Talk:Glyconutrient

Glycobiology Article

Glycobiology, the scientific journal that represents the Society for Glycobiology, has recently published a mini-forum on this subject grouped around a main article entitled 'A Glyconutrient Sham'. The journal has also published a response from Mannatech. Makes for interesting reading. Reference is,

Glycobiology, vol 18(9)september 2008. http://glycob.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol18/issue9/

Carba (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Archival of old discussion & Newest revisions

I suggest you get a copy of Harper's Biochemisry or any new current medical text and find the defination of a glyconutrient. ANY reference to a company does not belong in this definition. (Stackpoole)6-18-07

Harper's Biochemistry discusses glycoproteins. This is an article on glyconutrients. These both start with "glyco-", but like many words that share the same prefix, they are not the same thing. Antelan ^talk 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Thank you for cleaning up and adding references. --Antelan ^talk 00:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The previous consensus glyconutrient article was developed in conjunction with a glycobiologist[1] and a neurologist[2][3] to better *inform* an ignorant public with a better *description*. Although the "old" article certainly had its limitations and that while I agree that the largest marketer wages a rather blatant marketing campaign, this new article mutated from a useful neutral, generic discussion about commerical products to a diatribe against a particular company and its rather blatant marketing claims. The original article attempted to identify various materials utilized, some idea of their historical background, their economics, and to identify unscientific and highly questionable claims. When relevant physiology references were introduced by a specialized medical reader, no one else was too eager to sort through them, discuss pertinent mechanisms that *are* reported in reliable sources, and connect them phrase by phrase to the article's text. Ultimately the reference slug was criticized for insufficient context to specific text and removed[4] until someone was willing to do the legwork (those on top of a medical school library would find it much easier). Other editors' contributions for such an improved technical presentation would be welcome.

It is a priority to describe what kinds of ingredients are and have been used in such products, and what background history and mechanisms are associated with them in a coherent article. Consumers are mostly indifferent about scientific nomenclature, they need and want *locatable* encyclopedic information about a relevant subject. This question has already been addressed at length. Although I felt the previous article wound up being significantly "dumbed down", some outside reviews warned that it might be more technical than many readers prefer. As far as a scientific nomenclature requirement at Wikipedia, many commercially originated and trivial terms are used at Wikipedia, aspirin probably not being the first.

The article as of 12 Mar 07 focuses on criticism about advertising by a marketing company, not the topic itself. I would suggest that the corporate criticism be addressed at Mannatech. Restoring previous structure and adding most relevant, recent portion to the criticism section.--I'clast 05:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, credentials are not given significant weight especially due to recent controversy on Wikipedia. Name one other company that sells "glyconutrients" other than Mannatech or one of it's multi-level marketing subsidiaries. The source of glyconutrients for sales would be interesting, but what was presented was a laundry list of vegetables with no reliable sources. Honestly, nearly any vegetable probably has some level of polysaccharides in its cellular wall and could be refined into a sugar stew that would meet one of the 8 "essential sugars". What would be relevant is not 40 kinds of veggies, but a list of the ingredients currently in Ambrotose...reliably sourced. The article in its current form is clear and detailed in the scientific relevance and pseudo-nutritional claims of glyconutrient sellers (of which Mannatech is de facto the leader by creation of the term and associated products). The fact that the company has been sued for its overstated claims is relevant to the debunking of its reputed health benefits as an alternative therapy for improved nutrition. An extended manifest of the lawsuits and related parties would be appropriate at the company's article, but their product should be shown for what it is here and it is necessary to include information regarding the lawsuits to do so. It's not as if the article contains information on how Mannatech was money laundering in an attempt to disparage them in an unrelated way. The lawsuit is directly related to the product itself and it's claimed benefits. I read through the previous archived discussion, and it read as if a handful of people were happy to agree with each other on how to best phrase the article in a way that benefits the product in the least affrontive way possible. That's not neutrality. Neutrality is met now that the term is given for what it is (a pseudo-medical term used to trump up sales for an alternative health treatment of no useful benefit...particularly for the more serious claims of curative properties related to cancer, Down's Syndrome, MS, etc.). Furthermore, the probiotic lilt that was removed has no relevance to whether polysaccharides are an essential nutritional need and whether these products provide any health benefits. There is no reliable sourcing on any "probiotic" relationship to glyconutrient supplements any more than there is reliable sourcing for these supplements to cure lupus, chronic fatigue, cancer, etc. Basically, the article is currently in a much more regimented and corrected form now. If you don't agree, I suggest you submit a Request for Comment to get outside opinions on the two versions. We should attempt to write an article that fully describes the fact that there is nothing reliably sourced about any benefits claimed by the manufacturers of glyconutrients and only a series of warnings by anyone of merit against the product because of its questionable marketing, gross misrepresentations, and lack of research-based conclusions. ju66l3r 19:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are ignoring is a previous consensus by four non trivial editors. Three highly involved, and another one fairly expert (the slug of science references), but not willing to engage in the extended back and forth. Your version leaves out significant material and real scientific issues where reliably reported relevant, scientific results & concepts seem alien to you. Bear in mind this is not about an FDA medical drug discussion either. The new article[5] reads like an encyclopedia ca 1990 adding an article, "Automobile" - Work of the devil. Yugos suck. A laughable consumer disaster on an entire country...Pintos are lawsuits, not horses..."

The idea of the old article was to more accurately inform readers, to remove the marketing hype (99.9% of related paper and electrons) and to identify the science, apart from the partisans - whether salesmen or self styled witch hunters. The previous version's LEAD dismisses the "8 ess s" nonsense dispassionately, encyclopedically, and informatively. The old lead reflects what modern science says is the primary fate and function of various polysaccharide fiber. It notes that modern literature does speak to immuno stimulating properties of exotic high molecular wt materials that are used in such formulas. We did not get into lectins last year either.

Credentials? You are treating previous work like that of illiterates on commission from a certain company. There are plenty of companies selling related components and formulas[6][7][8] and apparently home mixers experiementing with different formulations. I am not involved in either one. The article was prepared when Wikipedia and I were newer at this, the article was written to look/read like a World book entry, not Britannica. After the initial AfD and scope & structure work, I felt like I had already spent too much time on the article. The primary sources obviously need to be referenced now and I need help with those articles.

RfC/AR are a massive drain on time for everyone, productive editors don't go looking for them. In such articles, the process burdensomely draws in people that are usually totally unfamiliar with the subject, a wiki version of SPOV is a better way to collaborate. A clear anti-Mannatech POV appears to be in the way of any scientific assessment, balance and reporting for many editors. I am kind of hoping that you will settle down and *look* long enough to contribute more than a diatribe. In simple marketing theory your detested company may stll be winning, you are still spamming the idea and company name, albeit with as much vitriol as you think you can swing here. My idea was to starve name and unfounded claims with more factually and scientifically relevant material.

Problems & misconceptions (not exhaustive):

1. The new article violates WP:LEAD and gives primacy & undue weight to criticism. The article no longer reflects many facts previously developed, obsessing on the spammed edible essential sugars theory. e.g. not all potentially physiologically active components are even carbohydrates in many formulas.
2. The previous version doesn't use the word "probiotics"[9]. Prebiotics, somewhat lower molecular weight carbohydrate polymers, are much different materials than probiotics (live culture, fermented products like yogurt, keffir, etc) This "probiotics" error misunderstands a concept fundamental to the article.
3. Mannatech is not lonely, there are a lot of little companies making different "flavors", and other formulas are widely known.
4. Anti-consumerist: removing facts about components, economics and current science does not allow the reader to decide or to even form questions.
5. Sourcing - Ambrotose is only a formula, arguably a patentable knockoff of a pre-existing cottage industry. (There is discussion that the 8 sugar bs was a patent angle before it was a marketing angle) One of the reference problems here is that commercial sources that list the various components contained are often full of marketing fluff, like most of America, and I didn't want to be accused of spamming the fluff part last year, either. So I just reported the source based text research (WP:RS). These articles are hard enough w/o an extra accusation even scrupulously done on policy.

Given the lack of authoritative vendor support and the variety of ingredients used, it would be better to describe what materials are used, what those materials have been reported to do in reliable literature, and report on consumer friendly material that empowers readers to see issues unclouded by hype, politics and byplay. The pile of source articles to be mined[10][11] has been previously shown, I would appreciate help from someone near a decent research library.--I'clast 23:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to assume good faith. RfC is precisely for situations like this. You continue to flash credentials as if that's supposed to somehow validate their opinions without the need for good sourcing. There's no point in discussing changes to the article if you're going to appeal to authority and then ignore any new opinions because to deal with the changes would be too much hassle. You then go on to claim that all I contribute is diatribe (not civil), when the reason we're having this discussion is that I substantially improved this article by founding it on good sources (2 added) and included information from those sources in this article. I'll submit it myself since you seem adverse to the idea. The previous version of this article presented unencyclopedic information that was time-sensitive and irrelevant to what is actually known (vs what you believe to be true). The laundry list of ingredients, for example, was creeping without a single reliable source.

1. There is no undue weight on the criticism, since what is reliably known is that the term glyconutrients is a marketing term that has no support in the medical research community.
2. Prebiotic and probiotic are two sides of the exact same coin. To claim that one is not relevant/related to the other is either disingenuous or naive.
3. Name one other company besides Mannatech.
4. This is an encyclopedia article, not a purchasing guide. Information like price per unit is not relevant to the writing of a good article. Unsourced conjecture about what might be an ingredient in glyconutrients is original research.

Finally, this isn't about "marketing". This is about inclusion of scientific research and glyconutrients' relevance to nutrition (i.e. not relevant according to everything currently known). You are correct that marketing fluff is not acceptable sourcing, but neither is unsourced conjecture about what might be true from that fluff being hand-picked and inserted as if it were assuredly true (you know, because 4 degrees and you agreed on it). ju66l3r 04:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I do assume good faith, my first discussion[12] is *very* civil in the face of a major negative rewrite over previous consensus with a number of fact deletions and inaccuracies. I have shown you several policiy problems and questionable knowledge, I am quite questioning your rewrite. Flashing credentials? You can't find mine, not even a high school diploma. I would refer all to the previous editors' edits & edit history. You have the clearest credentials showing but you have dismissed in major proportion the 3+ week consensus of four editors where the primary issue, now, is updating the references to current 2007 WP practice.

There's no point... sounds premature if not prejudicial. any new opinions... "Just" a broadside with wholesale changes? I did extract some of your sentences to add to the criticism section, that's not ignore[13]. As far as "diatribes", I have corrected my text to the singular. Here's what Cambridge Dictionary online says "an angry speech or piece of writing which severely criticizes something or someone." Exactly how it looks[14], the kind of stuff Wikimedia starts to worry about those phone calls, no kidding. For the record, *I* have had my hand slapped by an admin for criticizing MT for less. The primary time sensitive item in the previous version was the cost data, fixed in time for reference. AGF/"ignored? I have agreed to the need to cite references, it is time consuming in these kind of articles, ({cn}} is a more appropriate and AGF response.

1. There is no undue weight on the criticism, since what is reliably known is that the term glyconutrients is a marketing term that has no support in the medical research community.

I sharply distinguish common news(letters), medical, medical research, alternative sources and science sources, and none are monolithic. I will agree that MT started the 8 ess'l sugar marketing push and original label. The label seems to have outgrown them as Bayer and Xerox have also experienced.

2. Prebiotic and probiotic are two sides of the exact same coin. To claim that one is not relevant/related to the other is either disingenuous or naive.

I did not discuss prebiotic / probiotic relationships, such as where an input affects an output. I doubt most knowledgeable editors here would confuse my comments between filet mignon going in and the resultant product day(s) later. But a lot of less knowledgeable editors, much less readers, might confuse your usage of probiotics and omission of prebiotics.

3. Name one other company besides Mannatech.

I linked three companies in the edit before, that have a somewhat higher quality technical content too.

4. This is an encyclopedia article, not a purchasing guide. Information like price per unit is not relevant to the writing of a good article.

Doing remedial composition of matter work is very encyclopedic since this information is not generally well addressed, The componments are in fact key to historical development of related products, mechanisms of action, and the relevant science articles.

Unsourced conjecture about what might be an ingredient in glyconutrients is original research.

Unsourced, no there are internal links and bibliography, I explained the situation, you have not registered it yet; inadequately sourced would be closer, again use ({cn)). Conjecture? I told you it was source based research not OR, again ({cn}}.

...irrelevant to what is actually known (vs what you believe to be true) You think you know what 'I believe?

I am probably working closer to the primary source bones than you are. There is huge difference betweeen different degrees of establishment, and you are content to state the unknown and unproven in rather concrete negative forms that no matter what the merit, are getting disparging, an unsafe editing practice for such rapid changes.

On the composition of matter I will need to spend some time parsing WP:RS, WP:V etc. how to best handle this, I am not wild about free links to commercial sites, but those are most likely to accurately state actual contents of varied formulas and contents.--I'clast 09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

---

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

Request for Comment: Latest revisions to Glyconutrient

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

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• I have recently revised the content of this article to accurately portray and emphasize the facts surrounding "glyconutrients" that were not present in the previous version. Namely, (1) that the term glyconutrients is a creation of a company, Mannatech; (2) that claims for nutritional supplement/disease repair surrounding glyconutrients are not founded in any research and are actually contradicted by what is currently known; (3) that there is no relevance to pricing of these products as Wikipedia is not a consumer buying guide; and (4) that the previous version contained an ever expanding laundry list of potential sources of "glyconutrients" without reliable sourcing and with claims and weight to unsourced prebiotic/probiotic arguments for potential nutritional benefits (both the list and prebiotic comments being unsourced, were removed). ju66l3r 04:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I may agree that the term "glyconutrient" was *introduced* by Mannatech, I just did not think one more commercial MT plug was necesary, neither did User:Stauffenberg (also a V RS issue, MT claims honors, but...). 2. Most substantial/SPOV Wikipeidans agree that the MT 8 sugar theory is unsupported. 3. The famed Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, a standard chemical reference for over 40 years, includes price data in standard articles. They might know something about the encyclopedic need for price data on materials. 4. I have said that I will work on WP:V, RS about compositions and that I would like to collaborate on various references. This article has turned into a slag heap, of inaccurate, incomplete or misleading statements. Where if I didn't know better, I would not know that "glyconutrient" formulas also frequently have marine peptides and other non carbohydrate materials in them...--I'clast 10:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by those not previously involved

• Great, except that you did not go quite far enough. I have removed some remaining duplication in the article, though perhaps not all. . There is no point in going into any detail about genuine glycobiology here--a reference is enough. There is no point saying repeatedly that there is no scientific basis, one paragraph says it pretty thoroughly.

I suppose the FDA suits show notability.

I have not yet check for duplication with the article about the company. But certainly this article needs at least the company website.

I guess I am involved now. ;) DGG 07:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)DGG 07:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone has been in agreement that the glycobiology part is unfounded. That is why I think it should be only a small part of the article, MT too. The problem with this kind of referencing moving from general bibliography to a specific reference in a hot topic area like this, is that it works best if someone who is familiar reads the whole thing and then excerpts it, quotes it, links it.--I'clast 09:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment

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

About the earlier references. The abstracts of all of them are available on Pubmed. I agree with a prev. ed. that anyone with a dictionary should be able to see that not one makes references to the consumption of anything resembling this company's products. If challenged, I'll read and report on the articles in more detail--I have similar qualifications to the prev. ed. DGG 07:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with any merge proposal, the Mannatech article is controverted and changes like a Cephid variable star, where I get to join in the fun, too. The rising number of legal actions and criticism around that company suggest that its own article is quite appropriate.--I'clast 09:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the articles being separate, but I'm curious about the 4 points raised above and if glyconutrients are really just a "brand name" (which I know it isn't I just need a couple of words to use) of Mannatech, then does it deserve notability outside of Mannatech? Mind you, I don't agree with not merging articles just because the other article is "bad". We would all just have to head over there :-) All in all just my 2c worth. Shot info 10:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Glycontrients are not a branded use, and are not a well patented one either. The MT article is not (always) "bad" just highly unstable. The focus of each article is different and it also would be disruptive and misleading to more academic presentations of this much broader topic, where I can wallow in disfavor from two "sides" :-/ ,I'clast 10:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by an editor of the "previous version"

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

Could you pls identify what you consider a "litany of marketing statements" in the old version? Thank you.--I'clast 22:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Here you go:

Components of various mixtures have included high molecular weight extracts from aloe vera, high molecular weight arabinogalactan fraction of Larch extract, gum arabic (gum acacia), ghatti gum, gum tragacanth, oat fiber, fenugreek seed, kelp, Shiitake mushroom, Shii-ta-ke concentrated extract, Reishi mushroom, cordyceps, psyllium husk, bovine cartilage powder, xylitol, Red Roselle as glucosamine precursors and glucosamine. Many of these components have long been used in food processing and health remedies.

This is a litany because of the list of terms thrown out. These terms are converted into marketing statements by the final sentence.

Nutritional and medical sciences have long noted soluble fiber, including polysaccharides, as largely undigested in the small intestine. The soluble fibers are then fermented in the colon into highly beneficial short chain fatty acids, n-butyrate being especially beneficial. Anti-inflammatory benefits are associated with various polysaccharides, including gum acacia,Red Roselle Polysaccharides and glucosamine.

This is unrelated to the article at hand, since acacia and glucosamine contain amino acids and are not glyconutrients, as defined in this version of the article. --Antelan ^talk 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

These are major points in contention - you can call it litany, that's your POV. But the "old version"[15] *is* descriptive of the actual contents of various commercial products of an admittedly commercial term and alerts the reader to technical background(s) that *is* supported in the literature. This approach should be considered especially informative, about hard to collate information and defined by common commercial usage. This situation occurs because of the 8 sugars market campaign and the unscientific, commercial nature of the label. I think the primary issue to the list would be the length & water's edge - that an item is used in commercial formulas, contains substantial saccharide units/content of some kind, and that the component is not a minor variation, e.g. Fijian farms kelp vs NZ or HI. I think the "new" approach[16][17] begs for a never ending supply of Mannatech fans from "offplanet" if not other troubles. Btw, I don't think I have any Mannatech fans based on previous edit wars & sparring over spamming, references & external links, e.g. [18][19][20][21][22][23], among others.

This is unrelated to the article at hand, since acacia and glucosamine contain amino acids and are not glyconutrients, as defined in this version of the article No, both gum acacia (arabic) and the aminosugar, glucosamine, contining monosaccharide unit(s), are explictly identified by MT in their glyconutrient Ambertose formula and their patent. Glucosamine is part of a specific example in the patent. Since McAnally apparently made up MT's term, I doubt he/they are confused about what he/they meant.

One can address two somewhat different views about scope of a Glyconutrients article as materials identified as "glyconutrients" or the formulas also containing "glyconutrient" materials. The actual commercial usage is a major point of the original article about the *actual* commercial "glyconutrient" compositions which may be largely saccharide unit containing molecules of various kinds such as the aminosugar, glucosamine, and, implicitly, more complex materials containing both amino- and saccharide units, such as gum acacia (arabic). Now *I agree* that "glyconutrient" is a marketing oriented term, that it IS scientifically meaningless and only slightly technically restrictive (implicitly monosaccharide(s) containing); nevertheless it is broadly topical, in large part due to the commercial offering in the area. Vegetal materials that contain substantial amino acid / peptide content *as well as* monosaccharide units appear to be commonly accepted as "glyconutrients" in the industry.

Nutritional...sciences have long noted soluble fiber, ...largely undigested in the small intestine...fermented in the colon into ...short chain fatty acids, n-butyrate being especially beneficial. Anti-inflammatory benefits ...including gum acacia,... and glucosamine. As far as marketing, no, this is the actual science part. Precisely where both the new article and Mannatech et al deviate into less meaningful statement, Mannatech into the wild blue yonder hypothesis, the "new" article into negativism, errors & omission and the unproven. This is where wikipedia would like the linked references I mentioned earlier. There is nothing fantastic about colonic short chain fatty acids, long a staple of animal and human bioscience, n-butyrate is not controversial. Anti-inflammatory and viscosifier for gum arabic/acacia is long part of the medical literature (longer than anyone alive). Glucosamine, lots of related literature. The immunostimulatory ultra high MW part is more recently in the science literature. The science part exists and should be useful content to an otherwise uninformed and misinformed public.--I'clast 07:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

This article is so contaminated by commercialism that I think it would be more practical to start over, but we could try a further rewrite. If you want to add an appropriate science section, with some useful slightly more technical refs., I will remove the rest of the nonsense. DGG 10:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

....comment, threaded & cont'd

These are major points in contention - you can call it litany, that's your POV.^--I'clast

As the Oxford English Dictionary defines litany as "a continuous repetition or long enumeration resembling those of litanies" (yes it uses the word in its own definition), the "long enumeration" that I cited is a litany, and not just in my POV.^{--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)}

The "litanies" part is where it lurks.^{--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)}

OED is a stronger reference than Wikipedia, which is not a dictionary but an encyclopedia. I'm aware that, etymologically, 'litany' derives from religious origins. The word "arrogant" has interesting origins, too, but etymology of common English words is not what is under discussion here. The focus on wordplay sidesteps the actual point I made about the "long enumeration". Antelan ^talk 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately my point is that establishing a compositional range of ingredients, since there is not a unique chemical identity, with substantial reference and citation, not an exhaustive enumeration, is encyclopedic. A "vtiamin C" article without mentioning "ascorbic acid" seems dubious.^{--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)}

But the "old version"[15] *is* descriptive of the actual contents of various commercial products of an admittedly commercial term and alerts the reader to technical background(s) that *is* supported in the literature. This approach should be considered especially informative, about hard to collate information and defined by common commercial usage... ^--I'clast

What you suggest is one possible approach to this article. The company that invented the term wants people to think about "glyconutrients" scientifically, and in that way it can be subverted as a commercial term. I think we must approach the article more objectively. The commercial usage is why people will seek out this article, but it is not actually germane to the issue at hand; glyconutrient is nothing more than a neologism coined by a company for marketing purposes. It does not appear in authoritative dictionaries, nor does it exist in the relevant scientific literature except as used in rebuttals. The article should only focus on the fact that this is a marketing term, and it should bring science to bear only to demonstrate that the term is not one used in the scientific field (and that there is no evidence of any general deficiency of these substances).^{--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)}

Totally disagree about encyclopedic scope on the last part. The market size and global presence of such products suggest that the "new" part has worn off the "neo-" label. The marketing problem is notable but fractional in such an article, and gives even more impetus to the components approach of the previous version. An adequately informed reader can then decide what is what, or at least what the questions are. This was also favored by User:Ikkyu2 and others, repeatedly last year[24]^{--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)}

From the Wikipedia entry on neologisms: "The term e-mail, as used today, is an example of a neologism." Laser and black hole are listed as other examples of neologisms, and those were coined more than 40 years ago. Hence my claim that the term "neologism" still applies here. Antelan ^talk 00:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A point we agree on, I am just saying that the word, for better or worse, is established enough to be encyclopedic and not "too new" neo-.^{--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)}

I do agree that the word is a neologism, and but being a neologism doesn't prevent a word from being encyclopedic. At the moment I cannot comment on the encyclopedic-ness of this actual word, however. Antelan ^talk 23:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, both gum acacia (arabic) and the aminosugar, glucosamine, contining monosaccharide unit(s), are explictly identified by MT in their glyconutrient Ambertose formula and their patent. Glucosamine is part of a specific example in the patent. Since McAnally apparently made up MT's term, I doubt he/they are confused about what he/they meant.^--I'clast

As I said, it is contradicted in the opening line of that version of the article. The article calls glyconutrients individual carbohydrate nutrients, whereas those products contain amino acids. As such, they cannot be glyconutrients, as defined in the first line of the article. Thus, we're left with an internal contradiction. This is easily seen by applying propositional calculus.^{--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)}

The opening "definitional" presentation is oversimplified and needs work.^{--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)}

One can address two somewhat different views about scope of a Glyconutrients article as materials identified as "glyconutrients" or the formulas also containing "glyconutrient" materials.^--I'clast

See my comments above with regards to my views on giving this term such validation.^{--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)}

Such mixtures are going to be difficult to scientifically "chunk" into a purist name in any case. "Conventional somethings etc" fooled around and let their competition steal a march on such mixtures with a fiat accompli, one of the problems with denial strategies in marketing.^{--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)}

Please clarify what you mean by this statement. I'm especially unsure of what you mean by "conventional somethings etc". Thank you. Antelan ^talk 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Many groups from pseudoskeptics to various political & professional bodies to various researchers, some pretty dogmatic, claim to be "scientific", "mainstream scientific" or preferably, "mainstream something else". The claims can conflict a great deal.^{--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)}

The actual commercial usage is a major point of the original article about the *actual* commercial "glyconutrient" compositions which may be largely saccharide unit containing molecules of various kinds such as the aminosugar, glucosamine, and, implicitly, more complex materials containing both amino- and saccharide units, such as gum acacia (arabic). Now *I agree* that "glyconutrient" is a marketing oriented term, that it IS scientifically meaningless and only slightly technically restrictive (implicitly monosaccharide(s) containing); nevertheless it is broadly topical, in large part due to the commercial offering in the area.^--I'clast

So we are, by almost all measures, in agreement. Nevertheless, the vast list in the 'previous' version muddles, rather than clarifies, the issue.^{--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)}

We would agree about nonconformance to scientific nomenclature, this article is about the actualities of a notable generic commercial product area, not the bs "scientific" theory part which is a noted criticism. The problematic marketing dimensions and other altmed issues seem to hopelessly prejudice many editors here. Better presentation and individual reference links will help clarify the components issue.^{--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)}

Again, the previous version of this article defines the term as a "technical scientific term." Your response supports the notion that reversion to it would be inappropriate. Antelan ^talk 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. "Technical scientific" is a separate word treatment insisted upon by User:Stauffenberg, the glycobiologist, to differentiate his claim of a pre-existing word usage in his lab experience, according to him (I asked[25] for a citation, no luck), from the commercial usage such as MT, et al.^{--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)}

Vegetal materials that contain substantial amino acid / peptide content *as well as* monosaccharide units appear to be commonly accepted as "glyconutrients" in the industry.^--I'clast

I believe you are giving too much deference to "the industry". A brief discussion of what the industry considers to be "glyconutrients" does have its place, but it should be couched by the more important discussion about the origins and present scientific invalidity of this term and the claims surrounding it.^{--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)}

The industry, such as it is, is what defines the term, period. Disparagement of the term's origin beyond criticism of the actual marketing campaign seems as fruitless as railing about the "allopath" box on the MCAT registration. As far as strict obedience to scientific nomenclature, industries that live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks carelessly, there are somewhat similar chemical nomenclature problems in NEJM/JAMA etc all the time.^{--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)}

Would you be able to provide one or two references to support that claim? It would greatly help me understand your point of view. Antelan ^talk 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Vitamin E" is a frequent guest of these journals, their identification by accurate nomenclature is typically absymal, one has to usually guess which molecule(s) are involved amongst RRR-alpha tocopherol, RRR-alpha tocopheryl acetate or succinate, ambo alpha tocopheryl acetate (the original "true" D,L), all racemic alpha tocopheryl acetate or succinate (the nominal D,L with 8 R/S, R/S, R/S stereoisomers, only one bioequivalent), varying mixtures of RRR-alpha, RRR-beta, RRR-gamma, RRR-delta tocopherols (e.g. mixed tocopherols, high gamma tocopherols). This incomplete "E" list doesn't include the other esters or the 4 tocotrienols either. There is a substantial difference between natural isomers that has been long recognized by some, and in Europe, only belatedly in US mainstream medicine. Vitamin E, forms, tissue & membrane distributions and functions are a whole book onto themselves. Nor do they rationally measure or control for known co-factors. Jialal (UTSW, UCD) has made a career partly closing this gap. Also excipients and possibly active "placebo" materials are frequently not identified.^{--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)}

I appreciate your description, but I'm looking for external references (especially to peer-reviewed, published articles) to support your original claim. Antelan ^talk 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements about the identity of glyconutrient materials and formulas would likely be most comprehensively based on the primary sources: the ingredients lists, Mannatech's patent, McAnally's early statements. Maybe something in the glyco- related journals.--I'clast 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nutritional...sciences have long noted soluble fiber, ...largely undigested in the small intestine...fermented in the colon into ...short chain fatty acids, n-butyrate being especially beneficial. Anti-inflammatory benefits ...including gum acacia,... and glucosamine. As far as marketing, no, this is the actual science part.^--I'clast

Without references, this cannot be considered science. More importantly, it is pertinent to an article about soluble fiber, not glyconutrients.^{--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)}

For fiber, fermentation and butyrate, try this abstract.. Acacia, next, below.^{--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)}

The scientific paper you have referred to could be a good contribution to the butyrate page. On the glyconutrient page, however, there is no reference suggesting that these supplements contain such substances. Antelan ^talk 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A major point of varied fiber compositions is the difference in bacterial ecology, fermentation, and short chain fatty acid production and distribution of C2, C3, C4s fatty acids. Very much a relevant subject to be *mentioned* here.^{--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)}

As I said, there are no references supporting the statement that these are actually contained within supplements sold as glyconutrients. Antelan ^talk 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Massive text deletion has made it harder to add references and carry a conversation. This is somewhat like a discussion on what is in a can of Pinto beans - read the label, a primary source. e.g.[26], [27] --I'clast 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing fantastic about colonic short chain fatty acids, long a staple of animal and human bioscience, n-butyrate is not controversial. Anti-inflammatory and viscosifier for gum arabic/acacia is long part of the medical literature (longer than anyone alive).^--I'clast

Interestingly, even the Wikipedia article on acacia makes no claims and cites no such references.^{--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)}

Merck Index, 5th ed, Acacia U.S.P.XI, ...bronchial and pharyngeal inflammations ...thickener^{--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)}

Again, the more important point is that such claims belong on the the butyrate/acacia pages, not the glyconutrients pages - unless there has been a demonstration that glyconutrients confer the same benefits as butyrate/acacia. Antelan ^talk 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Many individual components have such scientifc/medical articles and bear a mention with references.^{--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)}

Unless there are references demonstrating that glyconutrients confer the same benefits, no claims of health benefits should be made in this article. The reason for this is that combinations of substances can interact in inhibitory ways. Some digestive enzyme supplements containing lipase, for example, were shown to have little lipase activity because the lipase itself was degraded by other enzymes. It is important to make claims about mixtures that have actually been demonstrated - not inferred claims from their constituent components. Antelan ^talk 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the material did not contain much (undegraded)lipase did it? The article is not about "making health claims" but presenting facts and background about the materials, and their individual properties, and pointing to relevant information and science about those components that may be mixed in many ways. The encyclopedic way to overcome bs is to provide basic, useful information, not to create an information vacuum filled with disclaimers (unproven) and invective about unscientific marketing claims.--I'clast 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Glucosamine, lots of related literature.^--I'clast

Yes, there is lots of literature. Studies have shown that it has very low levels of toxicity (e.g., that it's not harmful, which supports your statement). However, the JAMA article regarding studies of glucosamine supplements (all performed by their manufacturers) concluded, publication bias suggest that these effects are exaggerated. Nevertheless, some degree of efficacy appears probable for these preparations." In other words, the strongest credible affirmation of glucosamine's efficacy currently is that it "appears probable" to be efficacious. Even wikipedia's article on glucosamine attests to the fact that the debate is far from concluded with regards to glucosamine. At any rate, these claims would not belong in the glyconutrient article, but instead in the glucosamine article.^{--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)}

Actually, repeated examination of the tests suggests that often the experimenters and/or the readers don't know what the heck they are talking about because the tests don't reflect the reported conditions required. This is often a Richter 9 fault line between (relegated to) altmed and the latest patented snake oil. Take the multifactorial, multicompartmental nature of arthritis. Can you separate the patients either by diagnostics or empirical trial? Sometimes the altmed proponent has found, (sometimes unwittingly) a favorable population (other times a critic may load unresponsive populations, sometimes unwittingly). In the case of glucosamine, there are several adjuvants that are reported to be synergistic, where dose and time are important variables and proper dosing is by empirical titration or a high initial load. e.g. if (x, y, z, t) is necessary and the test is replicated run as ( 0.3x', 0.1y, 0, 0.1t), say, where Result = wxzt, or Result = wxt + wzt + wzt + xzt where a competitor can claim "unproven" if the result is diluted under 1.74 std deviations positive change? Chalk up one more for the big (mktg) boys. That's how the game *is* played and the pharma-med complex isn't the only one. You may say that is conspiratorial, but others may mention naive and boring. This is a major basis of altmed's frequent complaints^[28] about subreption, among others,^{[http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/0375508465/ref=pd_sim_b_1/104-4640322-4353535?ie=UTF8]} and part of why neither literature trusts the other.^{--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)}

Your doctoryourself.com reference states, "If a media article is critical about twice Nobel prize-winning Linus Pauling, you can be confident it has been spin-doctored." Linus Pauling was an excellent scientist, but he was fallible. For example, he believed that DNA was a triple helix. That website is not a reliable resource. Citing a book on Amazon.com is equally unconvincing; see this book on the wild 9/11 conspiracy theory, for examplehttp://www.amazon.com/11-Conspiracy-James-H-Fetzer/dp/0812696123</sup>. Also, complications that could arise from 'competitors' is avoided by the fact that the manufacturers published studies of their own products. Antelan ^talk 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Pauling corrected himself much faster on an emergent area of science than his numerous critics could even acknowledge the differences between oral and IV, or 1 and 10. The website is a reasoonably reliable view of that subject's expression (an editor of JOM), more than adequate for a Talk page. The book linked is by a respected, former Editor-in-chief of NEJM, who had a priviledged position to develop her insight & report, again it's a talk page.^{--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)}

If you can find sources that would be acceptable on an actual article page, I will be much more receptive. When I cite sources I choose sources that would be strong enough for an actual article in order to strengthen my arguments. Unreliable articles are unreliable for any discussion, whether or not we're on a talk page. Antelan ^talk 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of reliable source "requirements" here at Talk will not be reliable in several cases. 1. for Talk pages, 2. sources about themselves, 3. illustrations. Requiring such documentation on basic Talk points is burdensome.--I'clast 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The science part exists and should be useful content to an otherwise uninformed and misinformed public.^--I'clast

There is no science part to the term "glyconutrient". This is not a normative statement on my part - if science decides to adopt the term and engage in "glyconutrient" research, I will have no objections. If you can produce scientific references from peer-reviewed journals to substantiate your claim that "the science part exists" with regards to glyconutrients, I will, again, be the first to withdraw any objections.^{--Antelantalk 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)}

There is science to the components, that you apparently are unfamiliar with. I have agreed in principle to work on the references. However it is hard work - I am not the one sitting on top of a med school research library. Just because it is a commercial term for various mixtures doesn't mean that known facts about the mixtures and the real science & backgrounds related to common components can be ignored.^{--I'clast 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)}

---

In accord with WP:ATT, I'll believe it when I see it. the burden is on you. (and I am always ready to learn something new, especially if it is surprising. It is not up to us to determine the scientific status, just to report it. (but it is up to us to use common sense and look for a connection between the scientific article and the claimed use: discussion of particular components otherwise goes to the WP article about that chemical. This is "glyconutrients", not "polysaccarides" etc. DGG 09:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a yes for an enhanced version of the previous version if I cough up the references?--I'clast 09:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the article is more streamlined than the previous version. It makes more sense to progress from this version of the article, modifying and adding (with citations) statements as is appropriate. If statements with valid corroborating sources are added, the only editing that would need to be done would be editing for style. Antelan ^talk 01:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The current article is still inaccurate, not very informative, disparaging in nature, focused on a brand, and a little off topic (more MT status verbiage belongs at MT).^{--I'clast 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)}

The current article has references supporting its claims. As always, if valid references can be found to support making changes, please add them. Antelan ^talk 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The new version's format makes that awkward (fitting in transitional phrasing), that is the reason to start with something akin to the older version and use ({cn}} liberally.--I'clast 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreements?

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

I am in agreement. If someone with Wikipedia facility would like to archive the conversation between l'clast and me, it would probably be a step forward in re-focusing this talk page on the actual subject at hand. Thanks for pointing out the tangents that we were running along. This page should provide a good forum for vetting references and proposed changes to the article. Antelan ^talk 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not yet done by a long shot. The structure of the article is unacceptable, with misleading, runaway brand criticism that ignores a technical description; legal innuendo for a generic technically based presentation on an altmed topic. It ignores the usual format in this kind of area: mild neutral description, background, uses, facts, claims etc, *then*, Criticism. I have asked for help on getting the references and acknowledged the previous shortcomings about references where ({cn}} is more appropriate, but am getting nowhere if not the bum's rush instead. The current article might be more acceptable over at SkepticWiki. Also as I said before, the RfC was way premature. So far the RfC has had the effect of a vehicle to carry disparaging views against specific companies or pet marketing schemes for an unencyclopedic presentation and leave readers uninformed.--I'clast 04:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has said that we're done with the article. I'm glad we've found a point of mutual agreement. If you will find valid references to support changes to the article, the article should come along nicely. Antelan ^talk 05:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As for us outsiders, one fewer for the watchlist. DGG 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

I reverted to the last agreed-upon edit of this page. The recent edits were unsourced and bringing us towards WP:NPOV issues. Antelan ^talk 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A good edit, ending gradual slippage. I really think we should stay with this.Those who want to read the marketing literature will find it through the company's web site. DGG 07:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have made an additional edit. Please revert if you find it unnecessary. In looking over the SEC filing, I discovered that we made an inaccurate claim about the contents of Ambrotose. Although there were uncited claims that the product contained polysaccharides from exotic sources, the SEC filing demonstrates that the product actually consists of monosaccharides (simple sugars, in their words). I felt that was an important addition to clear-up the error in the previous edit. Antelan ^talk 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

I have just reviewed the page and discussion, and find it the opposite of NPOV. It seems to be a diatribe against Mannatech. Now I could well agree that a MLM system is the tool of the devil, but that is quite another thing from casting the substance in a devilish light. The topic is - surely - "glyconutrient", and not "name-your-hated-company". Looking into what we recently discussed, Antelan, on another page, I wondered just what your own credentials were for the position you took. From my POV, I have seen the effects of glyconutrient prescription in severe cases of ill-health .... mainly in cancer cases, but also terminal auto-immune diseases. And no, I am not connected with the company in any way. The whole discussion reminds me of the centuries of effort it took between the time of Captain Cook and Scott of the Antarctic, during which the use of Vitamin C in scurvy was hotly disputed. Or indeed of the efforts to get doctors to recognise bacteria as being pathogenic (cf. puerperal fever/Semmelweiss in Vienna, and the anti-Koch cholera parties in Berlin). Bearing in mind the need to cite valid non-original research, and verifiability, I think the article as such needs to be entirely rewritten with a truly NPOV. docboat 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• docboat, the article makes no judgment about MLM. Almost every single sentence in this article has been sourced, some multiply. Mannatech's own SEC filing is the source for several statements. The sources include the American Cancer Society, the school of public health at UC Berkeley, Business Wire, and, as stated before, Mannatech itself.
• I'm not sure what my credentials have to do with any discussion here, but we can talk about that elsewhere if you'd like.
• What you have described about terminal auto-immune cases, etc., is anecdotal. Anecdote is certainly an important step in scientific inquiry, but it must be followed up with studies (case-control, cohort, and clinical trials, usually in that order, if necessary). If there is any peer-reviewed study of glyconutrient supplementation, please add it to this article or post a link so I can clarify any statements made here. The goal of this article is to report on the state of affairs as has been documented. Any evidence that would overturn statements in this article would certainly be exciting, and I would be glad to help you make the changes.
• With regards to anti-Koch parties - the doctors were eventually convinced by good evidence. Good evidence routinely changes doctors' behaviors/prescription habits/etc. on an ever-hastening basis now. Good evidence is what we have used to write this article. If the tone comes off as too strident, please help us fix it. If there is evidence that we have missed, please help us add it. Antelan ^talk 20:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The article takes its information directly from a number of non-biased available sources on glyconutrients, such as the ACS and UC Berkeley. The subject is the product and creation of a company. It is pertinent to describe that relationship and the claims made by its creator and whether there is any scientific evidence at this time to substantiate those claims. Imagine the article on Cheerios lacking any mention of General Mills or their claims of good heart health that is right on the box. If Wikipedia had been around to chronicle the story of Vitamin C and scurvy, then prior to scientific studies determining the importance of Vitamin C for good health it would have had barely a word on the topic because there was no reliable evidence on the matter. After it was scientifically determined to be an important metabolite then the article would have been updated to reflect it. If glyconutrients are ever found to be a scientifically valid curative or preventative, then the article can be updated. Provide that evidence per the sourcing rules of Wikipedia and I'd be happy to accept their addition to the article. Seeing as how nearly everybody is capable of generating these sugars through normal metabolism, I doubt we'll be seeing that evidence any time soon and the claims of the company will remain unsubstantiated. As it stands now, the POV of the article is neutral. It is simply not friendly to the claims and hearsay that it is curative or preventative because this article remains rooted in the scientific truth of the matter and not the sales pitch and hand-waving. ju66l3r 20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the info given.

• Credentials - I needed to clarify - referred to your level of experience, whether theoretical and/or practical in the field. Mine is of experience in both areas, as a medical practitioner. it seemed to me that the articles POV (I feel not NPOV) was biased to some degree. But I may well be wrong.
• It has generally been the case that the most strident opposers of progress have been the members of established schools of thought. While relationships are essential to clarify, it is also essential to recognise that - according to recent reliable studies - the evidence available to medical practitioners scanning current research papers and journals is almost all biased, subject to poor statistical analysis, inherently flawed and/or published in such a manner as to unduly skew the findings.
• Good evidence - according to good evidence, only about 30% of medical activity is actually evidence-based.
• Improve the article - gladly. I am hesitant to make any changes straight off, as I am a late-comer to the party, and it seems my POV runs contrary to the general consensus here. So let me consider the article again, review the data, and then begin to add my edits.

docboat 09:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Docboat, thanks for your clarifications. (As an aside, I'm sure you recognize the irony in claiming that bias and poor statistical analysis are prevalent and then citing a statistic without reference.) To respond to your points in turn:

• Evidence stands independently of the credentials of the person citing it. To be sure, the credentials of a person who creates the evidence (the original researcher) might be important. However, whether a doctor or anyone else cites the evidence, this evidence will be available for all to interpret. This is one of the benefits of Wikipedia as a non-primary source - no original research is reported here, so the merits of the research can be evaluated as evidence is provided.
• Whether or not it is true that only 30% of medical activity is evidence-based, this encyclopedia is (supposed to be) evidence-based. At any rate, I am not sure how the point addresses the issues at hand, and it may not have been intended to do so.
• If you can start to find resources and paste their references here, we can help you make the changes. You don't have to do all of the work yourself. Indeed, it would help in building consensus. --Antelan ^talk 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It has generally been the case that the most strident opposers of progress have been the members of established schools of thought. While relationships are essential to clarify, it is also essential to recognise that - according to recent reliable studies - the evidence available to medical practitioners scanning current research papers and journals is almost all biased, subject to poor statistical analysis, inherently flawed and/or published in such a manner as to unduly skew the findings.

Feel free to use my user talk page to leave me the references to these "recent reliable studies" so that I can get back to you with their own biases, poor statistical analysis, and inherent flaws and intentionally skewed findings. You are defintely not starting off well at demonstrating an ability to adequately assess the reliability of sourcing. While nobody can claim perfection from peer-reviewed scientific research, it is hardly the boondoogle that you are attempting to characterize it and it should be considered reliable unless it can be faced with evidence to the contrary on a case-by-case basis, not with a blanket statement. Progress simply for the sake of progress or solely because the status quo isn't perfect is useless. Provide us the reliable sources that further this article however you feel it needs to change and then we can discuss whether the article as it stands now is incorrect. ju66l3r 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a talk page, Ju6613r, and I have merely expressed my opinion as to NPOV. For references as to validity of our double-blind placebo controlled studies there is enough in the public domain to peruse and I have much more to do than justify an opinion on this talk page. When it comes to the article concerned - and if I can make the time free to work on the article properly - I will provide referenced research. In the meantime, settle down - I am not criticising you or the others who have contributed, so it might help to be a little less prickly. Antelan, many thanks. Yes, it is the evidence which needs to be presented. docboat 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Replacement of entire page

Abihider: You replaced the entire contents of the page with a POV-pushing substitute, which is why I reverted your edits. In addition:

• You removed the entirety of the text and replaced it with the very claims that we have found to be unsubstantiated in discussions on this talk page.
• None of the statements were referenced.
• The further reading list was over-broad and neither it nor any other source was used to support any specific claim.
• Your edits and further reading lists conflate glycobiology with glyconutrients, which are vastly different. However, your further reading list, or a smaller subsection of it, might make a valuable addition to the glycobiology article.

Since this article already has statements that have been sourced and verified, please consider making incremental changes rather than replacing the entire contents wholesale. --Antelan ^talk 22:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Now if anyone's looking for an example of a loss of neutrality combined with original research combined with a total lack of verifiability, we'll have one at the ready. ju66l3r 23:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a privilege to be witness to such an historic moment, isn't it? WP:NPOV | WP:NOR | WP:Verifiability --Antelan ^talk 23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It does NPOV no credit at all - but that is why there are people around who are dedicated to Wikipedia principles. docboat 00:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the last drastic change. That does not mean I think the immediately preceding version was the best. We can't expect to change this by fiat. it's being overbold. Suggestion: lets write the article without mentioning Mannatech except as an external link. What would be left.? DGG 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It never got reverted, so I did it for you. I'm creating a new section to discuss this. Antelan ^talk 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What belongs?

Ombudsman, if you take a closer look at the history if this article, I am confident that you will find that the unsourced versions appear less POV at first blush, but closer scrutiny supports the facts as stated in this version of the article. Antelan ^talk 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman, in his reversion to an unsourced version of this article, noted that the glyconutrient article covers more than just glyconutrients. However, reversion to a completely unsourced article is inappropriate, especially when talking about glyconutrients. The reason for this becomes manifest when you consider that glyconutrients are only noteworthy because of the marketing that they have enjoyed. At least, according to the best sources that we have found, this is the case. Nobody has yet presented any source to back any of the claims that are made about glyconutrients. On the other hand, reputable sources, such as the Berkeley School of Public Health, the American Cancer Society, and the Nobel prizewinners whose work is germane to this topic, indicate that the glyconutrient claims have no basis in science. This is subject to change. As is noted in the Mannatech article, the company is actively pursuing research. As of now, though, glyconutrients are not noteworthy for the reasons that the marketing companies claim. They are noteworthy because of their creation by the marketing companies, or at least that what the evidence suggests. The article could be worded more cleanly, though. Antelan ^talk 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In this most recent edit, I have removed the reference in the first paragraph that actually did not support the claim of the sentence in any way (it was just a listing of books on Amazon.com). I replaced it with a citation of Mannatech's own website's discussion of glyconutrients. I also updated the wording of the remainder of the article, attempting to remove weasel words and improving the flow. Antelan ^talk 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed reference

Unfortunately, due to the design of the Mannatech website, they redirect all deep-links to a login page asking you which country you are from. However, once you have logged in, you can go back and click on the deep link that supports the very first sentence of the article. If there are better ways of supporting this sentence, great, but I don't want to drop this reference that actually does support the claim until we have a better alternative. Antelan ^talk 16:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And I was just mucking things up, so I reverted my edits (which included yours) and will list the links to the current news articles about the class-action suit and attorney general investigation for consideration:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-mannatech_17bus.ART.State.Edition1.3794f25.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/111106dnbusMannatech.31b671b.html

Since I've reverted myself twice today, maybe I should go warn myself about the 3RR? :)

Haha, not necessary. Thanks for being considerate and for your follow-up. Antelan ^talk 03:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pseudonutrition or Category:Alternative medicine?

I created Category:Pseudonutrition to hold this (and several other) articles because there were objections to placing it in Category:Alternative medicine which otherwise seemed like the best subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience (which I've been trying to clean up by grouping the huge mess of articles that had been there previously). I didn't make up the term "pseudonutrition" — it has appeared in several medical journals, although I'll admit there aren't terribly many references (only half a dozen or so, from a Google search). I'd like to move this article out of Category:Pseudoscience and into an appropriate sub-category, since the parent is more general and would include way too many articles if we didn't sub-categorize them. --Sapphic 00:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pseudonutrition references in Google (of which there are about 18) nearly all either refer to the Wikipedia category or a 1968 Act in England called the Psuedonutrition and the Medicines Act. My guess is that most medical journal references are discussing some aspect of the Act as well. This is not a notable concept and I believe Alternative Medicine would be a more appropriate category. There is precedent for "complementary" medicines (of which would probably be a better descriptor of the suggested use for Glyconutrients) being included in Alternative Medicines. I also responded to your comment on my talk page, Sapphic, regarding the removal of the Pseudoscience categorization. I feel it's important to maintain that label in supplement to any sub-categorization, particularly those that do not explicitly state in their name that they are psuedoscientific. ju66l3r 16:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hearing Ju66l3r's comments, I am amenable to the argument that we should not be creating neologistic categories. That said, it seems inappropriate to label this as alternative medicine, since they, officially at least, claim not to be medicinal. I think we'd be making the same mistake by putting this in with alternative medicine as we would in putting it with pseudonutrition. Antelan ^talk 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

While they may maintain a "we're not medicine" official statement, I believe they doth protest too much. A significant portion of any text on every page on their website speaks to the need for their product to satisfy medicinal purposes (proper organ function, "optimal health", cellular communication). These are supplemental to what they characterize as an unfit sugar background given their perceived state of the agriculture industry/diet/etc. This is the same essential pitch that all nutritional supplements use. On top of that, many of the lower levels in the MLM Mannatech network use even seedier pitches about curative properties for multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and more. Finally, a google search for the phrase "alternative medicine" and glyconutrients yields about 45,000 results suggesting that a categorization of that nature would not be novel. ju66l3r 02:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It may not be novel, but it may yet be inappropriate. I ran your Google search, and I didn't find a reliable source - just marketing websites. The Glyconutrient profferers seem to be latching onto the alternative medicine label, although it's not clear that any reliable source shares their views. Without an RS to validate the notion that glyconutrients are considered alternative medicine, we're just as off-base as we were with the pseudonutrition label. Antelan ^talk 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are 3 reliable sources where someone saw fit to include glyconutrients as a CAM:

• Medical Journal of Australia article - ...correspondence recommending a wide variety of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs). The most common CAMs recommended were meditation, Chinese medicine, "glyconutrients", juices, Laetrile and various diets and dietary supplements.
• November 2001 congressional hearing on Bioterror solutions - A Dr. McDaniel said that glyconutrients could kill bacteria and viruses to fight bioterror weapons as part of a panel of CAMs against the War on Terror.
• National Center for CAM was asked to investigate glycoproteins as a neuroprotective agent against Parkinson's Disease. ju66l3r 15:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Parkinison's reference uses the word glyconutrient once, and when it did so it said that it was a nutritional supplement under the purview of the Office of Dietary Supplements, not the National Center for Alternative and Complementary Medicine.

The Medical Journal of Australia article incorrectly refers to glyconutrients as glycoproteins, and at any rate is an opinion piece about a politician.

Finally, the OLPA source refers to glyconutrients as tools against biological agents, not as complementary or alternative medicine.

In conclusion, I don't see the justification for the alternative medicine label from these sources. Antelan ^talk 19:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's unclear if you did not review these sources carefully enough. The Australian journal article is more than opinion. It is based on the evidence of medications suggested to a public official in revealing he had cancer. It is an observation-based survey of CAMs in which they have a category for ambrotose and glyconutrients. The Parkinson's reference said that the NCCAM should work "with ODS" to investigate glyconutrients for possible neuroprotective properties. Finally, the definition for the panel discussion is in the first few sections on the link provided. It says that the investigation is for whether CAMs can serve as potential agents against the effects of bioterror weaponry. They then interview a proponent of glyconutrients as just such a CAM for just such a purpose. In all three cases, you have documented evidence of someone reliable examining CAMs and including glyconutrients within their purview. We'll have to see what others observe. ju66l3r 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you have asked if I read these sources carefully enough, it is only fair for me to ask if you are well versed in reading the medical literature. These three articles do not support your claims about glyconutrients. Perhaps other articles do, and I'm more than willing to change my opinion in the face of evidence. I just see no evidence here to support your argument that these saccharide pills fit into alternative medicine. Frankly, I'm fine with the categorization of the article as-is, and I'm happy to wait for outside opinions of the articles you've found. Antelan ^talk 21:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced comment

There is no ned to name any company in the definition of a Glyconutrient. This is a field of science and not about any company or what they report to do or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.224.233.80 (talk • contribs)

There is as much reason to mention Mannatech in this article as there is to name Pfizer and Sudafed in the Pseudoephedrine article. That article is about a chemical compound, but its patent, original producer, and name branding are all relevant to the chemical's background. Mannatech brought the term and concept for glyconutrients to life and therefore have every relevance in the article especially since their claims for its importance are unfounded and thus the only qualification those claims have is who is making them (the company trying to make money on the claims). ju66l3r 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Materially False and wildly POV Article

1) The term "glyconutrient" is used in mainstream medical research, as can be easily verified by a search of scholar.google.com. Defining it only in connection to a specific company is incorrect. It is defined as the eight listed saccharides. Contrasted with its use in mainstream science therefore, the definition given in top section is incorrect, as only the eight "essential sugars" are "glyconutrients."
2) The phrase in the first sentence "supplements that primarily consist of sugar" is extremely misleading and POV.
3) The attribution of the originally coining of the term to Mannatech should only be included if this fact is verifiable.
4) The claim that "there are no reliable, controlled studies to show that glyconutrients provide any improvement against any medical disorder" is patently false, as can be found by reviewing studies from scholar.google.com. The statement might possibly be true if modified to refer specifically to glyconutrients taken as oral dietary supplements. It would then also be supported by the article given as the citation for it.
5) The study of the effect of glyconutrients on immune cells when added added in vitro in CFS patients should be included in the article, as the basis for the claims of the benefits of taking them as supplements
6) Discussions of class action security lawsuits by Mannatech stockholders, and references to Mannatech SEC filings have absolutely no place in this article. If Mannatech should be mentioned in this article at all is highly questionable, but if so, it should be in a minor way. Contrary to opinions expressed here, they are by no means the only company selling glyconutrient supplements.

In short, this article in its current form is a joke. There's more objectivity in the op-ed pages. Erikmartin 02:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1) Demonstrate this. Don't just talk about "Google scholar". Point out scholarly sources that use the term.

2) This is according to the leader in this field, Mannatech. I don't have the money or the time to go about verifying this myself using Amadori reactions, etc., and it would be WP:OR anyways. If you don't like it, provide additional sources to support your implications (and in the future, try to make an affirmative statement; don't just say "This is POV". You should have an idea of what you think to be the NPOV equivalent.).

3) True. If you'd like to demonstrate otherwise, change it.

4) Cite even one source, not "scholar.google.com".

5) Any medical scientist knows that in vitro studies are not sufficient to demonstrate efficacy, much less effectiveness, in real patient populations.

6) The lawsuits are about glyconutrients sold by Mannatech. This is manifestly relevant.

I'm planning on removing the NPOV tag in 7 days. Antelan ^talk 06:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I provided an attempt at a NPOV definition, which I believe is completely supported by its peer-reviewed citations. I added a "Studies" section to summarize the facts regarding glyconutrients. I'm sure there are other significant studies that I've missed, so anyone who is aware of others, please add them. I changed "Health Benefits" to "Controversy" and made some changes in phraseology, so that it is expressed in terms of "supporters vs detractors" as opposed to "supporters vs reality" (i.e. the NPOV), without changing, I believe, the substance of the arguments there. I left unchanged the statement of fact that "There is no reliably documented evidence that people are generally deficient in such sugars." And I left in the details of the Mannatech lawsuit, as it is apparently relevent to the controversy. I think these changes constitute a version that is much closer to the NPOV, but I would like to hear any disagreement you (or others) have with them. Erikmartin 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the sources you provided and updated the statements accordingly. I have removed the glucosamine link, since I haven't seen any demonstration by a reliable source that it's considered a glyconutrient, which is a neologism and would be a "retroneologism" as applied anachronistically to glucosamine. At any rate, there is an article on the very subject of glucosamine, and this is not it. Antelan ^talk 20:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Studies

I've removed information on a Mannatech-sponsored study I could not locate anywhere including Mannatech's website. Perhaps this study was meant? No mention of candida etc. in the abstract. Avb 18:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned page

What is Talk:Glyconutrient/chemicallyliterate/? Its sole link is from User talk:I'clast. Unless being collectively used to develop Glyconutrient, it smells of POV fork. One for WP:MFD? 86.140.181.76 (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated it for MFD. Muzzamo (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the protocols are for adding this peice of information: from personal experience, in Australia you can purchase glyconutrient products from at least two other well-established nutritional companies apart from the one most frequently mentioned above! They both also operate commercially as multi-level marketing businesses ~ Slingsbysmith November 20 2012