Re: Another view on Glyconutrients

[Guest guest]

Hi Everyone,

Just for information's sake, below is a different take on " Glyco-Science " .

on@...

******************************************************

“On the Hype About Glyco-Science”

Having a Doctorate degree in Biochemistry from Stanford University, I feel

somewhat qualified to speak out “glyco-science.” A few months ago, someone asked

me about the company the promotes glyco-science, so I signed onto their website

and what I found was truly appalling.

In short, there are tons of technical terms used when simple English would

suffice. Why? I won’t publish my longer point-by-point critique here but want to

add one approach to what a growing number of scientists are affirming. It’s

something anyone can do when visiting various websites, which is to look at them

closely and refuse to be intimidated by the fancy jargon. I simply browsed

around with open eyes and noted the following:

The “Scientific Journal” on glyco-science they tout is published by the

company itself. It is not an independent, peer-reviewed scientific publication.

I then looked at the papers published. In the section on clinical results

with humans, 20 of 25 were by the same person! Not one single paper was in a

respected nationally known journal. “The Proceedings of the Pavlovian Society”

was one that appeared quite often. Conspicuously absent were such things as the

Journal of the American Medical Association, British Lancet, and other reputable

peer-reviewed journals.

Contrast the breadth and depth of [another health sciences company's]

references with what’s on their website. You'll quickly be able to recognize

numerous journals and publications referenced by them. See if you can understand

the point of their scientific discussions that appear on the glyco-science

product websites. Even though I understand the jargon I’m unable to follow their

logic. If the reader can’t understand what they are saying, what is the point of

saying it? Perhaps to give the impression of a scientific foundation when there

is none?

Ask yourself if there is any overlap with anything you have read elsewhere.

With [xxxxxxx], they promote the benefits of anti-oxidant supplementation. Other

companies promote this too. Why? Because the benefits are known and documented

by hundreds, if not thousands, of independent research findings. [xxxxxxxx]

simply has the best ingredients, the best manufacturing, the best formulation,

and the best research.

I usually keep my reservations about certain products and companies to

myself, but when someone touts such things as sugars found in an apple can help

cure AIDS, I find it hard difficult to not speak out!

Dr. O. Crosby, Ph.D., Biochemistry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

– Glyconutrition, Aloe, Manapol, Ambrotose, and More –

Our scientists have been following the concept of glyconutrition and the

company that promotes it almost since it’s beginning and it is obvious,

unfortunately, that the vast majority of the people who buy into their products

and concepts are really unsure of what they are actually selling. It’s not their

fault, though. The company has masterfully blurred the line between the real

science of glycobiology and how it actually relates to their products.

Glycobiology is a very complex field of biology and it is very easy to confuse

people, including health professionals, unless they have significant education

in nutrition or physiology. In the last year or two they have significantly

changed their website and removed a lot of the questionable information and have

made it somewhat vague and basic.

The company and rationale behind the products at the beginning was all

about a way to sell stabilized aloe vera. We listened to one of their first

cassette tapes and the whole tape was about the amazing health benefits of their

stabilized aloe vera. The product was called Manapol.

Now, the key ingredient of the product line is Ambrotose, " a patent-pending

blend of specific plant-based complex carbohydrates that contain sugars

necessary for the proper glycosylation of cellular proteins. " At least some of

these appear to be derived from aloe vera extract.

Aloe is a source of two products that are completely different in their

chemical composition and therapeutic properties. Aloe gel is a handy homegrown

remedy for minor burns, abrasions, and other skin irritations. Aloe juice, on

the other hand, is a potent laxative.

Their promotional material stresses that Ambrotose provides 8 sugars

necessary in glycoproteins: glucose, galactose, mannose, fuctose, xylose,

N-acetylglucosamine, N-acetylgalactosamine, N-acetylneuraminic acid. However,

our bodies can synthesize all of these from the simple sugar glucose. There is

certainly no shortage of sugar, or glucose, in the typical diet. Granted, there

are very rare cases such as genetically inherited diseases of carbohydrate

metabolism when therapeutic use of certain monosaccharides may be useful. But

this does not relate to their products or the way in which they are marketed.

They have made claims that their product Ambrotose is a panacea -- a classic red

flag for non-credible information.

Benefits may be derived from some of their products simply due to the

vitamins, minerals, anitoxidants and macronutrients they contain. There is,

however, no scientifically supportable evidence that the " ambrotose " does

anything significant. Nearly all of their published research is either unblinded

or uncontrolled, and many are simply elegantly written testimonials (called case

studies). Yes, there are 100s or 1000s of papers relating to glycobiology and

glyconutrition. These papers relate to physiology of cell receptors and

communication, not to the miraculous benefits of eating them in a nutrition

product.

So this does not really set them apart from anyone else selling vitamins

and minerals. However, there is an additional concern we have. They, at least in

the past, have made a big deal about how unusable and ineffective USP vitamins

and minerals are. However, this is the standard by which pharmaceuticals and

highly regulated products are made to guarantee quality. Because of these

statements and others I wonder about the quality of manufacturing and stability

of their products.

Unfortunately, we probably know more about their products than the vast

majority of their distributors. As experts in human health, we find their

marketing and information very speculative and incongruent with established

human nutrition.

Finally, we're not saying that their products are worthless, simply that

the " special ingredients " that set them apart have not been sufficiently

researched to imply that they are beneficial or of significant importance to the

health of the general population. They simply use a unique marketing angle to

sell their products. The majority of the scientific community, including Usana,

just happens to disagree.

We also weren’t able to find any discussion about the quality of the

manufacturing (it may be there but I didn’t see it).

We currently have active clinical trial programs with several trials in

progress. Unfortunately, since these trials are in progress I cannot give you

any specific information regarding the subject and progress. Recently, we

completed a study in corroboration with the University of Utah regarding our

calcium supplement and bone density in teen girls. Keep in mind that to do real

legitimate studies (that are worth anything) requires much time and money. We

are a fairly small and young company. We hope to have results from studies based

on several of our specific products soon. However, understand that we don't sell

any products without extensive clinical research on the component. Every

component in our products, as outlined in our Health Resources, has been

thoroughly researched and published in peer-reviewed journals. We emphasize

using proven ingredients and making them into high quality products that can be

trusted. Our standards of quality are of the highest possible caliber. So we are

working on doing several clinical trials of our own, but we are definitely not

selling unproven products. Check the health resources on each nutrient to see a

basic overview of research validating the inclusion of these ingredients in our

products.

Best regards,

[Guest guest]

Bad Press can be found on EVERYTHING. I always suggest people do

there own homework and research on different topics. Especially if

they are thinking about trying a supplement on their children. I

find it rather difficult to refute Harpers Biochemistry Chapter 47

on Glycobiology though. This text is what is used to teach our

Doctors in University and talks exclusively on how glycoproteins are

made, from what materials, how they are used and metabolized in the

body, etc....Furthermore, glyconutrients, are in the Physicians Desk

Reference (PDR), so this isn't an empty topic.

Roe

>

> Hi Everyone,

>

> Just for information's sake, below is a different take

on " Glyco-Science " .

>

>

> on@...

>

> ******************************************************

> " On the Hype About Glyco-Science "

>

>

>

> Having a Doctorate degree in Biochemistry from Stanford

University, I feel somewhat qualified to speak out " glyco-science. " A

few months ago, someone asked me about the company the promotes glyco-

science, so I signed onto their website and what I found was truly

appalling.

>

>

> In short, there are tons of technical terms used when simple

English would suffice. Why? I won't publish my longer point-by-point

critique here but want to add one approach to what a growing number

of scientists are affirming. It's something anyone can do when

visiting various websites, which is to look at them closely and

refuse to be intimidated by the fancy jargon. I simply browsed around

with open eyes and noted the following:

>

>

> The " Scientific Journal " on glyco-science they tout is

published by the company itself. It is not an independent, peer-

reviewed scientific publication.

>

>

> I then looked at the papers published. In the section on

clinical results with humans, 20 of 25 were by the same person! Not

one single paper was in a respected nationally known journal. " The

Proceedings of the Pavlovian Society " was one that appeared quite

often. Conspicuously absent were such things as the Journal of the

American Medical Association, British Lancet, and other reputable

peer-reviewed journals.

>

>

> Contrast the breadth and depth of [another health sciences

company's] references with what's on their website. You'll quickly be

able to recognize numerous journals and publications referenced by

them. See if you can understand the point of their scientific

discussions that appear on the glyco-science product websites. Even

though I understand the jargon I'm unable to follow their logic. If

the reader can't understand what they are saying, what is the point

of saying it? Perhaps to give the impression of a scientific

foundation when there is none?

>

>

> Ask yourself if there is any overlap with anything you have

read elsewhere. With [xxxxxxx], they promote the benefits of anti-

oxidant supplementation. Other companies promote this too. Why?

Because the benefits are known and documented by hundreds, if not

thousands, of independent research findings. [xxxxxxxx] simply has

the best ingredients, the best manufacturing, the best formulation,

and the best research.

>

>

> I usually keep my reservations about certain products and

companies to myself, but when someone touts such things as sugars

found in an apple can help cure AIDS, I find it hard difficult to not

speak out!

>

>

> Dr. O. Crosby, Ph.D., Biochemistry

>

>

>

>

>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------

------------

>

>

> – Glyconutrition, Aloe, Manapol, Ambrotose, and More –

>

>

>

> Our scientists have been following the concept of

glyconutrition and the company that promotes it almost since it's

beginning and it is obvious, unfortunately, that the vast majority of

the people who buy into their products and concepts are really unsure

of what they are actually selling. It's not their fault, though. The

company has masterfully blurred the line between the real science of

glycobiology and how it actually relates to their products.

Glycobiology is a very complex field of biology and it is very easy

to confuse people, including health professionals, unless they have

significant education in nutrition or physiology. In the last year or

two they have significantly changed their website and removed a lot

of the questionable information and have made it somewhat vague and

basic.

>

>

>

> The company and rationale behind the products at the beginning

was all about a way to sell stabilized aloe vera. We listened to one

of their first cassette tapes and the whole tape was about the

amazing health benefits of their stabilized aloe vera. The product

was called Manapol.

>

>

>

> Now, the key ingredient of the product line is Ambrotose, " a

patent-pending blend of specific plant-based complex carbohydrates

that contain sugars necessary for the proper glycosylation of

cellular proteins. " At least some of these appear to be derived from

aloe vera extract.

>

>

>

> Aloe is a source of two products that are completely different

in their chemical composition and therapeutic properties. Aloe gel is

a handy homegrown remedy for minor burns, abrasions, and other skin

irritations. Aloe juice, on the other hand, is a potent laxative.

>

>

>

> Their promotional material stresses that Ambrotose provides 8

sugars necessary in glycoproteins: glucose, galactose, mannose,

fuctose, xylose, N-acetylglucosamine, N-acetylgalactosamine, N-

acetylneuraminic acid. However, our bodies can synthesize all of

these from the simple sugar glucose. There is certainly no shortage

of sugar, or glucose, in the typical diet. Granted, there are very

rare cases such as genetically inherited diseases of carbohydrate

metabolism when therapeutic use of certain monosaccharides may be

useful. But this does not relate to their products or the way in

which they are marketed. They have made claims that their product

Ambrotose is a panacea -- a classic red flag for non-credible

information.

>

>

>

> Benefits may be derived from some of their products simply due

to the vitamins, minerals, anitoxidants and macronutrients they

contain. There is, however, no scientifically supportable evidence

that the " ambrotose " does anything significant. Nearly all of their

published research is either unblinded or uncontrolled, and many are

simply elegantly written testimonials (called case studies). Yes,

there are 100s or 1000s of papers relating to glycobiology and

glyconutrition. These papers relate to physiology of cell receptors

and communication, not to the miraculous benefits of eating them in a

nutrition product.

>

>

>

> So this does not really set them apart from anyone else

selling vitamins and minerals. However, there is an additional

concern we have. They, at least in the past, have made a big deal

about how unusable and ineffective USP vitamins and minerals are.

However, this is the standard by which pharmaceuticals and highly

regulated products are made to guarantee quality. Because of these

statements and others I wonder about the quality of manufacturing and

stability of their products.

>

>

>

> Unfortunately, we probably know more about their products than

the vast majority of their distributors. As experts in human health,

we find their marketing and information very speculative and

incongruent with established human nutrition.

>

>

>

> Finally, we're not saying that their products are worthless,

simply that the " special ingredients " that set them apart have not

been sufficiently researched to imply that they are beneficial or of

significant importance to the health of the general population. They

simply use a unique marketing angle to sell their products. The

majority of the scientific community, including Usana, just happens

to disagree.

>

>

>

> We also weren't able to find any discussion about the quality

of the manufacturing (it may be there but I didn't see it).

>

>

>

> We currently have active clinical trial programs with several

trials in progress. Unfortunately, since these trials are in progress

I cannot give you any specific information regarding the subject and

progress. Recently, we completed a study in corroboration with the

University of Utah regarding our calcium supplement and bone density

in teen girls. Keep in mind that to do real legitimate studies (that

are worth anything) requires much time and money. We are a fairly

small and young company. We hope to have results from studies based

on several of our specific products soon. However, understand that we

don't sell any products without extensive clinical research on the

component. Every component in our products, as outlined in our Health

Resources, has been thoroughly researched and published in peer-

reviewed journals. We emphasize using proven ingredients and making

them into high quality products that can be trusted. Our standards of

quality are of the highest possible caliber. So we are working on

doing several clinical trials of our own, but we are definitely not

selling unproven products. Check the health resources on each

nutrient to see a basic overview of research validating the inclusion

of these ingredients in our products.

>

>

>

>

>

> Best regards,

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

There was a big article on these products in Scientific American in about 2003 I

think. They were very impressed with them.

There benefits aren't primarily related to antioxidants as the Stanford

Biochemist suggested, but to " healing sugars " according to the

Scientific American article, and the papers. At least their main product

Ambrotose, which I undersand has undergone and is undergoing FDA clinical

trials. I've taken their products and had them tested for me by and EDS

tester. Ambrotose didn't test high for me but I don't have problems, but their

MannaCleanse product did test high for me and my son. And their Plus hormone

balancing product has helped several women I know with hormone problems. Its

not about sugars though and has another more standard mechanism, Mexican yam?

What do people think about testing supplements by EDS and Quantum-SCIO? How

valid?

My tester resuts seems to make sense to me per experience. But I have limited

experience.

[Guest guest]

I have the articles from Scientific American as well as the Acta

Anatomica, International Journal of Anatomy, article. The FDA

refulates drugs, in order for a substance to be a drug, it MUST

undergo what is called a LD50 study which means what is " lethal dose

to kill 50% of the animal tested " (typically rats). Since Ambrotose

is a food and does not have a lethal dose, it will never be

considered for FDA clinical trials - it isn't a drug. The NIH is now

sending it to be reviewed by many 3rd parties - specifically

universities for different studies with aliments, but it is out of

the FDA's regulation since it isn't a drug.

The PLUS is from the Mexican Yam, but it also has Ambrotose in it.

I think any way of testing supplements that show its ASSAY is good.

Roe

>

> There was a big article on these products in Scientific American in

about 2003 I think. They were very impressed with them.

> There benefits aren't primarily related to antioxidants as the

Stanford Biochemist suggested, but to " healing sugars " according to

the

> Scientific American article, and the papers. At least their main

product Ambrotose, which I undersand has undergone and is undergoing

FDA clinical trials. I've taken their products and had them tested

for me by and EDS tester. Ambrotose didn't test high for me but I

don't have problems, but their MannaCleanse product did test high for

me and my son. And their Plus hormone balancing product has helped

several women I know with hormone problems. Its not about sugars

though and has another more standard mechanism, Mexican yam?

>

> What do people think about testing supplements by EDS and Quantum-

SCIO? How valid?

> My tester resuts seems to make sense to me per experience. But I

have limited experience.

>