Talk:Tocotrienol

This article needs improvement

For an article that has had so many contributors, it really is under par.

• The English is not that good: I've had a go at copyediting some of it but there's much more to do.
• There are too many unsourced statements. If someone can provide more references to peer-reviewed journals, that would be a great help. - 9 July 2006‎ Nunquam Dormio

Still looks an unbalanced mess. A possible external link What are Tocotrienols? Good summary and images could be used ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Article length reduced by 2/3 in 2017.David notMD (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Interwikis

They really seem to be messed up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.37.192 (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Look OK to me, might be that your computer doesn't have all the pictogram fonts installed. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

i don't think the comment is referring to CJK fonts - it would seem to me to refer to the fact that some links obviously point to tocopherol in language X for several languages X, and others point to Vitamin E due to the lack of a separate article in language X. i'll do some other cleanups, probably not this one. Boud (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead/introduction: discussion of Vitamin E seems inconsistent with NPOV summary of Vitamin E article

The claim in this article that the main role of Vitamin E is as an antioxidant looks like it's inconsistent (not NPOV) with respect to the Vitamin_E#.CE.B1-tocopherol section at the Vitamin E article. Since tocotrienols are apparently poorly studied, and since they don't seem to be widely "bioavailable" (i'm not sure if that means presence in food or absorption/usage in the human body, or both), any generic claims on Vitamin E probably are in practice statements mostly about alpha-tocopherols. In that case, my brief read of the wikipedia article suggests that while Vit E is chemically an antioxidant, which is probably uncontroversial and NPOV, what's POV and lacks research is whether or not that is its role in practice in the human body. If there is controversy e.g. lack of sufficient medical research support for the claim that tocopherols' main effect in the human body is as an antioxidant, then that should be NPOV stated in this (the tocotrienol) article rather than the present text in the lead. In any case, someone who knows the topic and can sort out the references probably could help to clean up. Boud (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've rewritten this a bit. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A little more here as of today

Gamma-Tocotrienol Kills Prostate Cancer Stem Cells

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gamma-tocotrienol-kills-prostate-cancer-stem-cells-2010-07-25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the phrase "anti-aging" in the article seems misleading, unless its definition is specified. Also "oxidation" is not yet proved to be a cause of aging, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Study showing no cholesterol benefit

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/69/2/213 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A vitamin E concentrate rich in tocotrienols had no effect on serum lipids, lipoproteins, or platelet function in men with mildly elevated serum lipid concentrations. 1999 - randomised trial - Should mention in article for balance ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A different 'no benefits' citation has been added. David notMD (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"Tocotrienols and cholesterol reduction" innacurate

This part of the article implies that cholesterol builds up in your arteries and constricts them. That is grossly inaccurate and perpetuates a very commonly held misconception. The link to the article on Atherosclerosis gives the accurate description. Cholesterol is part of the equation, but too much dietary cholesterol has never been shown to cause atherosclerosis. I repeat, there is no clinical trial data that proves dietary cholesterol causes atherosclerosis. If you disagree, show a citation of the actual clinical trial, not a reference to one in another study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiblemonki (talk • contribs) 06:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

health section is mostly about in-vitro results

Could rename it to 'potential/possible health effects' or 'biochemical effects' ? Maybe separate out any in-vivo or clinical results. - Rod57 (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And now all deleted. David notMD (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Why See also lycopene

The 'See also' section only mentions lycopene but it's not clear why. - Possibly because it is another [stronger?] organic/dietary antioxidant. Perhaps it would be better to have a section comparing it to other natural antioxidants or link to a different article comparing dietary antioxidants ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Section of article 'Brand Names'

This section reads like an advertisement, is unsourced, and its claims are not encyclopedic. I'm removing it. Is there an encyclopedic reason to start collecting manufacturers spurious claims about their products purported stand out qualities? Tjc (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Radiation Section

First of all, these two studies did not compare effects between α-, β-, γ- and/or δ-tocotrienol. Each study administered only one compound (γ-tocotrienol the first study and δ-tocotrienol in the second), and in each study, the one administered form was found to superior to the control vehicle without any tocotrienol content.

References

A number of claims written in the section were not supported by any of the cited sources. In come cases, causation had simply been assumed. (Remember: correlation does not imply causation. However in other cases, extraneous (and often factually incorrect) material was inserted between citations or between discussions of studies. All this WP:Original Research has been removed and replaced with factually accurate text.

None of the researchers cited have performed head-to-head experimental comparisons of the 4 different tocotrienols in anything close to a comprehensive, much less definitive or authoritative manner. The truth is, the scientific community doesn't know much at all about exactly how the 4 tocotrienols actually differ, and given this paucity of actual facts, most of what's written commercially about tocotrienols is trying to sell one particular source or formulation over another.

The current scientific literature in tocotrienols is not offering much at present in terms of quality, high reliability studies to be referenced. The small, underpowered (not to mention often contradictory) studies that are coming out may be worth including in the article if they have large, dramatic, clearly unambiguous effect sizes or if we have multiple small studies all in agreement. The commercial literature on tocotrienols is pretty much completely unreliable--marketing materials of dubious veracity, often thinly disguised as reports of scientific news and developments.

This entire article may warrant a thorough clean-up/review with a special eye out for the removal of WP:Original Research and checking to make sure citations are properly applied with the proper WP:Verifiable sources. UcAndy (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The radiation section reduced in length, but still needs cutting or elimination entirely unless there is human trial research. David notMD (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Research. Still may merit deletion unless human studies are published. David notMD (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Cutting and moving

Moving parts out of the lede, which is overly long (longer than the lede for vitamin E), and removing health claim sentences that have no citations. Subsequent cuts to remove health claim text based only on in vitro or animal work. Without these edits the entry was far more positive than the science, i.e. not a neutral point of view. More cuts are probably needed, as the remaining cited human trial literature is almost entirely individual clinical trials rather than secondary sources such as systemic reviews and meta-analyses. The radiation section reduced in length, but still needs cutting or elimination entirely. See WP:MEDRS and WP:PRIMARY for rationale. One review worth adding: Meganathan P, Fu JY. Biological Properties of Tocotrienols: Evidence in Human Studies. Int J Mol Sci. 2016 Oct 26;17(11). pii: E1682. Review. PubMed PMID:27792171; PMC 5133770.

David notMD (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Other reviewers added the Meganathan and other reviews and revamped text. IMO the entry is now much more concise and science-based. David notMD (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:David notMD thanks for your efforts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The trans fat sentence (deleted)

Trans fats are known to increase risk and eating food high in tocotrienols is preferred." There is not a mention of trans fat in the Meganathan ref. There is a mention in Sen, but the context is that palm oil is preferred over trans fat containing foods, not that tocotrienol counters the the risks of trans fats. "With a near 1:1 ratio of saturated to unsaturated fatty acids, palm oil remains in a semisolid state at room temperature. In many instances, this distinctive property makes it a desirable trans-fatty acid–free alternative to hydrogenated oil for use in food products..." David notMD (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yah I must have grabbed the wrong ref. Cannot find the one I used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Less is more

Article length maxed in late 2016 at just under 60,000 bytes. David notMD (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)