Talk:Theanine

Suntheanine

I've once again removed a reference to Suntheanine® as the supposed generic name of theanine. Suntheanine® is clearly not a generic name (hence the ® symbol) -- it's a brand name, which is pretty much the opposite of a generic name. "Theanine" is the generic name. Also, http://www.suntheanine.com/, which was given as a reference, is not a reliable source by wikipedia standards, and that web site also pretty clearly indicates that Suntheanine is a brand of L-theanine, hence not a generic name. Also, wikipedia does not, in general, list brand names under which chemicals may be available, unless such brand names are notable, and I see no evidence that this brand is notable. Finally, wikipedia generally does not include the ® symbol when mentioning brands. I suppose I could see adding a section about commercial preparations to the article, and such a section might mention this brand, but I see no reason to mention a brand in the overview of a naturally-occurring chemical. Klausness (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Support for a little change. Thanks for correcting me, by the way. 98.227.189.232 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The article currently makes no mention of Suntheanine at all. And there is no "Suntheanine" page. (Maybe there was once, and it was merged, and then the theanine "story" was purged?) This was a lot of useful information about theanine being a product additive in Japan for decades. As it stands now, it's not really clear that most theanine purchased in supplements is synthetic. (But it was obvious from previous versions of the page, which had a paragraph about the history of the popularization of the molecule.)

Drsruli (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Still too dependent on primary sources

This article is still too dependent on primary sources. And there is too much detail in the lede. And does not read well.David notMD (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Health claims

New content (first time doing this so sorry if I am doing something wrong). "The European Food Safety Authority EFSA advised negatively on health claims related to L-theanine and cognitive function, alleviation of psychological stress, maintenance of normal sleep, and reduction of menstrual discomfort.[7] Therefore, health claims for L-theanine are prohibited in the European Union." This seems to me to be incorrect. The cited ESFA report says in it's summary "The Panel considers that while Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze (tea) is not sufficiently characterised in relation to the claimed effects, L-theanine from Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze (tea) is sufficiently characterised." In other words the tea cannot make the relevant health claims but L-theanine (from/in the tea) can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.72.201 (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your question! The complete paper is here: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2238. It says that while L-theanine is sufficiently characterised (page 1), there is no evidence for theanine to have the claimed effects (pages 2–3: "The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of L-theanine from Camellia Sinensis (L.) Kuntze (tea) and ..."). Hope that helps. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Primary research in the Supplements section

Reflecktor - This revert was justified (twice) because the sources used are primary research too preliminary to mention. This is a historical issue for this article, as one can see in several of the above discussions. The recurring issue is that research on taking theanine orally as a supplement has numerous design problems, small subject numbers, and conjecture in interpreting results. The one review used in the journal Cureus is not useful, as Cureus is not Medline-indexed, indicating it is not a reliable source for medical content. Zefr (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This all sounds like WP:OR to me, I think it's best that Wikipedia go by what the reliable sources say instead of the individual assessments of editors. Also, the version you reverted is the longstanding version. Reflecktor (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:MEDRS, particularly WP:MEDASSESS, which shows absence of review literature in your edit to meet the standard to be included. Primary research on dietary supplementation studies does not meet the standard for reliability on WP medical content, as discussed thoroughly before on this talk page. "Reliable sources" do not include preliminary, small-study projects, most of which are outdated by more than 5 years, WP:MEDDATE and WP:NOTJOURNAL.

If you want other opinions from medical editors about your edit, post a discussion on WT:MED. Meanwhile, there is no support for your edit here, so don't edit war. Zefr (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Those links don't say you shouldn't use 'primary sources', if you disagree you're welcome to quote where you think it says that. Furthermore the burden is on you to gain a consensus for these recent edits of yours, it is you who is edit warring without a consensus for your changes. Reflecktor (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:DE is the course to follow for defending your use of outdated primary research, WP:PRIMARY, which states that we should "avoid novel interpretations of primary sources". Reflecktor has to obtain consensus because their edit is challenged by another editor. Interpreting unconfirmed physiological effects from outdated primary studies on a theanine supplement violates the definition of PRIMARY. I would also say that the use of theanine supplements is WP:UNDUE as a minor issue.

Because there is no reliable review, we also cannot call the section 'Research' because it is too preliminary to include as actual physiological effects - the research is therefore unverified and unreliable, failing WP:V. See WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #4 - you have not built a consensus to retain challenged content and sources.

WP:DE gives you direction on how to defend your mistaken position, as recommended above: 1) post a discussion topic at WT:MED, WT:PHARM or WP:DIESUP talk page to obtain uninvolved editor input; 2) make a WP:RFC; or 3) file a topic at WP:ANI. Zefr (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Well at least now you're actually bothering to use the talk page instead of plain edit warring. The idea that I have to "obtain consensus because their edit is challenged by another editor", is bizarre because it's your recent edit that's being challenged by another editor, not mine. WP:DR states "be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war". Unfortunately you have not followed this advice.

There's nothing in the links you've given which says multiple peer-reviewed journals cannot be used as reliable sources.Reflecktor (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Repeatedly, you are ignoring the normal process for handling a dispute.

The following primary sources are 11-15 years out of date, indicating they have not been verified by further research or a WP:MEDRS review; see WP:MEDDATE stating that sources should be within 5 years of publication. Absence of followup in the literature is also indicative of minor scientific interest, WP:UNDUE.

In the 3 sources that follow, it is impossible to assess the effects of theanine, as caffeine may be responsible. As stated above, the Cureus review is suspect and unusable because the journal is not Medline-indexed and does not meet MEDRS.

The following sources used in your edit are not WP:RS.; the journal Molecules is an MDPI journal suspected of predatory publishing, and is not usable for medical content.

References

Please respond to the individual challenges above, follow the procedures for dispute resolution, and stop edit-warring. Zefr (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted WP:MEDDATE quite a bit. It states "editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written" which is not the same as saying sources over five years old cannot be used at all. I'll remove the Molecules source. Reflecktor (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This edit used a 2014 systematic review to summarize the main findings of the preliminary (11-15 years) older studies in the prior version discussing the potential effect of theanine on alertness and other types of cognition.

Preliminary studies (primary research or "pilot" studies using only 5-50 subjects) often are not replicable, become research dead ends, and therefore are unreliable sources for the encyclopedia. The focus on using review articles, as outlined in WP:SCIRS for technical content or WP:MEDRS for physiological or medical content, presents a secondary assessment and summary of the status of the research field. This is the higher quality of source we as editors are expected to provide for the encyclopedia.; see WP:MEDASSESS, left pyramid to compare primary studies vs. a systematic review for source quality. Zefr (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You've misread that study quite a bit it states "although there were insufficient studies to conduct meta-analysis on the effects of L-theanine in isolation" and then continues "in the study by Haskell et al.,27 in which 250 mg of L-theanine was administered in isolation, no treatment effect on alertness was reported...However, in the study by Rogers et al., a small effect size was reported in the second hour in response to 200 mg of L-theanine administered alone". So essentially your edit completely misinterprets what this one review says. As such I've returned to the article to stable version considering your lack of consensus.

I've already addressed everything else that you wrote above previously. Reflecktor (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Use the review as the main source per MEDASSESS. If you disagree with an edit, revise rather than edit-war -> it seems you just WP:DONTGETIT. Zefr (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no such thing as 'MEDASSESS' so I've no idea what policy you meant to refer to there. Again, you're the one who made the edit, it was challenged, and now you're supposed to gain consensus instead of edit warring. Reflecktor (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

EFSA scientific opinion

This assessment of possible theanine cognitive effects has not been improved upon since its publication in 2011. The review considered many individual articles and book chapters on theanine studies, but eliminated most due to their poor quality. The EFSA panel is comprised of several experts in the field, and its opinion report is the best, high-quality MEDRS source available.

Because the theanine research field is narrow and typically uses low subject-number primary studies, any quality review assessing cognitive effects - in this case their absence of effect - is a useful source for the article. Zefr (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Quoting from the EFSA review about the low-mixed quality of previous theanine research:

"publications did not contain original data which could be used for the scientific substantiation of the claims. A number of the references provided reported either on the effects of food constituents (e.g. caffeine and catechins) other than L-theanine, on the effects of L-theanine in combination with other food constituents (e.g. caffeine), or on health outcomes (e.g. anxiety, mood, brain chemistry, brain ischaemia, theanine bioavailability, theanine toxicity, hydration and cardiovascular health) other than the claimed effects. The Panel considers that no conclusions can be drawn from these references for the scientific substantiation of the claims."

Zefr (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Age of a study has no actual quantitative difference as to how quality a study may be, it is typically an indicator, but you, on multiple pages, and i've seen you doing this cross pages and people complaining about it, are using your own subjective opinion of what "too old" mean when it comes to reference of scientific literature. Databoose43 (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Age of a paper only matters if you have reason to believe that new information or studies invalidate the paper. Research interest and funding are, as I'm sure you know, not always easy to come by. As such, continuous, ever-self-reviewing research on some topics just does not happen, but that does not invalidate old research. If you don't have any reason and evidence to show a source (that otherwise fits MEDRS criteria) has somehow been invalidated since it was used in the article, you should leave it alone. Just as the WP:BURDEN of proof is on one adding new content to an article, it is also on one who removes content from an article. "Age of source" is not a valid justification.

As many articles in the project pharm category do, if there is low quality evidence but evidence nonetheless, or old evidence but evidence nonetheless, you can mention that in the article body where the data is mentioned. Say what the data shows, then add your addendum about the data being old or low quality. Neither of these disqualify the data from being mentioned, and both are purely optional if you really want to include them.

Kimen8 (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Reading the discussion on that page, I disagree with Zefr's reasoning still.

It is as if they are putting too much weight on the regulatory approval process as some sort of source of truth; that is, until a drug goes through the regulatory approval process one can not be sure of anything about its pharmacology. This is obviously false. We have plenty of articles on illegal drugs with detailed pharmacology. We have plenty of articles on legal drugs with nearly unknown pharmacology. The question is: does quality data exist for the precise claims being made? And the answer seems to be, in many of these cases, yes. Care just must be made to identify the claims being made; the claim that it affects some receptor which is responsible for its downstream clinical effects in human patients is not something you can say, but the claim that it has affinity for some receptor or another, or even being able to provide numeric data about that, is something that can be shown.

Kimen8 (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not only the problem of inhibiting information on the basis of a substance's legal constraints (and, for a lot of schedule 1's, those constraints are VERY high), but also a study apparently to zafir is not legitimate if it is not from a registered brand name that sells said compound, and i don't mean a compound made by said corperation, but a compounds, CBD, and theanine, that have occured naturally for over a thousand years, (his statement in regards to withholding pharma information was because epidiolex doesn't know exactly why CBD inhibits rare forms of epilepsy)

It's redicious, and i'm tired of it, mods have seemingly taken his side and refused to step in from what it seems, so i will just undo his griefs, also apologies for the recent undo's on you, i was mistaken that zafir had done a large nuke of material. Databoose43 (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Theanine is an extract, not a drug

This edit was justified because there is no acceptable WP:MEDSCI source for theanine being mentioned in the infobox as anything other than a tea component or an extract taken by some consumers in the belief it may have desired neurological effects. Phytochemical extracts with unproven physiological or pharmacological effects remain definable as dietary supplements. A compound described as an "anxiolytic" or "sedative" is a regulatory-approved prescription drug, a classification which theanine does not have in any country.

As stated in the Nootropic article, none of the supposed properties of compounds thought to be 'smart drugs' is proven, and therefore is just a term used in deceptive marketing. Zefr (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

A drug is any chemical substance that elicits/induces any response from a biological system, in order for a compound to be a drug, it does not require any medical application whatsoever, even though there is some scientific substantiation of theanine possessing anxiolytic effects, that has nothing to do with whether that makes theanine a drug or not.

This specific edit you had recently made is justified because it does make medical claims, but not because it isn't a drug, it is absolutely a drug, a drug does not have to be medical, illicit, or intoxicating. This is a completely false misconception that people outside of pharmacology have. Databoose43 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The supposed theanine properties as an anxiolytic or sedative imply therapeutic and regulatory confirmation as a pharmaceutical drug, as stated in the Drug article: "A pharmaceutical drug, also called a medication or medicine, is a chemical substance used to treat, cure, prevent, or diagnose a disease or to promote well-being." Theanine does not meet this definition. Zefr (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You must be straight up trolling at this point.... Databoose43 (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

To add to that, i will say the edit you made was legitimate not nessecarily because it made medical claims but rather because of the following :

1. Anxiolytic, likely yes, in multiple studies we have extensively found this compound to actually contain anxiolytic properties, so it would probably be fair to retain this although i'm not strong about it one way or the other.
2. Sedative, most likely not, theanine is actually uniquely known as (key here : known as, does not nessecarily mean is true), an anxiolytic that does not contain sedative properties, we generally do not observe sedation with this compound but i would like to see further literature on that in the higher dose ranges.
3. Nootropic, absolutely not, effectively because nootropic is an almost entirely subjective word and can mean too many things to be specific enough to be classified as a "nootropic", although in passing it is usually referred to as one, i don't think it should be on this wiki page.

Databoose43 (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In vitro pharmacology section

Kimen8 - the in vitro section proposes mechanisms from early-stage lab studies for theanine, a compound with only supposed in vivo effects unconfirmed by adequate clinical evidence; see WP:MEDINVITRO and the position of in vitro studies at the bottom of the left pyramid for quality of evidence, WP:MEDASSESS.

If it were a more completely defined pharmaceutical agent, like a promising drug candidate or approved drug, there would be evidence for efficacy (dose-response relationship) and specificity (antagonist), justifying an in vitro mechanisms section. But theanine has none of this evidence for biological activity, which defines it as only a minor dietary supplement, not a promising drug candidate.

Why should article content be devoted to a relatively minor tea extract that, arguably, has no confirmable biological significance? Further, this section likely holds little value to the general encyclopedia user, so is WP:UNDUE and opposes WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6-7. The encyclopedia is not written for pharmacologists, but rather for the general, non-science public, WP:MEDMOS, Writing for the wrong audience. Zefr (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you ok with this sentence remaining in § Research on supplement use? I noticed its in the same vein as the others but slightly different. Was the issue with the others that it was in-vitro/animal studies?

A 2020 review concluded that L-theanine supplementation of 200–400 milligrams per day may reduce stress and anxiety in people with acute stress, but there was insufficient evidence for the use of L-theanine as a prescription drug to treat stress and anxiety.

Kimen8 (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This sentence accurately reflects what the source says.

Was the issue with the others that it was in-vitro/animal studies? Yes, as in the 3rd paragraph of my comment on 25 March. Zefr (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)