Talk:Enhanced water

Review

Hey this is Nicole. This is a really interesting topic. Maybe go more in depth about the nutritional values. Or maybe listing the healthiest flavored waters to the unhealthiest. When you put more information up I can certainly copy edit your article. Nicocorn20 (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources

• New York Times
• Mayo Clinic
• BBC News
• Reuters

Hopefully useful! Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tim! I have been fixing up this article, wondering if you could go through it and give some feedback! thanks for your help. Chelcal (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

initial comments

MUCH better. Be sure to put punctuation before the footnote . also, you can use the same cite for consecutive sentences if you want. I took it out. You've figured out the named ref, so that 's good. keep at it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom has given you good advice, below. Let me know when you want me to do another read through. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Review

• Section called "USA" might be better titled "American market"
• Table is good.
• Chromium deficiency is a extraordinarily rare condition and the use of chromium supplements in normal people has never been shown to have any beneficial effect. Saying that "It can assist the body with regulating insulin, shedding weight, and building lean body mass" is therefore inaccurate. I'd recommend attributing this claim to the manufacturer (eg "Ohr. Nutraceuticals claim that chromium can assist the body with regulating insulin...") and citing the literature to put this very dubious statement in context eg PMID 15554492 (link to full text).
• Epigallocatechin gallate is not "known for its ability to help burn calories", this is a claim made by the manufacturer on slim evidence. In particular the idea of diet-induced thermogenesis is highly controversial, so you might be better off just deleting the second paragraph of this section entirely.

I found PMID 19597519 that shores up this idea a bit. However, since the effect is not large, I would still rewrite this section to be less definite ie say "may have an effect" and "a 2009 meta-analysis found a modest effect on weight loss".

• "Potassium assists in protein synthesis from amino acids in the body and carbohydrate metabolic processes" - probably best not to single out just two metabolic pathways, since potassium is needed for pretty much everything - it is a major part of the slightly salty liquid that fills our bodies.
• We need a continuous supply of vitamin C not because it is water-soluble but because it is a vitamin. Vitamins are chemicals that our body needs in small amounts but that we can't make for ourselves. We can't make vitamin C because during the evolution of the apes we lost the ability to make this compound (most other animals can make ascorbic acid from sugars and therefore don't need vitamin C in their diets). See Human_vestigiality#Molecular and references within.
• Vitamin C is not "a source of antioxidants", it is an antioxidant itself.
• Saying "Build up of the free radicals can be linked to heart disease, arthritis, and cancer" is true but a bit misleading, since the best evidence at the moment is that antioxidant supplements either have no effect on health, or are harmful, see PMID 18425980 with news story 1 and news story 2 on this review.
• "Vitamin B6 produces antibodies" - B cells produce antibodies, this vitamin is needed to make many enzymes in the body, so isn't linked to any particular function.

Overall OK, but you need to treat the health claims made by the people who sell these products with a lot more caution. Most of their claims are very carefully-worded to be technically accurate, but misleading and others are just flat out wrong! Tim Vickers (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim, thank you for your editing advice and review of my article. I appreciate it very much and will use your references and points to edit my article. I now see what you mean about the health claims and misleading information. I think I was reading articles from journals which i assumed to be credited and taking their information for truth. Thank you for your help and I will work on editing this tomorrow!! Chelcal (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This policy has a lot of good advice about how to cite and interpret journals. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ingredients missing in the listing under the heading "Ingredients"

Why is sugar in its variuos forms omitted? And other forms of salt? The inclusion of selected, apparently positive ingredients only has the effect of veiled advertising. I'd support deleting this content and having only a linked listing of ingredients. -Fremte (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)