sugars"—support the body's ability to produce special structures, called glycoproteins, on cell surfaces. Glycoproteins serve as the "alphabet" that communicates messages from one cell to another, so that they can all function as well as possible. As expected with a non-toxic, plant derived nutritional product there are no known side-effects associated with taking Glyconutrients. Since Glyconutrients are non-toxic & derived from natural sources they are safe even when taken in conjunction with vitamins & nutritional supplements.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkyu2 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 4 March 2006

Hopefully the article's underlying mechanism should be headed toward consensus now, the glyconutrient proponent (Duane) and the orthomed proponent (me), here in Talk, will not miss the "missing sugars" part at all. SCFA by fermentation is conventionally documented and accepted for specific pharmaceutical prebiotics and dietary fiber; rewrite for glyconutrients, link and ref. I do agree with Stauffenberg and Duane that that "missing 8 essential sugars" part is not supported and note its underlying role in the previous disagreements and deletion proceedings. I think in less hasty circumstances its centrality to contention would have surfaced and resolved much easier. --66.58.130.26 18:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I am hopeful that Duane, the newcomer above, in the last response of "Censorship discussion", will chose to participate here at Wiki and bring his apparently extensive refs to the article.--66.58.130.26 07:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed & Off Spec Links

We need 2 - 3 good, general links. This article is changing greatly to achieve a broader, firmer technical coverage. The suitability of these links has changed accordingly. Pls add your comments: -- 66.58.130.26 09:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

- Scientific American

irrelevant link until someone shows a valid reference for significant hydrolysis of polysaccharides & absorbtion of "essential sugars" in the small intestine -- 66.58.130.26 13:06, 10 March 2006

- Scientific American :irrelevant link, a studiously unsupported claim of connection between glyconutrient and glycobiology --66.58.130.26 01:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC) (I'clast)

- "The New Vision" Uganda newspaper's coverage on Glyconutrients and HIV

weak and not-too-subtle MT founder glorification -- 66.58.130.26 13:06, 10 March 2006

- Glycoscience.org: Scientific research on glyconutrients

commercial POV with studiously unproven assertions. Perhaps an embedded link to a specific page as an example of the controversial "science" part. -- 66.58.130.26 13:06, 10 March 2006

- Glycoscience.org: Scientific research on glyconutrients front door to "infomercial" ad site

- An unfriendly, critical look at vitamin B3, B6-based therapies from Quackwatch.org

Way off topic. I think a QW link that is closer to *this glyconutrient subject* would be appropriate, not a highly POV article basically on vit B3 & B6. I have accepted, w/o fuss, this exact link in Wiki elsewhere, bottom link because it was the most appropriate link for counterpoint. I have read QW & predecessors, starting in magazine and book form, for about 25+ yrs. I still read it to find more (negative) details on targeted people, their credentials and claims. Obviously my point of view has changed somewhat. Although adroitly and convincingly written for broad consumption, generally speaking, I have come to view some parts of QW's stmts to be hideously unfair, inaccurate and misleading. So I ask that their pov be applied very carefully. --66.58.130.26 13:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Quackwatch makes no attempt at a neutral point of view. I tend to appreciate that, because I feel like it actually reflects the mainstream M.D. point of view pretty well. I try personally to keep an open mind but the majority of my colleagues don't bother to, and that represents the doctors that you and I go to to receive health advice. I like this article because it tars all of nutrient based therapy with a broad brush, and frankly I have to say that in my professional opinion (which I've tried to keep strenuously out of the main article text as original research), I think it is applicable and I agree with it. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

- Glyconutrient Clinical Studies on NIH Website 5 links related to MT product support

#1 & 2 are just analytical & QC articles, not of much article relevance; #3 is a very brief abstract with a secondary mention of some kind of MT example; #4 fibromylagia claims see also [11], ref 46 [12] at glycoscience ; #5 MT abstract on ADHD, ODD, CD with very limited sample, with "hydrolyzed saccharide" terminology - sa MT patent [13] example #6 for a few more details. --I'clast 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)(formerly known as 66.58.130.26)

moved *- Entrez PubMed search for "mannatech", replace with MT reference/publications page

{add your comments here, please)

- A friendly skeptic looks at Ambrotose

{add your comments here, please)

- Multilevel marketing company's clinical trials & product support references In the interest of POV representation, perhaps these MT clinical trial refs could speak for themselves with some editorial either as an external link at bottom, or a embedded link with the article. --I'clast 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)(formerly known as 66.58.130.26)

{add your comments here, please)

- An unbiased look at obtaining glyconutrients through diet I think 3 elements need to be analyzed here. 1) DIY self mixing of "glyconutrient" formulas to taste, condition and finances - no problem; 2) sourcing the vendors in the article - issues, 3) the "8 essential monosaccharides" - widely considered *technically* unsupported, -able, even in alt med, although popularized to heaven and earth is already over-represented in the links.

A Global Sharing of A Technology for World Health! blatant MT advertising and long time, scientifically unsupported 8 sugar claim (here and other forums) --66.58.130.26 21:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Glyco science.org: Compiled Glycoscience Information from many disciplines around the world advertising, commercial POV in link's title, hiding MT; this link only with proper attribution --66.58.130.26 21:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Misnomer

There are several excellent points that have been made that I would like to expound on.

It was previously noted that the term "glyconutrient" was technically incorrect. I somewhat agree. In the first issue of the Glycoscience & Nutrition Journal, which is put out by the company/researchers that originally introduced these supplements, it defines "glyconutritionals" (used interchangeably with "glyconutrients" on their website www.glycoscience.org) as:

"Glyconutritionals are dietary supplements designed to provide substrates for the body to use in building the glyco portion of glycoconjugates on cell surfaces. Glyconutritionals are designed to make the necessary sugars available to the cells quicker and in greater quantity." (Vol 1, No 1 January 1, 2000 Introduction to Glyconutritionals (Abridged) Bill McAnalley, PhD, Eileen Vennum, RAC"

All of the ingredients in these supplements, except glucosamine, are non-digestible, beta-linked polysaccharides. While it is possible that a small fraction of the monosaccharides that are liberated by micro-organisms in the large intestine may be absorbed by the host (Justin L. Sonnenburg, et al.Glycan Foraging in Vivo by an Intestine-Adapted Bacterial Symbiont Science, Vol 307, Issue 5717, 1955-1959 , 25 March 2005) the significance of this amount, especially compared with the amounts of each saccharide produced by the human body each day, has not been demonstrated. Also, there is no study that positively attributes the effects/benefits of these substances to the production of glycoconjugates, or glycosylation of any kind. There is also a large amount of literature showing how the benefits of these substances can be attributed to alternative mechanisms (previously discussed).

Based on the current state of published research, the substances that are in the supplements that are being claimed to be "glyconutrients" or "glyconutritionals" do not even meet the definition put forth by the originator of this category of supplements (except possibly glucosamine). So the term glyconutrients, by this definition, is indeed innapropriate for the category of substances most people place in this category.

Is it still an incorrectly applied term if we ignore their definition?

"Nutrients" if defined as "A source of nourishment, especially an ingredient in a food." (The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary) or "any substance that can be metabolized by an organism to give energy and build tissue" (WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University) could still be appropriately applied to these substances since it is estimated that the short-chain fatty acids derived from these substances via microorganisms in our colon can account for >10% of our daily absorbed calories (Hooper, L. V., Midtvedt, T. & Gordon, J. I. (2002) Annu. Rev. Nutr. 22, 283-307), and has other physiologic benefits that effect our health through ingesting them (soluble/insoluble fiber, effects on cholesterol and free fatty acids, etc).

"glyco" of course is correct because all of these substances are made up of saccharides.

So if you mean that a glyconutrient is a substance composed of saccharides that has physiologic benefit for the human body through ingestion, it is technically correct for these substances.

The medical term "subluxation" meaning a joint that is less than luxated/dislocated, was used by Chiropractors in early 1900's when they thought their manipulative techniques were replacing "bones out-of-place". Since that time it has been shown that the effects of manipulation have little if anything to do with the medical definition of "subluxation" and yet this term is still used by the chiropractic profession to describe the neuromechanical dysfunction that is addressed by manipulation. While the accuracy of the term to describe what chiropractors treat has been called into question, it cannot be denied that there is a large segment of the public and these professionals who still use this term in this way, and have for over a century. In which case, even incorrectly applied terminology has its place in pages of informational texts like these to inform the public when they are trying to investigate these terms which are in common usage.

I am impressed with at least the beginning information of the current glyconutrient section of the article. I am confused as to why the term glycoprotein needs to be in there since there is no evidence that these substances have ever increased even one glycoprotein. There is also no transition in the article explaining the proposed association of glycoproteins to glyconutrients. It looks as if it was just another unassociated term thrown in the middle of the article with no connection to the topic.

It would probably be appropriate, however, to just note that: It has been hypothesized by promoters of glyconutritional supplements, that the benefits of taking these substances is secondary to an increase in glycoprotein and glycolipid synthesis. There is no current published evidence to support that glycoprotein synthesis is being affected in any way, or that the reported benefits of these supplements have any correlation with an increase of glycoproteins.

Just a thought. Duane 08:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Duane - welcome back to Wikipedia! Ok, I have drained the carbuncle and rationalized the article. I borrowed liberally on the last part. I think "many" is a safer, less contentious stmt on effects and benefit wrt other nutrients. A retread of your first talk, detailed and elaborated, drawing upon your other priors is what I would call main body. A few good refs.... --66.58.130.26 11:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Borrowed some more refs, still looks a little haphazard and incomplete, I am sure. Thank you. Don't be shy - we have only been allowed a brief pause to get this article lined out. --66.58.130.26 13:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ref and link dump

I notice that a large number of references have appeared in the article. They are not cited in the main text, and it's not clear what they're doing there. Please consider numbering them and associating them with the article text with which they are associated.

Also, why are the external links continually deleted? There's no need for that. Add to the article; don't delete from it. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I had put an "offspec links" discussion[14] between "Unsourced Text" and "Misnomer", above, to try to help organize the Contents box [15], at the top. I also noted it in my Edit summary comment line, "Offspec Links - these links simply don't qualify." Sorry it was missed, the Talk page is getting easy to bury threads of thought and keep logically organized together rather than just a chronological mail dump. I thought I offered "fair explication" on the deleted links. I would welcome higher quality, global subject links. Most independent stuff I've seen is scattered in bits and pieces. Glycoscience, etc, is too self serving commercial POV beyond an embedded link around the monosaccharide discussion, QW at least needs to get closer to on subject. --66.58.130.26 23:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this talk page is indeed getting too hairy. I missed your explanations. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

" Please consider numbering them (refs) and associating them with the article text with which they are associated." Ok, working on editing them but may be delayed.--66.58.130.26 00:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

links priority

Sigh. All our personal "pets" and "pet peeves" are hanging out here at the links. The "sales support" links are up right this second. One editor likes a particular tar job vitamin B reference sweepingly aimed at nutritional therapies rather than glycoscience/-nutrients, or perhaps exotic dietary fiber, prebiotics, probiotics, functional food saccharides. I, of course, am looking for another perspective. If we are going to make this look like an encyclopedia article, we need to focus now and avoid a genteel edit war or a hairball (too many links).

Personally, I have no experience with mlm products. I clearly support the independent majority that resoundingly rejects the "essential monosaccharides" hypotheses associated with mlm. I would appreciate others taking a look at the proposed Medline links - Glyconutrient Clinical Studies on NIH Website associated by an mlm proponent and say what they think about them as representing that direction's input. One might consider 1-2 of the proposed medline studies in the link if they could find some merit (reviewed abstracts, tried get more hotlinks for your easier review in "proposed & offspec links" discussion, above). One cannot justify the "glycoscience 8 essential sugar" sites or associations (SciAm) except as an example of highly questionable advertising methods; I sure wish the QW stuff would get closer onto the topic. Readers' comments on each link of the last half dozen links or so at the "proposed & offspec links" heading above are requested. --66.58.130.26 09:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC) updated --I'clast 01:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you please get a Wikipedia login? Using this talk page is not an effective way to communicate with you. It takes about 1 minute and doesn't impair your privacy. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done (formerly known as 66.58.130.26) --I'clast 22:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a modest proposal: let's include any link that anyone wants to put there. External links don't have to be neutral; they can be described as a 'tar job' if you feel that's a neutral way of describing them. But rather than trying to exercise some control over a vision of what is suitable to link or not, which is going to be hard to come by, why not just link everything? -ikkyu2 (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps as a transitional mode, link accumulation is one approach, but MT POV (glyco-bio BS) is already very heavy right now on counterfactual stuff - extent of sm intestinal fiber hydrolysis & resultant monosaccharides. I think for "best", that the links need a concise, informative quality even though they may need to represent some POV spread that represents different POV and issues on the subject. Otherwise they can become a POV advertising hairball. The reference dump, in transition, is a hairball for now. (The refs are not well rendered yet; need to cut down 50% on the # articles and directly associate to points in the article, agreed. Duane would be the best but so far he has refrained from editing the actual article.)

The links need lots of TLC. All or most of these links don't even seem that much interest to the goals of likely kinds of readers (oh, yes them). Information guality of the links is a big problem right now. I am struggling to find good popular versions of the textbook science for links, probably will wind up with prebiotics, aloe and soluble/dietary fiber articles; a previous editor certainly was correct about the overwhelming prevalence of spam sites. 2-3 links are glyco-bioBS and badly need paring, the remaining MT-Pubmed link seems weak on content. The favorite qw link is not well pointed, and the attack on subjects (supernutritional vit B psychiatric uses & Hoffer, although not named) may be not even well grounded (long discussion of Abram Hoffer's biochemical and visual/perceptual definitions research, maybe a subpopulation of the schizophrenias catchall, vs the more auditory, DSM & pharmaphilic APA politics of the 60 & 70's onward when biochem generally displaced hostile Freudians & traumatists of the 50s & 60s; frmr psychiatrist SB, trained in the 50s, is obviously not a Hoffer fan - hmmmm). I am sorely tempted to write WJ & SB and ask for a merge of the slant from the favorite QW link to be combined with an update on qw's MT article to get a decent link! Ideally, assuming normal attn span readers, an avg inquirer would probably prefer a basic linked section with 2-3 good readable links on straight science, 1-2 links negative/QW, 1-2 link glycobio but ID'd as "8 sugar" friendly; either 2:1:1 or 3-4:2:2 for a brief encyclopedia article. Dealing with writer POV & fairness issues vs reader's goals with an encyclopedia is a serious source of editorial tension here. "Link Improvement" drive? --66.58.130.26 02:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

perceived individual performance

What does "perceived individual performance" mean? --JWSchmidt 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

People use "glyconutrients" and prebiotics empirically for a number of enteric related problems (also an area of controversy). They either feel that they can perceive an improvement or they have the choice of increasing formula (titration), modifying/switching formulas or discontinuance. Either they have a strong enough response to continue or a strong enough belief / placebo effect to do so. A lot of the supernutritional approaches cost and labor enough that whatever one might say about an individual's observational acuity, it represents a serious committment in an area where formal support is conventionally limited and narrow. --66.58.130.26 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

MT advertising

These additions were inappropriate to an encyclopedia article. Links for personal advertising websites are not suitable under a number of Wiki policies. Although Bill M might be a notable researcher, this hagiographic statement was also technically flawed with respect to the "sugars" part. The MT patent, with some dubious merits and claims (9+ yrs fpr approval probably indicates a decided lack of enthusiasm at USPTO), is not a basic (unavoidable) patent that defines the prebiotics industry, it is pretty non-notable beyond the discussion page here (already done that). I highly recommend that you read the whole talk page. Most of the rest of the folks here were lots less sympathetic to glyconutrients, in general, and all technical types rejected MT's "glycoscience" schpiel - 8 essential dietary monosugars specifically, almost got the whole topic deleted earlier this year[16].

Let me add a few things here. Wiki is not a sales site. A number of parties have some evidence of benefit for glyconutrients. The "8 essential sugars" part has no demonstrated, or real dietary basis to connect it with the much touted cellular glycosylation mechanisms. At the very best it is a hypothesis of McAnalley and MannaTech, expanded upon by numerous writers who happen to have a PhD, MD and perhaps even have had a very positive experience with a glyco product.

MT have demurred for years on executing simple tests that would (dis)prove its claims. Not exactly reassuring. Among disinterested technical types and even a number of glyconutrient advocates, it is widely considered b---s---. Even Dr McAnalley, when braced about[17] it, loosely estimated that about 20% is converted and absorbed, presumably an upper end, legalistic posturing for any rough (large data scatter, poor quality, confounded/nonunique results) data. Tthis is the way specialty chemical sales usually go and why they hire PhDs for technical support (I recognize the McAnalley is more than just technical support). Is any there evidence at all? Is it 19%, 2%, 0.2% or 2 molecules? MT refuses to quantify any such claims in the literature or normal scientific channels - with a large revenue stream on their primary products, scientifically they are dead meat (no "poor boy" problems). Basically MT research seems to concentrate on production of small clinical tests of low confidence and zero scientific use - very convenient for sales talks. Who knows what McAnalley's real results were, but not publishing them undermines the claims even further if he (or MannaTech) refuses to publish them or sponsor tests in a small but critical claims area. Also Dr McAnalley's "unpublished research" claims simply are not verifiable, WP:RS, WP:V, directly counter to Wiki policies. Thank you for taking time to read this.--66.58.130.26 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

MannaSteve

Please read the entire page, you are simply repeating marketing dept sales scripts. "Yet for some reason almost 15 diffrerent pharmaceutical companies are rushing to develope drugs based on synthetic glyconutrients." This stmt, if you can source adequate details, a lot more, companies/products and the synthetic glyconutrients part, a trimmed & recast stmt *might* go elsewhere in the article. Almost any 2 - 200,000 carbon carbohydrate will do to fit the name, so be careful. And medicines have *long* used "glyconutrients", already stated in the article. Essentially if the pharmas come with *any* therapeutic carbohydrates (e.g. glycans), however unrelated, MT could trivially claim "glyconutrient" association for publicity, groan.

Unsupported claims of digestion or absorption of 8 sugars

You have to show substantial digestion, conversion to monosaccharides and cellular absorption of the sugars, the longstanding complaint of PhD glycobiologist, Stauffenberg, as above, earlier in March. McAnalley hasn't. Until then, this unlikely event, the "8 esssential sugars" part is vendor, technically illiterate sales POV.

"Radioactively-labeled monosaccharides, exogenously supplied to a cell, are absorbed and expressed in glycoproteins. This process shows that sugars in the extra-cellular fluid are preferentially used by the cell (instead of the cell converting its own from glucose)"

you would need to source the quote, and show the multiple sugars actually absorbed (be the very first!)

The Harpers chapter is about cellular glycosylation not the digestion / absorption part

ditto SciAm article. MT sales, I am sure reassures you of this. Hear this: it has no published science to say this, MT studiously avoids studies and does smoke and mirrors instead.

If you don't like this, call Dallas(?) and tell *them* to do their homework.

Also the " vendor associated marketing website" is a reader warning for vendor POV, it might be a result of research or results, but it is not "research support". One more time, and the link is simply removed for vendor POV, which it is, it is only borderline acceptable even when labelled accurately. Wikipedia is not a forum for MT ads and company glorification, pls stop that.--66.58.130.26 07:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

3 sugars absorption reference - where are other 5 sugars? This was covered, above, in excruciating circumstances in February. If you are asking someone to help you, I suggest you have them read this *whole* talk page. It's annoying to be treated like an illiterate.--66.58.130.26 12:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Also the consumer needs to be aware that the current excitement around "8 sugars" creates a breading ground for fraud and deceit." Yes, there has been a lot of concern expressed here in agreement if you mean "breeding ground".

"It would be advisable to look for companies that develop assays for these sugars that are widely accepted as simple inexpensive accurate tests for determining product ingredients." Actually + -, the home formulators who buy their ingredients direct from major ingredient manufacturers and major sources are likely to get reliable materials, but smaller formulators have some concern. Even with MT you can get a lot of starch, MT includes it in the label - the home formulators might claim "superiority" (some actually do claim so elsewhere on the internet).

"In a Dec 1998 study, healthy humans were given radioactively labeled galactose, mannose, or glucose. The study showed galactose and mannose were directly incorporated into human glycoproteins without first being broken down into glucose." Glycobiologists like Stauffenberg, above, consider the lack of demonstrated absorption for the other 4-5 sugars at this late date a glaring problem in the MT 8 essential sugar literature claims, just look above in this page (that's not me hollering fraud etc). The moonosaccharide carbohydrate anaylses are of less importance than the qualities of the type and source polymer used (e.g. the Larex arabinogalactin is often consider superior to the gum arabic/acacia arabinogaactin). Again, notice I am not saying the stuff doesn't work. I, like other of other technical people through here are saying the 8 essential sugar hypothesis as marketed is at least erroneous, *the others are less kind*, just read above at the top. --66.58.130.26 09:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"This site is useless if a consumer wants to buy anything." That means it is not the vendor marketing site. "Also the site has recieved numerous awards from the World Wide Health on the net." 'Pretty picture of the year' award - has nothing to with the scientific validity of the material presented. These are all known, well worn Mannatech/Glycoscience statements.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0000BE67-BF37-1CCE-B4A8809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322 pretty much useless until you can show significant hydrolysis to these 8 sugars AND cellular absorption of 8 sugars (which the 1998 paper doesn't - 3 vs 8 isn't even close, 1998 was last century.

No. already reviewed, as previous. "Certain companies market products claiming to have 8...It would be advisable to look for companies that develop assays for these sugars that are widely accepted as simple inexpensive accurate tests for determining product ingredients."

Maybe a sentence worth, somewhere. This statement is about immune stimulation by an injectable, rather than an oral route, the unstated mode of delivery in this article. What was Bill's patent no here? In the early 1980's the majority of the scientific community believed that the thing that carbohydrates were good for were for the production of energy. However Solvay animal health (the world's largest producer of animal vaccines) did a "small" study in several million chicken's by combining a small amount of an injectible glyconutrient (acemannan) and a vaccine designed to prevent Maerk's virus which causes tumors in chickens. This combination improved the vaccine effectiveness from 65% to 90-97%. As a results billions of chickens have now been successfully injected with glyconutrients.

Needs lots more back up & rework. 1. hmmm, companies have been selling sugar coated pills for generations... 2. Scientific American, historically, is not a peer reviewed science journal and has attracted much criticism, glossy t.p. 3. Here, patent numbers on the *talk page* might actually be useful, to see what they really are up to. "Currently many pharmaceutical companies are working on sugar loading and sugar coating drugs to make them more effective." needs work and detail - special polysaccharides - glycans? "An excellent article was written in the July 2002 edition of Scientific American called "sweet medicine." may be a reference, probably not. hot link text if possible

re: definition of glyconutrient

Forgive me if I am doing this incorrectly, but it is my first attempt at editing a Wiki entry. The very first line, "Glyconutrient is a technical scientific term" is not, I believe, factual. Aside from sites that parrot the use of the term by Mannatech, I cannot find a single medical or nutritional dictionary that includes the word "glyconutrient." If you cannot provide a reference for the definition other than those which lead back directly to Mannatech, readers should know that, as it casts doubt on it being a "technical scientific term" and lends credence to the view that it is a commercial term that the company came up with to describe its products, with no currency in the larger scientific community.

This issue has been pretty well beat to death, with the first three sentences written by as anti-glyconutrient, anti Mannatech person as you will find, a researcher with a PhD in Glycobiology. The technical term part is about the "agar" not the dietary fiber products, that's the "commercially inspired part". If you trace Stauffenberg's edits and associated pages, starting 26 Feb 06, through the Talk page above, it's pretty messy, you'll see one of us doesn't like MT or 8 sugar bs, the other hates the whole subject. Look not too far above in Talk, and you'll see MT bs flies about like a lead balloon here. Here a board certified neurologist explains the rationale for this article to a very hostile editor.--I'clast 02:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think it isn't quite crystal clear that there's a difference between the "commercially inspired" use of glyconutrient and the technical one, but at least the "citation needed" tag is a step forward. I am wondering though - given all the discussion here (my own comment excepted), why is this entry (or sections of it) not considered a disputed entry? The controversy seems pretty obvious. For more casual wiki users (as I used to be) the existence of these discussion is, it seems to me, not something you check unless directed there by a disputed or POV tag. For the record, I am neither pro MT or anti MT, I have simply been hearing about it lately and think it's important to separate their advertising claims from the available science so that people can make their own decisions in as informed a way as possible.

Consuming the technical part would mean scraping, licking bacterial growth media off little plates (petri dishes), the commercially inspired stuff is a powder added to something (food, drink) or capped. Disputed? which entry? the whole article?? As far as I can tell, even Stauffenberg was reasonably satisfied with the final article. The only commerical claims advertised by the MLM & spamsites are carefully & scientifically disclaimed in this article. This article *describes* the mixtures, cost spreads (!), the typical individual components, b/g, market area, scientific rationale that are supported in the literature contra MLM 8 sugar bs, and the common actions or use patterns of individuals.--I'clast

Explanation of my modification of the first line

Technical Scientific

No other article on Wikipedia uses the phrase "technical scientific" to describe a technical or scientific term. This language here smacks of advertisement. I've found little scientific talk of this term - including only 3 references on PubMed (even decidedly nonscientific terms have far more references than that, e.g. "fun", with 1206 references).

Ultimately, if the term is scientific, it is unnecessary to make the claim that it is scientific.

Agar

I removed, As an example, many bacteria can grow on agar containing various types of sugars. These sugars would be considered glyconutrients. I did so because this is inaccurate. Agar is made up of one type of sugar, galactose, branched differently. Given that the remainder of the paragraph reads like a litany of glyconutrients, this line was unnecessary anyway.

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Glyconutrient/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Article Improvement Drive

Can we delete portions of the discussion?

Questions to be answered

"Current research supports" discussion

Vandalism

Wow am I tired!

Hey, folks, let's all slow down.

Things this article is missing

Things this article covers, which it shouldn't cover

Things this article states as fact, but which really are in dispute

Other problems with this article

Going forward, a better rewrite

Censorship discussion

3 maybe 4 sugars absorbed

Duane's points

Brazen deletion

Unsourced text

Proposed & Off Spec Links

Misnomer

Ref and link dump

links priority

perceived individual performance

MT advertising

MannaSteve

re: definition of glyconutrient

Explanation of my modification of the first line

Technical Scientific

Agar

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search


	This article was nominated for deletion on 26/2/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.