Jump to content

Talk:Glucomannan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main ingredient in "Lipozene"

[edit]

It's the main ingredient in the expensive weight-loss pill lipozene. In the commercials for Lipozene it says in really small print "Average weight lost 3.86 pounds over 8 weeks" 71.168.3.119 (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main ingredient in "Propolene"

[edit]

It's the main ingredient in the weight-loss pill Propolene. Libertate 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Libertate[reply]

[edit]

Added FDA glucomannan recall link Libertate 14:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satiety

[edit]

"This mass may promote feelings of satiety while traveling through the gastrointestinal tract" This is a spurious argument. Monkeys might fly out of your gastrointestinal tract. The cause of obesity is more likely to be frequent stress, not changes in appetite. I have said this before. Frizb (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} 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) 18:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese translation of the chemical....

[edit]

--222.64.213.114 (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Toxicology and safety section

[edit]

I removed the Toxicology and safety section because it did not discuss either of these topics, and only contained one sentence: "Currently, the substance is permanently banned from some pharmaceutical preparations by the Australian government." I don't know if this is supposed to imply that that the Australian government is concerned about the safety of glucomannan, but without more information this doesn't belong in a section called Toxicology and safety. --MYCETEAE - talk 08:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review of glucomannan

[edit]

http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/4/1167.full.pdf Glucomannan appears to beneficially affect total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, body weight, and FBG, but not HDL cholesterol or BP. 69.165.244.201 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Inaccurate and Misleading Study Claims Under "Weight Loss"

[edit]

The study by Jordi Salas-Salvado, et al, cited in this section clearly states, "each sachet of the fibre supplement contained 3 g Plantago ovata seed husks and 1 g glucomannan," not pure glucomannan.

Also the weight loss for the placebo group was incorrectly quoted as 0.79 kg; the placebo group actually lost 3.79 kg according to the study. The study authors did not find a statistically significant difference in weight loss between the control and two treatment groups: "The weight loss was progressive and constant in the three study groups..." "Although the changes tend to be greater in both groups supplemented with dietary fibre, the differences between groups were not statistically significant." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.148.112 (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Treatment of Constipation section

[edit]

"Glucomannan is a soluble fiber, and as such, has been investigated for the treatment of constipation." What does soluble fiber have to do with constipation? Insoluble fiber helps constipation. Matt2h (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm doing this right, but Soluble and Insoluble fiber both help with constipation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.216.135 (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glucomannan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

IP editor, about

  • this at 18:31, 17 May 2018
  • this at 18:36, 17 May 2018

we don't add content about health to Wikipedia, sourced to press releases search results Please read WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (fix Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

this is the "source" being added. It is a search page. That is not a reliable source at all, much less a MEDRS source. See WP:ELNO #9. A source needs to be a specific reference. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also the part of the article above the table of content is called the "lead". See WP:LEAD. It just summarizes the body and doesn't need to be sourced itself - the content it is summarizing, is sourced in the body of the article. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weight loss

[edit]

Some issues with regard weight loss in this article. Contrary to the claim of "medical research has found no good evidence to support its use for this purpose", an EU analysis in 2010 concluded the exact opposite - "On the basis of the data presented, the Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the consumption of glucomannan and the reduction of body weight in the context of an energy-restricted diet"[1]. The Zalewski paper [2] cited as a source for the claim of no good evidence also actually says "there is some evidence that in the short term GM may help to reduce BW". A quick pubmed review immediately finds several papers reflecting the current state of this article, but also others contradicting it. Of particular interest was one that reported significant differences were only apparent when compliance was adjusted for.[3]. At the least this article should reflect the lack of consensus, the EFSA approval, and the pretty much universal agreements that GM has positive effects on cholesterol. Right now it makes it seem like it's a just another weight loss scam product, when in fact it does appear to have efficacy, at least for some people. If there's no objection I'll make changes in the following days.

References

  1. ^ http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1798
  2. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25701331/?i=2&from=/24533610/related
  3. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pubmed/26492494-konjac-glucomannan-dietary-supplementation-causes-significant-fat-loss-in-compliant-overweight-adults/

-- Icerat (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The third citation is a primary source; we will not use that - it is of zero interest in Wikipedia. (Please see WP:MEDDEF and all of WP:MEDRS of which it is a part). Will have a look at the other two again.Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources aren't of "zero interest" (I recommend you reread the guidelines), however, yes, I agree they should generally be avoided. --Icerat (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion of PMID 25701331 has

In overweight or obese, otherwise healthy adults, there is limited evidence that GM supplementation may help to reduce BW, but not BMI. Limited data do not allow one to draw any conclusions with regards to the effect of GM supplementation in children.

Studies of proper methodological design, consisting of larger study groups with longer (>12 wk) interventions and follow-up periods, are needed, especially in children, to establish whether the BW-reducing potential of GM is clinically significant.

so "no good evidence" is a fair summary of that. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn, Icerat, and Jytdog: I don't know how you can read "there is limited evidence that GM supplementation may help to reduce BW" and conclude "the evidence did not support this effect". The article makes it sounds like a worthless weight-loss scam, while these say:
Aren't reviews of other studies legitimate sources? — Omegatron (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not when they're outdated or published in non-reputable journals. The only source there which isn't hopelessly old (from 2020), doesn't appear to be in PUBMED? Alexbrn (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Omegatron why are you trying to force a dubious tag into the article (with bad markup to boot)? The updated sourcing seem conclusive does it not? Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Omegatron, I have added a template to the top of this page that may help you better understand MEDRS sourcing. I have also added a second review to the one already in the article, which discusses the problems in earlier (dated) results. See also WP:MEDDATE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this enough to add this substance to the laxatives category?

[edit]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27481345

No, see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a review but it is a god awful one, hard selling this stuff, by two people who are not in the field of medicine. I would never cite that ref.Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's (almost) pure fiber. Wouldn't it be enough to add this substance to the laxatives category on that basis? Drsruli (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The Wikipedia page to Shirataki_noodles states they are composed of glucomannan, how would be a best way to show a link from here to there? URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirataki_noodles James Rodriguez 10:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrodor (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glucomannan&oldid=1207445298"