Talk:Juice Plus/Archive 2

message: Regarding the addition of the passage from Wise et al. (1996): 
:One of these, a pilot study, reported that "after 28 days plasma antioxidant levels increased significantly" and that "serum lipod peroxides decreased fourfold after 7 days and remain significantly lower than baseline at 28 days"[9]. 
#The line "after 28 days plasma antioxidant levels increased significantly" does not belong in the oxidation/antioxidant section since the study findings in question refer to absorption of vit C and E, beta-carotene, etc. That information would be rightly categorized and is addressed under the heading “nutrient absorption”. The oxidation/antioxidant section discusses in vivo and in vitro antioxidant activity (i.e. tests such as lipid peroxidation, DNA oxidation, protein oxidation, etc.). In laymans terms, "absorption" addresses whether the antioxidant compounds (e.g. vitamins C and E and beta-carotene) are taken into the body; the oxidation/antioxidant section discusses whether the effects of free radicals are diminished by those antioxidants. 
#It is not NPOV to blow out quotations on antioxidant effects (i.e. the lipid peroxide statement) from the earliest, smallest, most poorly designed, and shortest duration study whose lead author (John Wise) is an executive of the manufacturing company, when subsequent larger and better designed studies (i.e. larger, longer duration, placebo controlled, double blind, and randomized) showed no antioxidant effects on various tests, (including lipid peroxidation, the same parameter as in the Wise study) and yet are not described in detail. It creates a distorted view of the product’s efficacy and it should be reverted, modified, or additional details of the opposing better-designed studies added and given greater weight.
# The Wise study is controversial not only because of its weak design and authorship by a company executive but also because NSA continues to quote its data when all other subsequent studies (almost all of which were much better desgned) have shown either much smaller effects or no effects at all. It is misleading marketing on NSAs part and it is a trap we should not fall into in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 05:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wise et al  

message: Did anyone catch the news about the Environmental Protection people banning a Juice Plus Distibutor Convention because they were seriously concerned about the welfare of the participants, due to the vast volumes of foul-smelling, noxious gases that would emanate from the convention center? I didn't catch the channel callsign nor the city that was saved from exstinktion. Local police, when asked for directions to the convention center, are reputed to have said "Just follow your nose." 
But there is a positive side: all Juice Plus customers are being offered the chance to enrol in a pilot project for providing a sustainable source of energy when fossil fuel reserves run out.  TraceyR 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Julia, I'm afraid that it was just a joke (but perhaps it will turn up, referenced, in the article one day)! I have decided that some of the edits here simply cannot be taken too seriously, so a bit of fun might creep in from time to time. Anecdotal evidence from Juice Plus users is common but not encoutaged - the NSA page contains some such wording somewhere (i.e. no claims about curing this or that, it's not a drug, just plain food etc). TraceyR 21:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A polite reminder that the discussion page is to be used only for discussing improvements to the Juice Plus article; it is not a chat room nor should it be used to post advertisements or testimonials for Juice Plus, and especially not ones that inappropriately suggest the product can be used for the prevention, cure or treatment of diseases. Such claims are not only inappropriate for Wikipedia, they are in fact prohibited by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. Julia, as a distributor of the product you are bound by DSHEA, so please act responsibly – at least while on Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EPA

message: The Comprehensive Cancer Center of Wake Forest University trial protocol [Protocol] includes the following paragraph on page 12:
Pharmaceutical Information
"The test supplements consist of dried F&V powders. Fruit juice extracts from apples, oranges,
pineapples, papaya, cranberries, and peaches and vegetable juice extracts from carrots, parsley,
beets, broccoli, kale, cabbage, spinach, and tomatoes are cryoevaporated (Juice PlusTM, NSA
International, Memphis, Tennessee) to concentrate and preserve nutrients, particularly carotenoids. The blends are encapsulated in hard gelatin capsules to provide 850 mg of fruit powder per fruit capsule and 750 mg of vegetable powder per vegetable capsule. Test supplements will be from the same lot. F&V extracts should be considered as a GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) product. In several clinical trials using F&V extracts as dietary supplements with healthy subjects, the dosage proposed in this study has been tested. No toxic effect was reported (Wise et al., 1996; Smith et al., 1999; Inserra et al., 1999). Since the extracts have not been tested in cancer patients, to be cautious, we will conduct telephone interviews at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 weeks of treatment. A questionnaire will be used to record potential treatment-related side effects, particularly gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities, such as nausea, vomiting, fever, diarrhea, heartburn, abdominal pain, or others. Patients with severe adverse reactions (> grade 3) will stop the treatment."
Will this help to calm some troubled minds? Or should someone get on the phone to warn the patients of the risks they are taking if they aren't lucky enough to get the placebo? TraceyR 19:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GRAS 

message: ::::Hope you don’t mind the nitpicking. I think you did a good job and if we can address most of the issues above, we might all be able to finally relax for a while. I will take a crack at remedying some of these issues over the next few days. Rhode Island Red 03:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not at all!  Detailed suggestions are great, and I am very pleased that you like this version. I think we're all on the same side here, in that we all want to make a quality article.  You seem to have a real talent at digging up detailed references, and I'm pretty good at "layperson prose," so we all have different skills to offer here. --Elonka 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, Elonka, I would rather, for now, that you take a crack at addressing some of these issues and making the edits. You're on a roll so let's see what you come up with. Rhode Island Red 04:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will do, thanks! --Elonka 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Congratulations on an excellent and constructive rewrite. Having been busy elsewhere, I have only just come back to find the article in its new glory. I have also waded through most of the comments, which are also v. positive. Only one stuck out, in which the new cut was criticised for being "overly neutral" - is that positive or negative? :-) Or NPOV²? TraceyR 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article rewrite section break #4