Talk:Raspberry ketone

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

External Link
Hi, i'm new here. I'm very excited about this topic. Could i add external link that pointing to site that i've just found? Here's the link: Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Althea1778 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, links to such promotional pages are not permitted under Wikipedia's external link policy. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, links to such promotional pages are not permitted under Wikipedia's external link policy. Mean as custard (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Price per kilo
I am not a confirmed user so cannot edit. However, the price claim of $20,000 per kilo is ridiculous. Sigma Aldrich offers it for $1,322 per kilo http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/w258814?lang=en&region=US — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.10.111 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's probably the synthetic price. 137.186.46.247 (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

isnt this spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ur-loki (talk • contribs) 12:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Lessman's Research
It has potential if it's anything like synephrine. Lessman is commercial, so the link to his article might disappear. I've managed to duplicate one of his claims, though; no human trials on safety or fat-burning potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.46.247 (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Misleading description of research studies
Whoever originally included and cited the rat study in the "Potential Uses" section really made it seem like the findings in the rat study somehow contradicted the findings in the mouse study. They used the word "However" and then included language from the abstract about amounts used being 200 times human estimated intake.

I have already made it clear in the article how these two studies actually relate in terms of the numbers, but a couple points in case anyone comes here looking at why this section has changed.
 * The rat study was in 1970. While it could have contained findings contradicting the 2005 mouse study, it obviously was not testing the same hypothesis nor was it even in the same model system.
 * The dosages used in the rat study while being 200 times human intake are infinitesimal compared to the 4700 fold increase used in the mouse study.


 * The prior wording was not misleading the way that I understood it, but the current wording seems to avoid that possible misinterpretation. ChemNerd (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Under Putative health effects it currently states: "A more recent study demonstrated that when mice were fed very high doses of raspberry ketone, up to 20 g/kg, 2% of body weight or 4761 times greater than estimated human intake, there was a statistically significant prevention of high-fat-diet-induced elevation in body weight.[11] "

The reference #11 above (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024320505001281) concludes: "RK prevents and improves obesity and fatty liver. These effects appear to stem from the action of RK in altering the lipid metabolism, or more specifically, in increasing norepinephrine-induced lipolysis in white adipocytes."

Seems like this should be made clear in the article, i.e. copy/paste; There is also another/related source that can be added for this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20425690

Also under same Topic, This may provide a better explanation of how it is supposed to work. Whether eventual studies change over time, this is the basics: ''The Ketones have been shown to increase both the expression and the secretion of Adiponectin, an Adipocytokine (cell-to-cell signaling protein) mainly expressed and secreted by Adipose tissue (the tissue that stores fat). Adiponectin levels can also be increased in the body by consuming Omega-3 fatty acids (such as Eicosapentanoic Acid (EPA).'' --Gryhm (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryhm (talk • contribs) 16:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Putative health effects
I think your calculations are incorrect. If the average daily intake of dietary raspberry ketone has been estimated as 0.42mg/kg, then 20g/kg is not 4,761 times greater than estimated human intake, it is 47,619 times greater. 1mg is 1000th of a gram, 20g is 20,000mg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.154 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic yield
Preparation: "This method produces a 99% yield. [7]"

This method certainly does not produce a 99% yield since the Claisen-Schmidt condensation in the first step of the method in [7] uses strong base, aqueous NaOH (at 2.5 M).

A typical observation of yields under such conditions is given by Shrikhande et al. (2008): “When the aldol condensation is classically carried out using an acid or base catalyst, the process suffers from side reactions such as self condensation, thus resulting in low yield of the desired product.”

[Shrikhande, J.J., Gawande, M.B., Jayaram, R.V. (2008) Cross-aldol and Knoevenagel condensation reactions in aqueous micellar media, Catalysis Communications, vol. 9, pp. 1010–1016] In the case of the reaction involving 4-hydroxybenzaldehyde in strong base, the low yield of the reaction is exacerbated by the presence of the phenol group which promotes polymer formation.

On consulting reference [7] (Smith, 1996), it is clear that the author at no point claims any such yield. In fact, yields for the condensation and for the subsequent reduction step are unreported.

Unsurprisingly, alternative methods for the production of this compound are employed industrially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffinsdj (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2014
The stuff is NOT $20,000 a KG.

Aldrich sells Food grade (natural, ≥98%, FCC, FG) for ~$1200/kg.

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/w258814?lang=en&region=US

mikeharris1977@gmail.com

98.167.109.118 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌: the article says as much as $20,000, and is sourced. That does not exclude prices as low as $12,000.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2014 add unii

 * UNII_Ref =
 * UNII = 7QY1MH15BG

Lncallahan (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2015
Raspberry ketone can lead to several health complications, including: insomnia, elevated blood pressure, rapid heartbeat, COPD and many more.

Colnettlisa (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Don't think this meets WP:MEDRS Cannolis (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2015
Please change "A more recent study demonstrated that when mice were fed very high doses of raspberry ketone, up to 20 g/kg, 2% of body weight or 4761 times greater than estimated human intake, there was a statistically significant prevention of high-fat-diet-induced elevation in body weight"

to "A more recent study demonstrated that when mice were fed very high doses of raspberry ketone, 2% of their diet by weight, there was a statistically significant prevention of high-fat-diet-induced elevation in body weight"

The mice were fed diets that were contained 2% raspberry ketone by weight, NOT 2% of the mice's body weight.

Robwilliams.243 (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Although I'm not totally confident about that, it matches my reading of the sources's summary, and appears to be good faith, so I've made the edit. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)