Talk:Beta-glucan

message: Article looks like the section which previously extended from "Overview" down to Ref 58 was pasted in from somewhere else, which led to one huge section with no WP links, and a 2nd list of references.
Is anyone planning major changes soon ?  if not I'll tinker with it when I get time Rod57 11:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs restructuring 

message: Regardless of whether beta-glucan is soluble or insoluble, it is still classified as a dietary fiber. Dietary fibers are defined to have little or no absorbability in the GI tract, but some such as oat beta-glucan, guar gum, and inulin are fermentable in the human colon. So how is beta-glucan thought to produce so many additional health benefits other than binding bile cholesterol and helping to prevent diverticulosis, colon cancer, and/or other maladies specific to the GI tract? With the exception of the cholesterol cycle, if beta-glucan cannot be absorbed, then its direct benefits should logically be limited to GI health. The article should attempt to explain this paradox. Perhaps the additional benefits are due to the chemical products of colonic fermentation?--4.255.33.190 01:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you're so right! Absorbability is also with wrong citation. Frey et al. (cit. 18) did something completely different in their paper. It's a shame that this is used as a "evidence" that absorption and immune response would occur. Please, someone rewrite that or question the whole thing. Here, lifestyle industry has some deep interest in selling useless glucan-pills. krx  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.7.29.233 (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absorbabilty and explanation of health benefits other than those to the GI tract 

message: I regree with the above comment.  Here's a useful Nutrition Journal article on oat β-glucan that provides measurements of in-vivo reduction in LDL cholesterol and in-vitro production of Short Chain Fatty Acids resulting from fermentation of oat β-glucan, guar gum, and inulin. Page Notes (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fermentability, Short-Chain Fatty Acids, HDL Cholesterol 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: is an excellent 2007 review that should be added.LeadSongDog come howl
* Uhhh...no review published in an obscure Litunanian medical journal should be described as "excellent". Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: The section discussing research on B-glucan needs extensive work. It is based entirely on primary sources. Much of it is speculative and misleading, essentially concluding that beta-glucan fights against a wide array of diseases, when in fact its not approved or generally recognized as being effective for the treatment of any diseases. Much of the research discussed is based on in vitro and animal data, and little distinction is drawn between such studies and those conducted in human subjects. It contains far too much background detail that deviates from the main topic, and in general is far too dense and technical. It needs to be pared down extensively and it needs to be more cautious with respect to conclusions and speculations. Also, my understanding is that many of these studies were conducted by or funded directly by the manufacturers of these products. It would help to draw these distinctions as well. Companies that are selling beta-glucan will naturally come up with the most favorable results on their products. Caution should be excercised when summarizing such primary sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree. There's been a lot of research done on the topic, and no reason why any primary studies need to be cited with so many reviews available. Sasata (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that enough research has been done on this topic and if it has will you please edit it into the article? Just because some government or health industry hasn't "approved" or "recognized" something doesn't make it any less true. I got news for you governments LIE and conceal or disregard pertinent facts. It also takes most governments years to do anything about anything due to red tape. There are a lot of big bucks in the pharmaceutical and lobby industries and I think its safe to say that some of your highly respected universities and health experts are not neutral sources. Dracoshempemporium (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1997 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an application (from Quaker Oats) for a health claim that consuming oatmeal reduced absorption of cholesterol and therefor lowered risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Claim later expanded to include barley - another beta-glucan containing food. Since then, no applications to the FDA have been made for any other source of beta-glucan, for CHD or any other indication. As a dietary supplement ingredient, companies are allowed to put what are described as Structure:Function claims on labels if there are two or more adequate clinical (human) trials in support of the claim. Example: Helps support a healthy immune system. If there are several or more of these clinical trials in the scientific literature, then it can be expected that review articles also get published in same. It is these review articles, i.e., secondary sources, that should be referenced here in Wikipedia. Pharmaceutical companies do not suppress research on ingredients like beta-glucan, they just don't bother to fund it because no patentability and hence no exclusivity. This does not preclude ingredient companies sponsoring research. As RIR pointed out, there is potential for bias - usually in the form of publishing good results and not bothering to published bad results. Good reviewers will include bias analysis in the reviews. David notMD (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research Section is Overly Detailed and Misleading 

message: Various parts of the article use hyphen vs comma between the two numbers in the linkage specifier, use parens or hyphen or nothing to separate the beta from the number-pair, put the numbers before or after the beta, and use slashes, colons, or just adjacent parens when there are multiple linkages to specify. I don't see any authoritative cite for the nomenclature at all (though most of it seems basic chemistry and uses the examples in the cites). DMacks (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature punctuation 

message: Some reviews I found that suggest that 1,3/1,6 beta glucans might have an immunomodulatory effect but given the nature of the research I want some input on source quality.
#https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15536392
#https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17895634
#https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012169/
Petergstrom (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As "immunomodulatory" implies a physiological effect adequately demonstrated by sources with WP:MEDRS quality, #s 1 and 2 are insufficient because they present lab research far from MEDRS standards. You can search Google for the journal's name and impact factor, both of which are around 1 which is low. #3 is better by being a review, but the human evidence presented is weak overall. The author states that "Even though many of the clinical trials performed with insoluble β-glucan preparations showed positive effects on the immune system, none of them were so far able to convince the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to accept a health claim application in the area immune system. EFSA rejected all generic claim applications (13.1 claims) regarding beta-glucan and immune function." If EFSA rejects the science, so should we. --Zefr (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that makes sense.Petergstrom (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Zefr that the EFSA is a good bellwether for credibility. In the U.S., companies no longer bother to submit a science dossier to the Food and Drug Administration in an attempt to get a health claim approved, so there is not a large body of government reviews on ingredient health claims. (Instead, the companies use the fuzzy language of Structure:Function claims, which do not require FDA review/approval.)David notMD (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source quality 

message: The article contained the following sentence: "Mushroom β-glucans, krestin and lentinan, are licensed as drugs in Japan for treating stomach cancer." I see no evidence of such licensing, but more importantly medical websites like WebMD and MSKCC indicate that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of the compounds in the treatment of gastric cancer  and that "well-designed large-scale studies are needed to establish the role of lentinan as a useful adjunct to cancer treatment." As such, the information in the article seems to be misleading and not reliably supported and has therefore been removed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krestin and Lentinan   

message: First time doing this so please let me know if this is not the right channel or the way to do it.
Shouldn't cellulose be 1,4-b-glycosidic bond? It says 1,3-b-glycosidic bond on the very first figure.
--138.51.125.28 (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cellulose mis-annotated?