Talk:Flavonoid/Archive 1

Cleaned up
Cleaned up, but still needs some work! LoopZilla 09:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

EGCG
with all the media hype there has been, i actually expected this to get its own article. despite that, even though EGCG redirects here it only gets a passing mention and no discussion of the validity of it being used to reduce weight. can anyone add to this? -Zappernapper 12:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC) corrected to catechin MatthewEHarbowy 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Template help
If anyone has time, the Flavonoids would really benefit from your expertise. Thanks! :) Willow 19:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Linus Pauling Institute Study Citation Done Correctly
I am doing a lot of flavonoid-based research and ran into this article. The last talkpage entry above here is citing a press release instead of the real study. I would have edited the page directly but I can't figure out how to insert the citation. I think the page is screwed up somehow - all it says under references is. Anywho, if someone more wiki-knowledgeable than I wants to update the 2nd citation it should read:

Lotito SB; Frei B. Consumption of flavonoid-rich foods and increased plasma antioxidant capacity in humans: Cause, consequence, or epiphenomenon? Free Radical Biology & Medicine. 2006 December 15; 41(12): 1727-1746. PMID: 17157175 --Staypuftman 20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Little or no antioxidant value from flavonoids
New research from the Linus Pauling Institute should be used to update this article. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-03-06 14:19Z
 * done. 24.205.227.69 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought no single study, no matter how prestigious, changes our understanding of science; at the very least, replication is required to ensure that the results are generalizable and not the result of factors peculiar to that study. Ileanadu (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)ileanadu

Silymarin
It is worth including the important flavonoid silymarin from the plant milk thistle (Silybum marianum), which has significant health benefits.

SEE: http://www.google.com/search?q=flavonoid+Silymarin+milk+thistle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgao (talk • contribs) 05:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wine over grapejuice??
I dont have the article to site at the moment, but the research clearly shows that drinking grape juice has just as much benefit since 'Grape skins contain significant amounts of flavonoids'. The alchohol has significant negative effects in itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.193.157 (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Limbrel for Osteo-Arthritis
suggestion for an addition to wikipedia: Limbrel (i dont feel qualified to write it up; im just a patient, not a doctor)

description lifted from limbrel.com states:

"What is Limbrel? Limbrel is the first prescription product developed and formulated specifically to safely meet the distinctive nutritional requirements of patients with osteoarthritis through dual inhibition (COX + LOX) of arachidonic acid metabolization and anti-oxidant action rather than COX-2 selective inhibition. Clinical studies have shown Limbrel to be effective in safely managing the unique nutritional needs of osteoarthritis with side effects comparable to placebo.

"Limbrel contains flavocoxid, a proprietary blend of natural ingredients from phytochemical food source materials. Flavocoxid is comprised primarily of the flavonoids such as baicalin and catechin. These or similar ingredients can be found in common foods such as soy, peanuts, cauliflower, kale, apples, apricots, cocoa and green tea. The fact that these and similar ingredients have been widely researched and used in medicinal products in other countries also supports biacalin and catechin’s safety and effectiveness. Limbrel provides levels of these flavonoids needed to meet the distinctive nutritional requirements of people with osteoarthritis and cannot be obtained through simply changing the diet.

"Because Limbrel’s ingredients have been derived from natural plant sources, they are not synthetic or artificial. Limbrel is manufactured according to FDA (Food and Drug Administration) current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) for prescription drugs.

"FDA regulations require that Limbrel be used only under a physician’s supervision and therefore, it is available by prescription only."

source: http://www.limbrel.com/limbrel.php

dardura108 19:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

mechanism
Just removed from lead the following claim:


 * However, it is now known that the health benefits they provide against cancer and heart disease are the result of other mechanisms.

The statement makes it appear as though clear and conclusive evidence has been obtained and that scientific debate on the issue is over. The mechanisms of these compounds are still under intense study, they can't be classed all together like this, and there is still a lot of controversy. The statement is simply too strong. If someone feels like adding it back, try to recast the sentence so it's not so misleading. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Molecular structure of flavone is incorrect
It appears that the molecular structure of flavone is incorrect. There should be a carboxylic group in position 4 (as in pyrone). Could someone please check this and change the molecular structure if he/she knows how to do that?
 * You are right. Actually that is the structure of 2-phenylbenzopyran

I'm not sure if this is the place to add comments, or if it preferred for EDITING alone. Some guidance on your preferences could be helpful.

Directly related to the comment above is mine: the structure on this page for isoflavonoid is incorrect. The structure is not for a ketone, as described in the article. I believe the correct structure is for 3-phenylchromone. Thus, carbonyl group at position 4 and an unsaturated 2,3 bond in the benzopyran ring would correct the structure. I've taken most of my information from my Merck Index. Please let me know if I've concluded improperly. Bradshej (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

mention if related to flavors
Flavonoid sounds related to the word 'flavor', say if and how.



This doesn't seem to be true. Some quick searches on Google show that flavonoids are responsible for yellow, orange, and red coloring in some plants ; the words flavone and flavonoid come from the Latin flavus, generally translated as "yellow". Flavor, on the other hand, comes from the Latin flator.
 * Then there ought to be some mention of where the word "FLAVOnoid" DOES come from.--Keeves (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved from article
I have removed the following comment from the Quercetin section of the article:
 * Please note the above comments on the article appear inaccurate. I have tried to locate the study that shows "people who ate quercetin-rich foods at least four times a week, on average, were 51% less likely to have lung cancer than those who ate none" but as far as I can tell, no such study exists. There are other articles on the internet claiming the same fact, but none link to ANY study or scientific journal I can find. As far as the american cancer society is concerned, there are no conclusive studies done on the topic. I quote "While some early lab results appear promising, as of yet there is no reliable clinical evidence that quercetin can prevent or treat cancer in humans." - you can read the full article here : http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_Quercetin.asp . As far as I can tell, the only sites that appear to brashly claim the magical healing properties of quercetin are sites such as "alternativehealing.org" hardly a proven reliable source of medical claims. Please be aware that this article may have been modified by people within the nutrician industry ie. people without doctorates and an interest in promoting alternative medicine. Remember that anyone can call themselves a nutritionalist without any form of qualification. I would suggest that either the sources for the studies above are found and placed in the "citation needed" section or this section is removed altogether.

-- Ed (Edgar181) 11:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed this line:

It may also help to prevent some types of cancer, however currently there is more research needed in this area.

to this line:

It may also help to prevent some types of chronic diseases. There is evidence that asthma, lung cancer and breast cancer are lower among people that consume higher dietary levels of quercetin.

Pbecker56 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

claims of antimicrobial activity
Have corrected this section. There was one reference attached, and it only concerned a single in vitro study, hardly enough to generalise so much. I have amended the text to reflect this. Silasmellor (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Effects on Vitamin C asorbtion
I would like to add this information, does anyone object?

In one study, bioflavonoids do not increase the bioavailability or efficacy of vitamin C. More research is needed to determine the significance of these findings. Sources: http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminC/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8021423

Bentford (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

flavonoids as antibiotics
Several sources seem to proclaim flavonoids as having antibiotic properties. Can anyone confirm and add to the article? Chilledsunshine 07:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just about anything at a sufficient concentration has antibacterial properties =) However, I don't think there's any evidence of any practical value of flavonoids as antibiotics. -Techelf 09:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Antibiotic" isn't really the ideal term. An antibiotic, by technical definition, is a compound secreted by a microorganism that inhibits the growth of or kills other microorganisms. Flavonoids are derived from plants, not microorganisms (unless you include microorganisms that have been genetically engineered to synthesise flavonoids!). To get back to Chilledsunshine's question though, flavonoids do have activity against bacterial pathogens. They also have antiviral and antifungal activity (though this is less well characterised). Reference to this antimicrobial activity is made in the section 'Potential salutary effects on human health'. Microbiology enthusiast — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microbiology enthusiast (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Chilledsunshine and Techelf!
"Several sources seem to proclaim flavonoids as having antibiotic properties. Can anyone confirm and add to the article? Chilledsunshine 07:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Just about anything at a sufficient concentration has antibacterial properties =) However, I don't think there's any evidence of any practical value of flavonoids as antibiotics. -Techelf 09:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC) "

Chilledsunshine is right, Techelf you are wrong. Find some articles (on sciencedirect or or google scholar or even simlpy google) about plants and biotic stress if you are curious. Plants produce flavonoids like pisatin (produced by peas), phaseolin (by beans) (etc) when being attacked by pathogen bacteria. Just google these two substances, you might find even more, and you can get more detailed description of the genetics, signallisation processes etc behind! Both of you have fun! Myrmeleon formicarius (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why am I reading this session and writing, asking silly questions and commenting here???
Hello, Authors of this article! I'm preparing for a plant stress physiology exam, and tried to look up something about flavonoids (pisatin, phaseolin and similar ones), (about other molecules i wanted to chek i have given up all hopes :P) and what do i see? Nothing about their antibiotic properties, roles in pathogen induced plant stress response, nothing about why they appeared in nature (maybe i should read the article more thoroughly?) and I really miss it! This article needs attention from some biologists, biochemists and especially plant specialists!!!! I know this sounds like a very specific field, but it is important, and should be mentionned here, for example because that's how these molecules evolved. Sorry, before asking why don't I do it myself right away: i must take this exam first ;). And if there is anyone who is better at this subject, it should be his/her job. Thanks (in advance) for reading, answering and taking actionMyrmeleon formicarius (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

lol
i have read the comments again. please, someone, rewrite this article or brush it up, plaese, please! somebody, do something! if noone will, i may try, but i don't want to add anything more than what i started to ask about. i'm not a wiki expert. neither an expert of flavonoids.Myrmeleon formicarius (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been studying flavonoids for the last 2 years and even before I started I remember reading this article back then and thinking it was a bit of a mess. There's a lot of information that is either innaccurate, repeated or in general just missing, so I will try and take some time to give the article a rewrite. In terms of plant bioactives, flavonoids are one of the most well-studied chemical classes, and I think this article really needs to reflect the wealth of information that has been uncovered on them in the last 20 years. Markwdck (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds warranted, ambitious and would probably help article quality but keep in mind that all of the positive research to date hinting at efficacy of flavonoids against diseases is considered preliminary, does not meet totality of evidence for conclusions about human benefit, and remains non-approved by any major regulatory authority in the world (FDA or EFSA chief among them).--Zefr (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential references
Moved from Further reading: --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nijveldt, R.J. “Flavonoids: a review of probable mechanisms of action and potential applications”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2001),74(4):418-425.
 * Prasad, S. et al. “Targeting Inflammatory Pathways by Flavonoids for Prevention and Treatment of Cancer”, Planta Medica (2010),76(11):1044-1063.

Thank you for your opinion and suggestion.

These reviews are meant for readers who would like to delve deeper into the subject. The reviews are placed in the “further reading” – section because the Wikipedia guideline for this section read: “… publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. The Further reading section (…) should normally not duplicate the content of the References section” (WP:FURTHER).

The Wikipedia content guideline for “Identifying reliable sources (medicine)” (WP:MEDRS) read: “It is usually best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible.”

The reviews in question reflect the latest research (last 10 years) in the field, they are scholarly and peer-reviewed, and they are published in academic journals. Granateple (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Just Cocoa as flavonoid source?
Dark chocolate is touted as an excellent source of flavonoids as long as it is over 70-75% cocoa. I would like to see clarification on just Cocoa itself as a soure or clarification as to why it may not be if that is the case.

check for a possiblle mistake, pls
In the paragraph "Proanthocyanidins", it says about OPCs' "decreasing capillary permeability and fragility". I think there may be an error - they increase capillary permeability and decrease fragility. I am not into Medicine, but what is there right now doesn't sound right. Right? — Preceding undated comment added May 10, 2006‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.137.238 (talk • contribs)

Pharmaceutical Importance of Quercetin
If Quercetin can inhibit the reverse transcriptase activity ,doesn't that mean it can be effective against AIDS? Akshaysrinivasan 10:03 ,7 February 2007 (IST)

What destroys flavonoids?
I keep looking and I can't find an answer. Maybe someone who works on this article can track it down. For example, does cooking or freezing or drying destroy flavonoids? Thanks in advance. jayoval (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's one on convection and microwave-vacuum drying. The citations listed on the right provide related articles. --Zefr (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

'Potential anticancer activity' versus 'Carcinopreventive &/or carcinogenic activities' as a sub-heading
Hi Zefr,

Two weeks ago (30th October 2013), you deleted the following statement from the flavonoid page.... "Some preliminary research findings (published in the biomedical literature), together with their limitations, are described below. Readers are reminded that the following information represents preliminary research and does not constitute medical advice."

Today, you changed... "Research: Carinopreventive and/or carcinogenic activities" to "Research: Potential anticancer activity" on the grounds that you are simplifying the subtitle to represent the uncertain status of flavonoid research.

If you are concerned about the uncertain status of flavonoid research, why did you delete the sentences "Some preliminary research findings (published in the biomedical literature), together with their limitations, are described below. Readers are reminded that the following information represents preliminary research and does not constitute medical advice"?

Also, please note that the research described in this section is not investigating the ability of flavonoids to inhibit the growth of or kill cancer cells ie. it is not investigating "anticancer activity". The research described is investigating the ability of flavonoids to prevent the development of and/or cause cancer ie. "carcinopreventive and/or carcinogenic activities". "Anticancer activity" and "Carcinopreventive activity" are not the same thing. "Anticancer activity" and "Carcinogenic activity" are not the same thing.

What gives? I wikified the terms "carcinopreventive" and "carcinogenic" so that readers would be able to look them up if they didn't understand them. I put "At the current time, neither the FDA nor the EFSA have approved any health claim for flavonoids, or approved any flavonoids as pharmaceutical drugs" in boldface type so that readers can plainly see that there are no approved health claims for flavonoids. The section you edited is plainly labelled "Research" and the limitations of the studies are clearly stated in the text. Can you please clarify the rationale for your recent changes?

Thanks,

Lialono (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

PS. Ultimately, I would like this article to have some unity. This means deciding on a certain format for subheadings and using that format uniformly, not having "Local antioxidant activity", "Systemic antioxidant activity", "Antibacterial activity" followed by "Potential... ...activity". If you're not happy with the subheadings, then please explain why and suggest an alternative format that can be applied uniformly to the other subheadings in this section.


 * I edit the Flavonoid article to make a complex science with no confirmed health evidence more readable and educational to a general non-scientific user. My guide, which I recommend you review, is WP:MOS where plain English is encouraged. For example, "carcinopreventive" is not a word (although "carcinogenic" is in common use among scientists, it is not a good word for general users); suggesting preventive activity is also a misleading exaggeration. As a scientist, I know what is intended by your subtitle but I would never use that word and neither would my faculty colleagues or graduate students.
 * The introductory disclaimer you used previously is contrary to WP:MOS and was didactic and unnecessary. Let's be open to rigorous repetitive editing to make the Article better.
 * Antioxidant and antibacterial activities of flavonoids can be shown adequately in vitro, so those subtitles are ok. Having a subtitle conveying anything suggestive of preventive or inhibitory activity of cancer in vivo is misleading, as proof of that will take decades to build adequately for scientific acceptance. There is no purpose served in misleading the common user by a suggestive subtitle at this early stage of research, according to WP:MOS. --Zefr (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Zefr,


 * You've described the subheading I used as "misleading", "suggestive", and "misleading exagerration". That's a fairly serious allegation, so let's examine the facts.  The heading for the section in which these subheadings are found is "Research".  Beneath this heading are the subheadings "In vitro activities", "Local antioxidant activity", "Systemic antioxidant activity", "Carcinopreventive &/or carcinogenic activities", and "Antibacterial activities".  As subheadings of the main heading "Research", these can be read as "Research into in vitro activities", "Research into local antioxidant activity" etc.


 * Now, let's say for the sake of argument that someone reading the article does not pick up on the fact that these are subheadings of the main heading "Research". Let's also say for the sake of argument that they fail to read the statements "At the current time, neither the FDA nor the EFSA have approved any health claim for flavonoids, or approved any flavonoids as pharmaceutical drugs" or indeed "Before any chemical compound can be approved as a pharmaceutical drug or any food can be labelled with a health claim, it must undergo extensive in vitro, in vivo, and clinical testing to confirm both safety and efficacy".  Are you seriously suggesting that these people will rush out and buy flavonoid supplements?  If you opened a health food shop with something labelled "This prevents cancer &/or causes cancer", do you really think people would buy it?


 * Now let us turn to your edit. You've changed the subheading to "Potential anticancer activity".  By adding the word "Potential" to this sub-heading and not the others, you've inferred that the other activities (including "Systemic antioxidant activity") are not potential but semi-accepted/proven.  Is systemic antioxidant activity semi-accepted/proven?  No, it's not.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  Research suggests that flavonoids have negligible systemic antioxidant activity.  Also, as I stated in my first post, you cannot replace the words "carcinopreventive" and "carcinogenic" with "anticancer".  These are three completely different types of activity.


 * Now, let's say (again) for the sake of argument that someone reading the article doesn't pick up on the fact that these are subheadings of the main heading "Research" and they miss the two earlier statements about the FDA, EFSA, safety, and efficacy. Having read that flavonoids have "Potential anticancer activity", are they likely to start buying flavonoid supplements?  Well, if you've ever had a friend or family member develop cancer, you will know that they will try anything and everything to regain their health.  In short, I would say it is your edit, not mine, which is misleading and suggestive.


 * Moving onto your next point, you state that you edit to make "complex science... ...more readable and educational to a general non-scientific user" and that the word "carcinogenic" is not suitable for general users. Frankly, I find this really condescending.  This is not the 1940s.  The word "carcinogenic" is comprehensible to more than just the academic elite.  It's certainly in more widespread use than words like "plant secondary metabolites" or "polyphenol compounds" featured in this article's opening paragraph.  If you do a quick google search of the word "carcinopreventive", you will find that it does indeed exist.  I would agree that it is not in common use, but (as with the word "carcinogenic") I created a link to the Wikipedia page on "Anticarcinogens/Carcinopreventive agents" for any users who didn't understand it.


 * Moving on from the issue of whether or not words like "carcinogenic" are understandable to the general user (an argument which cannot readily be resolved without conducting some sort of poll), I would like to reiterate my previous comments to you (two weeks ago) about representing your sources accurately. If the source material is describing research into activity A and research into activity B, you do not have the right to misrepresent the source by saying that it describes research into activity C.  "Anticancer activity" does not mean the same thing as "Carcinopreventive activity" and "Carcinogenic activity".


 * Thank you for your time.


 * Lialono (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * PS. I propose that the five subheadings in the "Research" section are changed to the format "Investigation into... ...activity" eg. "Investigation into local antioxidant activity". I further propose that "anticancer activity" is reverted to "carcinopreventive &/or carcinogenic activites".  If these proposals are not to your satisfaction (or the satisfaction of other editors of this page), I invite you to offer alternative suggestions.

I suggest revising the main section heading to be 'Basic research'. We could consider the following subheadings as legitimate basic research areas of the major research directions while allowing future additions and expansion according to disease the research field pursues.


 * In vitro
 * In vivo
 * Inflammation (more than 2600 Pubmed citations as a probable common origin for most diseases; If agreed here on Talk, I will write a lay-friendly summary)
 * Cancer
 * Bacterial infections
 * Cardiovascular diseases (more than 5000 Pubmed citations; If agreed here on Talk, I will write a lay-friendly summary)
 * etc.

--Zefr (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Zefr,


 * The terms "in vitro", "in vivo", and "clinical study" are clearly defined, unambiguous, and used in a consistent way across the different scientific disciplines. Terms like "pure research", "basic research", "applied research", and "translational research" are less clearly defined and are used in different ways by different disciplines.  Even if this wasn't the case, I'm not sure how their inclusion in the article would improve its clarity or readability.  I have already stated in the 'Salutary effects on human health' section that before any chemical compound can be approved as a pharmaceutical drug or any food can be labelled with a health claim, "it must undergo extensive in vitro, in vivo, and clinical testing to confirm both safety and efficacy".  I've also clearly stated the limitations of the different research findings in each of the 'Research' sub-sections eg. "In the absence of any additional in vivo data, it is impossible to say if these findings are generalizable to all flavonoids" and "without any clinical studies, it is impossible to say if the antioxidant activity of grape-seed flavonoids offers any protection against oxidative stress in the human gastrointestinal tract".  Perhaps, you can explain the benefit of adding a term like "Basic research" to the article.  Am I missing something?


 * I'm not sure about separating the information on in vivo studies and clinical studies. The reason I created a separate "In vitro studies" sub-section (rather than having individual sub-sections on each activity) was that (a) there are so many reported in vitro activities and (b) so very few of the in vitro activities have been investigated in vivo.  I thought it would have looked stupid if there were ten or more 1-sentence-long sub-sections.  The only reason I can think of for separating the in vivo and clinical study informaton is the possibility that users will confuse the two.  Given that the names of the animal models are stated and both the names of the animals and the words "in vivo" are wikified (eg. "Flavonoid-rich grape-seed extract has been shown to have antioxidant activity in in vivo studies with rats, protecting their gastrointestinal mucosa against the reactive oxygen species generated by acute and chronic stress"), I would have thought that unlikely.  Was this your thinking behind separation of the two types of information or is there another reason that I'm missing?


 * Thanks,


 * Lialono (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Lialono -- I feel we are on the same page for organizing and naming the section and subheadings and providing content. I chose basic research because it is a wiki article. I proposed the subheadings above because they are all topics of basic research and use simple English. I maintain 'carcinopreventive' is awkward English likely not readily understood by the common user and too suggestive of benefit. Let's just proceed, as I don't think there will be major differences and repetitive editing is good for the general state of the Article. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes in sub-headings and writing style
Hi Zefr,

I think you recent edits, for the most part, are extremely informative and look really good. Regarding the sub-headings, my personal preference would have been to state the type of activity being investigated rather than the disease state (please see below for example). By stating the disease state, it almost looks like these are indications for increased dietary flavonoid intake rather than areas of ongoing research. Also, it's not possible to apply your format to all the sub-sections eg. antioxidant activity. On the other hand, your approach does allow much more simple language to be used.
 * Antioxidant activity
 * Anti-inflammatory activity
 * Carcinopreventive and/or carcinogenic activity
 * Vasoprotective activity
 * Antibacterial activity

Regarding writing style, I had thought the use of precise terms like "in vitro", "in vivo", and "clinical study" (introduced in the 'Salutary effects on human health' section) would have been preferable to terms like "preliminary research" as they are less open to misinterpretation/misrepresentation. I'd also been including details of the limitations of the different studies, in the hope that this would encourage future contributors to be more responsible in the way they presented information (ultimately resulting in an article which required less monitoring). Perhaps this writing style, if adopted throughout the 'Research' section, would have become repetitive and boring though. I don't know.

At this point, I think any disagreements between us are just a matter of personal preference. You've been editing this article for a lot longer than I have, so I'll go along with whatever sub-headings and writing style you see fit. One way or another, I've spent much longer on this Wikipedia page than I ever intended. When time permits, I'll focus my efforts on less controversial articles.

Thanks,

Lialono (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Homoisoflavinoids
There is a red link from common purslane to 'homoisoflavinoid'. Could someone give it a home here? --88.97.11.54 (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Human Health
A recently completed study of nearly 98,500 participants found that flavonoids protect against, and reduce the risk of dying from, cardiovascular disease. Dick Kimball (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion in this section about the FDA and their approval process for health claims is superfluous to the article. I suggest that it be removed, since this is an article on flavonoids--not an article on the FDA approval process. Beanstash (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Which Flavonoids are HydroPhilic = Water soluble, Which ones are LipoPhilic = Fat Soluble?
128.214.78.190 (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As polyphenols, flavonoids are extracted industrially from source material (leaves, seeds, fruit pulp) simply using hot water as the solvent, indicating the flavonoid class is mostly (entirely?) water-soluble. A Google or pubmed.gov search for "flavonoids water solubility" reveals research literature describing this, whereas searching for "lipid solubility" retrieves few. The carotenoid class of compounds from plants, such as beta-carotene and lycopene, are the main fat-soluble plant compounds. --Zefr (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Once called vitamin P but later reclassified
vitamin says "Vitamin P	Flavonoids	No longer classified as a vitamin" with no further explanation. Here or there can we give some history on this ? Why/when were they proposed, and why weren't or aren't they accepted as a vitamin ? May be better at vitamin ? ...vitamin P says "from the mid-1930s to early 1950s." (now added to vitamin), but perhaps it could be expanded and clarified here, eg what have they been reclassified as (that excludes them being a vitamin) ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Mushrooms do not contains flavonoids
The Oregon´s webpage do not contains any reference about mushroom flavonoids or even the word "mushroom" that sustains the sentence. The current consensus is that mushrooms do not contains flavonoids.

I would like to add this sentence to the page: However, the research of Gil-Ramírez et al. 2016 claim that mushrooms do not produce flavonoids