Talk:Glyconutrient/Archive1

message: 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)
thread_title: "Current research supports" discussion

message: 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)
thread_title: Wow am I tired!

message: 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)
thread_title: Hey, folks, let's all slow down. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Dream:  I would love to see Duane 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)
thread_title: Things this article is missing

message: 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)
thread_title: Things this article covers, which it shouldn't cover

message: "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)
thread_title: Things this article states as fact, but which really are in dispute

message: 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 , "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 , Prebioitics , lactulose    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)
thread_title:  Going forward, a better rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title: 3 maybe 4 sugars absorbed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  and related materials.  --66.58.130.26 01:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Brazen deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced text 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Misnomer 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, this talk page is indeed getting too hairy.  I missed your explanations. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref and link dump 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok, done (formerly known as 66.58.130.26) --I'clast 22:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  links priority 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: MannaSteve