Talk:Bioactive compound

Copyright Violation and Redirect
Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a clear copyright violation for revision 1027824259. I therefore support the current redirect. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Despite the restoration of the page, the material is still a copyright violation, mainly from and . Bibeyjj (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

LPI reviews
The numerous reviews published by the Linus Pauling Institute of Oregon State University are the best-available, rigorously-sourced, and plainly written educational materials on individual nutrients and phytochemicals. According to the LPI website, each article is written, updated, and reviewed by academic biochemists and nutrition experts holding national funding sources and NIH advisory positions. The articles are used in every Wikipedia article on individual nutrients, or should be, if missing. LPI articles on dietary factors and phytochemicals are useful for a vague topic like "bioactive compounds", which - by definition - have bioactivity demonstrated only in test tubes, cultures or preliminary human research. By WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8, the LPI reviews write for the lay reader, which is necessary for poorly understood, complex topics, yet are the most complete, well-sourced and up-to-date reviews for many of the phytochemicals represented in this article. If there are better, clearer reviews available, we should use them. But the topic of 'bioactive compounds' is so vague and difficult to study in human diets, we are unlikely to find them. Zefr (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The LPI articles appear to be outdated - the literature cited is old and does not reflect developments of the last decade. For example, a "recent meta-analysis" is from 2014 []. Or it refers to the 2012 version of a Cochrane Review (Ried, 2012) which has been updated since. It is also very difficult to assess any potential conflicts of interest as there is no easy access to a list of funders.
 * Bioactive compounds are not necessarily vague - the NIH has a very clear definition and this is used in literature. There is fairly good research on bioactive compounds in humans in the publications quoted in the text (e.g. Yetley, Yates or Lupton and references therein, or the development of DRIs for dietary fibre). It is not difficult to study and there are criteria that are generally recognised to establish causality between intake and effect (Bradford Hill criteria). Ggux (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Bioactives in dietary guidelines
There is an ongoing discussion for more than a decade whether to expand dietary recommendations beyond essential nutrients to 'bioactives'. There are a lot of hurdles to overcome before this happens (established impact on health, safety etc), but the discussion undeniably takes places, This paper [] summarises the current state of the discussion well, and also the time scale of the discussion. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to mention that such discussions are ongoing as it places the concept of 'bioactives' more appropriately - but also makes it clear that there are currently no recommendation. Whether or not individual compounds/classes should be mentioned is a different question and it might be more appropriate to do so at the respective entries. Ggux (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)