Talk:Beta-glucan

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fungi High‑importance Food and drink Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here . Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cant dietary fibers lower cholesterol? If so then I was assuming that that meant there was fiber coursing through peoples blood vessels. Please clarify. Dracoshempemporium (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{

Akramiene, D. K. (2007). "Effects of beta-glucans on the immune system" (Free full text). Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania). 43 (8): 597–606.

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Beta Glucan is marketed on a lot of places as THE immune booster. It is also mentioned that there are no side effects from a usage as a supplement even for people suffering from autoimmune diseases, even seen as an immuno-modulator to ease such problems However that statements can not be correct as seen below.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20457757

"In genetically autoimmune-prone SKG mice, administration of mannan or beta-glucan, both of which activate serum complement, evoked Th17 cell-mediated chronic autoimmune arthritis"

This is very important and it should be mentioned in order to warn autoimmune sufferers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlperKoeker (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm I would question, are the SKG mice a type of GMO mouse then? because a GMO mouse may react differently than a non GMO mouse or a human for that matter. Even between two humans there could be differences. I think its fair to say that not all auto-immune cases are the same.

Personally I'm pretty confused because the article seems to state that beta glucans may be of some benefit in allergic rhinitis and arthritis. Are allergic rhinitis and arthritis not sometimes symptoms of auto-immune disorders? It looks like they can lower pro-inflammatory cytokines and fight oxidative stress. Can oxidative stress be caused by the chemicals our bodies use to fight infections? such as peroxide? I think that some immune cells use hydrogen peroxide as a weapon or manufacture it in some way.

In my case I have asthma and allergies and came here trying to ascertain if medicinal mushrooms might be of any benefit or harm. I have been taking Chaga or Reishi or cordyceps for a while and I think that I like them. Is it all just a big placebo effect? I have allergies myself so what gives?

Also I have a friend who has lupus and Im confused about whether they could take mushrooms or not? Natural health aficionados seem to say that mushrooms modulate the immune system. I know that glucans can make the body recognize things as non-self but is there anything in mushrooms that makes the body recognize cells AS self? Do the glucans OPTIMIZE the immune system or do they simply raise it in a haphazard manner with no differentiation between self and non-self cells.

I don't see any evidence based on placebo controlled double blind studies in non-GMO humans who Im sure have one of the most complex immune systems in the world. so I really think that the jury is still out and pretty hung on this one. Because of proposed benefit to allergic rhinitis and arthritis I see some very contradictory evidence here. Even on webMD.com they state in relation to cordyceps "Cordyceps" MIGHT "cause the immune system to become more active. This" COULD "increase the symptoms of auto-immune diseases." It seems like ther is this big IF factor. With the experts being unsure what the effects may be. I would say that it probably wont be that bad if you start with just a microgram or two.

Please contact me personally if anyone has any information that may be helpful to my questions. Also I do not feel that the article is too technical or that it contains too many intricacies that only appeal to a small portion of readers. It is what more technical and intricate perhaps I would now know what I am talking about and would not be potentially poisoning my neighbor or myself who have lupus and asthma respectively in the hopes that it may be something of benefit. It may depend on the person how their body will react to the substance. For example, some people are allergic to ragweed and others are not. Can we really say that beta glucans will have the same effect on every individual when there are so many different types of human immune systems and each one of us is unique? please clarify. a warning about auto immune diseases is fine but a CLARIFICATION would be LEAGUES better. Dracoshempemporium (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just read on this article that beta-glucans might lower cytokines but on the agaricus blazei article it says that those mushrooms might raise cytokines. Confusion confusion and MORE CONFUSION lol Dracoshempemporium (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15536392
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17895634
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012169/

Petergstrom (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Thanks, that makes sense.Petergstrom (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The article contained the following sentence: "Mushroom β-glucans,

--138.51.125.28 (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]