Glyco Nutrients

[rnsmckin]

My wife has a friend selling glyco nutrients, and the claim for this item is that it cures everything from cancer to depression (including irritible bowel syndrom, MS, MD, fybro-myalgia (sp?), lupus, and so on.)

My wife can't read the writing on the wall, or maybe I'm too closed minded. Anyone have any sort of info they can pass along on why this is just another multi-level marketing scheme, ala Amway/Nuskin/Arbonne?

Thanks! Glad to be on the boards.

Ryan

Edmond, OK

[drfrank]

I don't have any personal experience in this area, but a good approach is to always ask what evidence suggests that these glyco supplements are useful. If there's no placebo controlled double blind studies, then it means bugger all.

Anecdotal evidence from people who took it and feel "miraculously transformed" really doesn't cut it.

Also, in general, anything that claims to be a general cure-all is almost certainly quackery.

Anyway, welcome to the boards :) Now, if you're lucky, you should hopefully get some more informed opinions than mine lol

[Flange Desire]

My wife has a friend selling glyco nutrients, and the claim for this item is that it cures everything from cancer to depression (including irritible bowel syndrom, MS, MD, fybro-myalgia (sp?), lupus, and so on.)

My wife can't read the writing on the wall, or maybe I'm too closed minded. Anyone have any sort of info they can pass along on why this is just another multi-level marketing scheme, ala Amway/Nuskin/Arbonne?

Thanks! Glad to be on the boards.

Ryan

Edmond, OK
Welcome to the forums Ryan.
You probably should check out a reputable link specialising in quackery.
I would suggest quackwatch, skeptdict or similar.
For ML scams there are also some good specific sites.
This one handles both quacks and MLMs - http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/

And/or you might use the search facility here to find threads about similar 'cures' and MLMs.

Some basic questions that any skeptical thinker might ask about a claimed cure for cancer and MS ...

Why is the cure not publicly and widely known and recognised?
Why don't MDs prescribe the cure?
Where is it on the phamacutical benefits list (or your equivalent)?
Has the cure not gone through the normal acreditation that real cures take?
Most importantly, where is the Nobel prize awarded for this cure?

PS, You are being 'open minded', as you seek clarity on extravagant claims.

[rnsmckin]

I will definitely check those links. All the data I've thus encountered only seems to be published by the same folks that are selling this stuff.

The really funny, ironic part (after reading about the placebo, double-blind comment) is the gist of the glyco-nutrients is that "we need all 8 natural occuring sugars in our life for our body's system to function." So they are putting these sugars into a pill and selling them for $100 a month. They are selling sugar pills. They are selling placebos! Ah!

I appreciate all the direction, opinions and the warm welcome.

Ryan
Edmond, OK

[casebro]

The only "essential carbohydrate" may be fructose- it is used to build cellular membranes. Otherewise, most sugars are polysacharides of glucose, frutose, or galactose. The human body breaks the chains into readily accesible molecules for use as FUEL. Excess fuel is turned into GLY-cogen, or tri-GLY-cerides for storage. So I'd say that a couple capsules a day would be insignificant in the 2500 calories total for each day. Don't waste your money, have an apple instead.

[The Don]

It's all true. And here's the site that proves it:

http://www.glycoscience.com/glycoscience/start_frames.wm?FILENAME=G001&MAIN=glyconutritionals&SUB=disease

:mad:

edite to edd

And you know it works when they put this on the site

.Please remember that this information is not intended to substitute for a doctor’s care or for proven therapy.

[The Don]

Here's some information from people with a medical background:

There’s no convincing evidence that these supplements enhance the immune system, let alone fight AIDS, colitis, diabetes, high cholesterol, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, or any other medical condition (http://www.berkeleywellness.com/html/ds/dsGlyconutrients.php)

Glycobiology is a promising avenue of research, to be sure. However, network marketing creates a rah-rah atmosphere, in which a chemical becomes a product and a product then becomes a profit center…and an ideological cause. (http://chetday.com/glyconutrients.htm)

On the other hand....

FOUR OF LAST EIGHT NOBEL PRIZES GIVEN

TO DISCOVERIES IN GLYCONUTRIENTS. (http://people.wwc.edu/student/duffty/):rolleyes:

Which is true apart from the bit about the Nobel prizes

[Ceritus]

My wife has a friend selling glyco nutrients, and the claim for this item is that it cures everything from cancer to depression (including irritible bowel syndrom, MS, MD, fybro-myalgia (sp?), lupus, and so on.)

My wife can't read the writing on the wall, or maybe I'm too closed minded. Anyone have any sort of info they can pass along on why this is just another multi-level marketing scheme, ala Amway/Nuskin/Arbonne?

Thanks! Glad to be on the boards.

Ryan

Edmond, OK


Edmond huh? Altus here! Although I am not native just visiting the AFB until my elistment is over with :)

[0oTITANo0]

Well, sugar is sugar. Sugars are divided up into two types. Simple sugars and Carbohydrates. Both are just chains of a few types of sugar building blocks with the only real diference being that simple sugars are only two or three blocks long and Carbs can be much longer. They are all held together by a chemical bond that is relatively easy to break. So, it does not matter where these sugars come from, an apple, Mountain Dew, bread or a sugar pill that cost $1.50. The sugar you get eating strawberry jam on a warm croissant has the same effect and is about two hundred times more enjoyable.
A convincing argument might sound something like this:
If sugar was a cure for cancer, then radiologists and other cancer doctors would all be in jail for subjecting cancer patients to the excruciatingly painful and apparently unnessecary process of chemotherapy treatment. If sugar were a cure then no one would ever undertake chemotherapy. It is said to feel like hot lead in your bones folowed by extreme nausea. You lose your hair, you feel awful and you look like death warmed over. It is something you survive. It is no joke. Anyone alive who did chemotherapy will tell you that they would be more than a little angry if they found out all they really needed to do was eat a few sugar pills.

[0oTITANo0]

Browser problem Please remove this post.

[0oTITANo0]

Browser Problem. Please remove this post.

[casebro]

So, a chemistry question: How are glycos-amines different from the glycose-ylated proteins that are supposedly the cause of Diabetic side effects? The literature says that the glycose-ylated proteins are NOT boken down in the human body, so clogging micro-vasculature.

[Oldpossum]

Hello all

1st Post here.

First. Glyconutrients is a fraud.

My background, I have a Honors degree in Genetics and Organic Chemistry, I have also done 2nd year Biochemistry at university too.
I worked for a number (5) years as an Analytical Chemist, before becoming a Stores/Purchasing Officer, for a Chemistry Research Institute.
A Position that I still hold.

I have a friend, who brought a 2 cd set about glyconutrients, and I watched the 2nd disk, which proported to be a biochemical explanation, as to why it works.
And I have to say, I've never seen a more blatant, biased, twisting of Bichemical facts. While it did contain a lot of factually correct bichemical information, it was taken out of context, and frankly, I knew as soon as it started creating strawman arguments, that it was Balony.
For if it was the real deal, it would have had no need to resort to Strawmen.
In fact, I don't recall a single real argument, for every argument I saw on ths DVD turned out to be a strawman.

But not to rest there, I went back and hit my old bichemistry texts, and did some further reading on the web, and satisifed myself, that there was nothing in what they are selling. It is literaly a Placebo, and nothing more.

In Summary, there is no such thing as an "Essential" Sugar, we humans have the compleat enzyme toolkit, to convert any sugar to Glucose, and from there, convert glucose into any other sugar required!
And it dosn't stop there! We are capable of synthesising Glucose from Pyruvate, and other simple 2 to 3 carbon compounds. So there is no real need for ANY sugar to be found in our diet. Sugar is simply an easy to metabolise, energy source.

2nd
Glycosamines are simply sugars with an amine group attached to one of the OH groups, usually #5 or #6, whereas a glycose-ylated protein is a protien with a Glucose attached at one end.
As the body regularly attaches and detaches as requred, a variety of sugars to all sorts of proteins, in order to ensure that they get transported to the correct place in the body.
I'd like to know what literature Casebro found a refrence to our inability, to break these glycose-ylated proteins, down, in?
As this seems unlikely, to me.
Possibly the side effect of a disease, that somehow prevents a person from making viable Glucose Cleaving enzymes?
Is Insulin such a Cleaving enzyme?
If so, that would explain why Diabetics suffer from this accumulation of unwanted glycose-ylated proteins then.

[casebro]

Hello all

(snip)
2nd
Glycosamines are simply sugars with an amine group attached to one of the OH groups, usually #5 or #6, whereas a glycose-ylated protein is a protien with a Glucose attached at one end.
As the body regularly attaches and detaches as requred, a variety of sugars to all sorts of proteins, in order to ensure that they get transported to the correct place in the body.
I'd like to know what literature Casebro found a refrence to our inability, to break these glycose-ylated proteins, down, in?
As this seems unlikely, to me.
Possibly the side effect of a disease, that somehow prevents a person from making viable Glucose Cleaving enzymes?
Is Insulin such a Cleaving enzyme?
If so, that would explain why Diabetics suffer from this accumulation of unwanted glycose-ylated proteins then.

I'm diabetic, on insulin. The genetic cause seems to be Mitochondrial Disease- high CK and ALT, myoblobinuria, ragged red fibers, lipid stored in muscle cells, maternal inheritance. I try to stay informed on my diseases. I guess the Diabetologists use an acronym- AGP? Advance Glycation Product or end products? Perhaps a Google search will enlighten us.

Glucose is also known as Dextrose, Fructose is Levulose, the left handed version of Dextrose. I don't think that we can make the left twist, only the right.

[Oldpossum]

Hello Casbro

Sorry to correct you, but Glucose is but one of 8 Sterioisomers of the 6 member D-Aldoses, and Fructose is but one of 4 Sterioisomers of the 6 member D-Ketoses.
And as such we can happily convert one into the other and back.
There are no naturaly occuring L-Aldoses or L-Ketoses, so any such L-Sugars you encounter are man made synthetics.
Because in that you are correct, no living organism posesses enzymes to make, or degrade L-Sugars.

[casebro]

There are many cites for Fructose being known as Levulose, and saying it is the same elements, arranged differently. However, you do have a deeper understanding. I aced high school chemistry, but that was 35 years ago, and pretty basic.

Would ketoacidosis be in any related to burning ketoses? or strictly ketones from fats? If ketoses, would DKA be using membranes, etc, for energy...burning up our bodies when we can't burn glucose?

[Oldpossum]

You are correct in that Glucose and Fructose have exactly the same chemical composition, Both are C6 O6 H12, it's just that the double bond oxygen in glucose is at the begining of the chain of 6 carbons (carbon #1), thus making it a Aldose type sugar, and in Fructose the double bond oxygen, is located one carbon along ( Carbon #2), thus making it a Ketose type sugar.

Ketoacidosis is a symptom of Starvation, or an inability to "Burn" glucose, for energy. In short, Most of the body switches over to a Fat based metabolism, but because of the lack of glucose in the cells, the production of energy from fats is forced to stop when the fats have been broken down to the Acetyl CoA step, of the Citric acid energy production cycle.
Thus the muscle cells accumulate large quantities of Acetyl CoA, that they can do nothing with.
Some Acetyl CoA is taken up by the liver, for the synthesis back into Glucose, but because of the massive ammounts of Acetyl CoA, the body is forced to simply dump it as acetone, and other ketones. (note Ketose is a type of sugar, ketones are not, ketones are simply a chain of carbons and hydrogens, with a double bond oxygen located somewhere along it's length.)

Ususally in Insulin dependant Diabeties, there can be so much Acetyl CoA wandering free in the blood, that it drives the pH of the blood down, and can cause severe dehydration, and even put the person into a coma.
Thus the origin of Ketoacidosis, it's lots of free roaming ketones, and they concequently make the blood acidic, and produce the charisteristic Aceton Breath, of someone starving, or suffering from Ketoacidosis.

OK Back to Insulin, I have re-discovered, that In addition to controlling glucose uptake of the body's cells, it also stimulates production of glycogen in the liver, supresses Gluconeogenesis (production of glucose from Acetyl CoA and other scraps.), and accelerates the production of fatty acids from glucose. Insulin also promotes the uptake of branched chain amino Acids (Valine, Leucine, and Isoleucine), by muscle cells, thus promotes muscle growth. Insulin also inhibits the breakdown of other intracellular protiens.

The last "property" is relevant to my first post.
So perhaps too much insulin = Accumulation of other, unwanted, intracellular proteins?
Or perhaps too litle insulin = Less other intracelular protiens = More synthesis of other protiens to try and make up shortfall = More intracelular protein partial degradation products, to clog things up?
Don't take this last paragraph as definative, I'm just trying to rationalize a link between Isulin and accumulation of unwanted glycose-ylated proteins.

[casebro]

I also wonder if the reason alcohol lowers blood sugar is that the by-products of alcohol metabolism are the same as those of fat metabolism, thereby tricking the body into thinking it has run out of sugar and is burning fat. Doing so by lowering insulin resistance. So, would a cocktail of 5% acetone lower my sugar,as much as a beer would?

Or did somebody here REALLY want to discuss glyco nutrients?

[casebro]

I also wonder if type II diabetes wouldn't be self regulating. Since high sugars get urinated out, causing weight loss, and weight loss is a 'cure' for type II....and most of the detrimental effects of type II are very long term, is the disease caused by the treatment? Or possibly some of the genetic branchs of the disease?

I can't wait for pharmacocenetics to get going. With 40 different genes linked to diabetes, I think 40 different treatments are in order. Or maybe even some non-treatment -- in some types, it seems fairly inocuous. (not mine) Or in other types, perhaps Gluco-nutrients would help?

[Oldpossum]

DON'T DRINK ANY ACETONE

Acetone is Toxic!

While I have no idea on how alcohol affects blood sugar, I'd confidently predict that drinking any concentration of acetone will do no good whatsoever! Especially if your body is already labouring to expell acetone, created from starvation/ketoacidosis conditions.
Remember, to our bodies, acetone is a waste product, like urine, or CO2.

And no, Glyco-nutriens will not help either! It is for all practical purposes, a very expensive sugar pill, and in the case of a diabetic, I would have thought that the last thing you needed to do, would be to load up your system with more sugar.... (That's assuming you have a high/normal blood sugar already, and if your blood sugar is low, there are far cheaper ways, of getting a sugar hit, like sucking a boiled sweet, or drink some cordial/softdrink. But I'm sure you know this already.:) )

I'll repeate. We already posess the ability to interconvert any D-sugar into any other D-sugar, so there is no dietry/health benefit to be had, in taking these Glyco-nutrients, they do nothing except perhaps give you a sugar hit, which you can easilly get far more cheaply by just drinking, for example, a nice hot cup of sweet tea, or a can of softdrink.