Talk:Protandim/Archives/2009/July

Details
I think that much of this article goes into far too much detail. Additionally, I think that some of the details go beyond "providing context" into "doing my own original analysis of the study". One of the problems with providing too much detail is that it's not encyclopedic. Another problem is that it makes the details seem particularly important, and thereby gives improper weight to them.

You can see what I did to the "Side effects" section to reduce this problem. Would someone else like to take a stab at another section? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I know my writing style tends to be rather wordy. However, uric acid is an issue that more than one blogger has commented on. They generally say something like, "Oh dear, this is bad. could lead to gout, etc." One misquoted the number. None of them looked at the statistical aspect of the number which is how one tries to systematically evaluate its significance. Problem is: I still don't know exactly what this number means. If I ever find out, maybe some explanation can be included. My rationale in this article:  Protandim is controversial. Some people think its wonderful. Others think its a complete fraud. In fact, its somewhere in between. The concept may have merit but validation is still very preliminary. A lot of what I included is sort of responding to issues that have been raised by various bloggers and forum posts. I hope someone with a particular question will see the article and think, "good, here's a sensible, vetted, documented answer to my question." Is that the right emphasis for a controversial topic?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropy7 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's at least not a "bad" emphasis for a controversial topic.
 * I'm curious how you know that "In fact, it's somewhere in between." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is "somewhere in between" in this sense: It appears to have undergone a certain amount of fairly competent evaluation. Yet it has been promoted as a sort of "youth pill". There is evidence that suggests this might be the case, but that needs to be better verified.


 * There was a short section in the "clinical study" section about the background of the concept that increased expression of genes coding for catalase and SOD increases life span in various species. Maybe "clinical study" section is not the best place for this information. However, skeptics have asked this question: "If it increases catalase and SOD levels, so what?" This concept has a history going back as far as 1993 in the literature. Omitting this detail may leave the reader with the impression that the conceptual basis of Protandim has no context or precedent, which is incorrect.


 * I notice it says that "nine people appear to have dropped out of the study", in the description of the clinical study. That is speculating. Since they didn't have a separate control group, they might have taken extra samples to establish a better baseline. The report doesn't say why the "before" group is larger than the "after" group, but there could be various reasons other than subjects dropping out of the study. Besides that, 20 took a full dose, 4 took a half dose, that makes 24. 29 - 24 = 5, not 9. Why they gave only 4 people a half dose is anyones guess since the data set is too small to be statistically significant.(67.176.199.104 (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC))


 * The study specifically says 29 in the first group, and then reports results from just 20 of them. It also specifically says that the four people getting the half-dose were not in the first 29.  29+4=33 people tested at some point during this study.  "Dropping out" is a broad term that does not imply anything bad in a clinical trial, but the number of people lost to follow up is important to report.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The report states: "Blood samples were analyzed from these 29 subjects before any supplementation with Protandim to establish the age-related increase in lipid peroxidation. Subsequently, subjects were assigned to either of two groups." To me, that seems to say that group 1 and group 2 were selected from a pool of 29 subjects. Five subjects were not assigned to either pool for reasons unspecified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropy7 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, look at Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C on page 343. They show 29 data points, the total pool of test subjects. If they had 33 test subjects, why wouldn't they have 33 data points? It would provide a better correlation.(Entropy7 (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC))


 * Group 2 is described as: "Group 2 consisted of 4 additional participants who received one-half as much Protandim". What additional information corroborates this to mean, in addition to the first 29? The process of a study often involves creating a pool of qualified subjects, (physicals, medical histories, doctor's approvals etc.) The report seems to say that this pool was composed of 29 individuals.(Entropy7 (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I interpret "additional" as meaning that you have to use addition to arrive at the answer: 29 original people + 4 additional people.  That's 33 people.  It's not logical to assume that "additional" people are included in the original group.  They would not be "additional" people in that case.
 * Their rationale for excluding them from this or that graph is unimportant: they specifically label them as "additional" people, so we must report them as "additional", and not as "already included" people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation. And your interpretation seems to hinge on the meaning of a single word which may not be as significant as you think. The quality of the writing of the report could be better and it makes various statements that are rather ambiguous. Perhaps we just restrict the article to facts that are not as ambiguous? (Entropy7 (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC))

Another option: get a second opinion. Somebody, click the link on reference 4. That goes to pdf file of the report. Go to page 342, second column, second paragraph down from the subheading "Methods and material". Read the entire paragraph carefully. Also, note the structure of the paragraph. The question: Is group 2 taken from the pool of 29 subjects or not? (Entropy7 (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC))

Stoichiometric
I've removed "stoichiometric" from the lead as this is an odd statement that would need a good source. I'm skeptical as to if they actually make this claim, since it would ignore the large number of enzymes that recycle antioxidant metabolites (such as dehydroascorbate reductase and glutathione reductase), which would make any statement about these being "stochiometric" metabolites utterly meaningless. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "stoichiometric" is used in the human study to refer to antioxidants that act independently of enzymatic mediation. They are used up by reaction reactive oxygen species in a manner that is stoichiometric. (Entropy7 (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC))
 * And then, after they are oxidised, they are reduced by enzyme systems. See the Glutathione-ascorbate cycle for example. I can't think of any intracellular antioxidant that is not recycled in this way. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is pretty common in altmed: you dress up normal behavior with science-y sounding terms so that it seems like the "drug" is doing something special.  I support the removal as misleading readers by not providing adequate context.
 * BTW, Tim, would you like to take a look at the study and offer a third opinion about whether Group 1, with 29 participants, and a separate Group 2, with four additional participants, indicates a total of 33 individual humans? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I agree. click the link on reference 4. That goes to pdf file of the report. Go to page 342, second column, second paragraph down from the subheading "Methods and material". Read the entire paragraph carefully. Also, note the structure of the paragraph. The question: Is group 2 taken from the pool of 29 subjects or not?(Entropy7 (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC))