My buddy advised this story

I start suspecting that there is something not right about the promotion of a product - such as glyconutrients - when the meaning of the word is so ambiguous, and the word is created by a company that sells through multilevel marketing channels. There is little mentioned in the legitimate medical literature regarding the term glyconutrients, yet the internet abounds with websites promoting its virtues. This article discusses the merits or lack thereof of "glyconutrient" products sold by Mannatech -- and other companies that offer such products for sale -- that supposedly have 'eight essential sugars.' There are many types of sugar compounds -- for instance glucosamine, glycoproteins, glycolipids, fructooligosaccharides, arabinogalactans - that have been shown to have a role to play in health and I have articles on some of these sugar-related substances that review the research. I would rather use these terms rather than the mishmosh term 'glyconutrients.' I am a strong believer in the benefits of various dietary supplements including sugar compounds, I just want to call them by their proper, scientifically accepted names. To me, the word glyconutrient has no scientific meaning and only serves to confuse matters. What if I made up a term called "aminonutrient" to refer to amino acids and then claimed that "Eight aminonutrients are lacking in the diet and should be obtained as a supplement"? How would this help explain anything or advance scientific knowledge? What if I created the term "liponutrient" to refer to fatty acids and then made a claim that "Eight liponutrients are lacking in the diet"? How would the word "liponutrient" add to our understanding of fats and lipids? Everyone on this planet has a different diet. Some eat a lot of protein, others eat a lot of carbohydrates, and there are diets that have every variation in between. How can anyone make the general statement that "Eight essential sugars are missing in the diet." Who came up with the number eight, anyway? Why not four, or nine, or forty-one? What is a glyconutrient, anyway? There is no accepted definition What is the exact definition of a glyconutrient, anyway? Glyco means sugar, and nutrient means a substance that is useful to the body. Is glucose a glyconutrient? Glucose is certainly a sugar and it is a nutrient needed by the body to function. There certainly is no deficiency of glucose in the American diet, especially those who are diabetic. What about sucrose, also known as table sugar? What about lactose, the sugar found in milk? Who decides which sugars and related compounds to include within the broad definition of the term? Is a glyconutrient a sugar molecule attached to another molecule, or a group of molecules? Sugar chains (also called glycans) vary in length from one sugar, to extremely long chains found in glycosaminoglycans. Is a glyconutrient any sugar attached to any other molecule or is a glyconutrient a specific substance or a group of specific substances? Does the chemical structure of a "glyconutrient" sold by one company the same as another company or completely different? Is there a scientifically accepted definition of what a glyconutrient is just like there is for the words vitamins and glycoproteins? If there is such a standard and accepted definition for the word, I have not seen it yet. To me, the word glyconutrient has no special medical or nutritional meaning. The term i glyconutrient is confusing and unnecessary. My degree in college was nutrition.

Comments? Questions? Email Here

© HowtoAdvice.com