Could Nutrition Help Children Learn?
What a preliminary study suggests about Acemannan-based nutrition and learning-disabled children Click Play to begin
Today we are going to uncover the data behind what is called a preliminary investigation. This will be another dive into Acemannan, and what is understood as the glyconutritional science that came to light when Acemannan was discovered and stabilized. We will now make another attempt at putting an important question on the table for discussion Can this kind of nutritional support make a measurable difference in behavioral difficulties?
If you’re hiking in the woods and you notice a faint trail trampled in the forest floor. That doesn’t prove there’s a cabin at the end of it. But it certainly justifies walking a little farther to see where it leads. A preliminary study is that faint trail. It’s not the destination. However, it is part of the body of evidence we are accumulating. So let’s follow the trail together. Let’s see whether this study gives us good reason to continue the journey. That’s what we do here—we search for evidence that might guide us. We dig deeper and reach wider.
The study is titled “Preliminary Investigation into the Benefits of Glyconutrient Supplementation in Learning-Disabled Children” It was published March 2004 and the main author is Dr. Alex Omelchuk, who was a Canadian medical doctor and family physician who became interested in glyco-nutrition after his own health crisis following a severe brain aneurysm/stroke. His own Acemannan story can be accessed at the link provided below.
This study takes place with access to the special education students of Edmonton Public School System in Alberta. Some of the underlying conditions of these students included Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD); Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS), central auditory processing problems, language-based learning disability; Obessive-compulsive Disorder (OCD); and Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD). The 13 children in Phase 1 were grade 5 students; 9 to 10 year olds. The study consisted of two phases.
The first phase was the initial gathering of baseline observations where parents assessed their children by completing a two-part chart.
Part 1: The parents assessed 44 conditions in 5 general categories
Part 2: Answering the question, How seriously each characteristic affected the child’s daily activities.
This first assessment took place October 2001. This October assessment would serve as the baseline from which the other assessments would measure any results.
The parents assessed again after one month in November 2001
And then a Phase 1 final assessment two months later in January 2002
The teacher in Phase 1 did the exact same. This teacher had a Master’s Degree in reading assessment and diagnosis in elementary children and has worked with special needs children for 18 years.
In phase 1, the nutritional supplement included phyto-nutrients and glyconutrients.
Dosage delivery of these nutrients was through bear-shaped candy-like pieces, typically known as gummy bears, and through a food bar. Additionally, each child consumed a fruit smoothie drink which contained ½ teaspoon of phyto-nutrients, that’s the fruit and vegetable blend; but this phyto-nutrient also contained Acemannan. Also in the fruit smoothie was ¼ teaspoon of glyconutrients, where Acemannan was also the main ingredient.
This bar graph represents the teacher’s assessment in the areas of Behavior, Language & Cognition, Sensory Issues, Motor Skills, and Academics. The baseline assessment details were not provided in the study but because that assessment represents the baseline then the zero on the graph represents the starting point from which the teacher measured improvement or not.
After one month of the children on the nutritional supplementation this graph represents the teacher’s assessment in the five general categories. In Behavior the improvement was assessed at 35 % increase. In Language/Cognition 62%; in Sensory Issues 15%; in Motor Skills 37%; in Academic Performance 45%. Then in January 2002 the assessment was rated again. This time the teacher rated improvement from baseline at 45%; Language/Cognition at 81%; Sensory Issues 22%; Motor Skills 52% and Academic Performance 67%.
And now we look at the Average Observed Improvement from baseline given by the respective parents of the students. Their observations in November 2001 said that in Behavior there was a 46% improvement; in Language/Cognition 55%; in Sensory Issues 21%; Motor skills 44%; and in Academic Performance 48%.
Then in the January 2002 parents rated behavior at 55%; Language/Cognition 70%; Sensory Issues 36%; Motor skills 58%; and Academic Performance 62%
When comparing the two graphs we not only see similar improvement ratings but also a similar pattern is reflected as well.
Remember this is not a major clinical study. It is a preliminary investigation and we are gathering evaluation-worthy evidence.
What we see here is that the study gathered observations from two different groups; a teacher and parents of the students in the study. They employed the same nutritional supplements we covered in another video, whose link is in the transcription below.
Now let’s go on to Phase 2 of the investigation. In this phase only the teacher was involved and the teacher did both the baseline assessment in January 2003 and the final ratings in May 2003. We are making an assumption that these were the same children as Phase 1, but it was not made clear in the study. In Phase 1, 14 children started the investigation and 13 completed it. Whereas Phase 2 had 14 children who both started and finished this phase. If these were the same children then they are about a year older in the 10 to 11 year-old range.
In phase 2, the nutrition strategy included the fact that that they did not start the supplements until half-way through the semester, which was five months long. This means they started the nutrition around mid March. The food bars were omitted in phase 2 because they learned from Phase 1 that the food bars were eaten inconsistently by the study participants. As a result, phase 2 not only omitted the food bar but included an increase in the Acemannan-based glyco-nutrition from ¼ teaspoon to ½ teaspoon.
Using the January 2003 assessment as the new baseline, the teacher completed a final evaluation in May 2003. Compared to that baseline, observed improvement was 41% in Behavior, 65% in Language and Cognition, 31% in Sensory Issues, 50% in Motor Skills, and 54% in Academic Performance.
And from the study is this quote: “The teacher stated that the students were nicer in their interactions with one another, more cooperative, more appreciative, more willing workers, more task-oriented and more fun to teach than before.”
And then there was a final chart provided that gave all the scores of each and every student in all the various categories. I provide here a screenshot of the scores directly from the study, if you want to pause your screen and take a better look.
However, I took these scores and created a bar graph titled Average Improvement for Each Child Across All Five Categories.
One thing I appreciate is that the authors didn’t hide the exceptions. Two observations showed negative values, and one showed no improvement; and yet another showed a 1% improvement which did not qualify as noteworthy. The authors discussed those cases openly, reminding us that biological responses are rarely identical from one child to another.
Child 13: Ended with an average of 9.6% because of a -40% in Behavior. However, this child showed improvement in all other areas.
Child 4: had an average of 30.4% because of a -6% in Sensory Issues. This child showed improvement in the other four categories.
Child 10 had an averge of 27.0% because of a 0% score in Acedemic Issues. This child showed improvement in the other four categories.
Child 8 ended with a 36.0% average because of a 1% score in Language/Cognition. This 1% score did not qualify as marked improvement. This child showed improvement in the other four categories.
Phase 1 of the study provided impressive numbers and Phase 2 announced a 94% overall success ratio where the children in this special education class demonstrated marked improvement in 66 out of 70 possible categories.
To provide further mathematical clarity on those numbers.
14 children were each evaluated on 5 categories. This equals 70 individual observations. 66 observations of which demonstrated marked improvement and 4 did not. So 66 ÷ 70 = 94% Overall Success Ratio
For decades, educators and healthcare professionals have searched for better ways to support children with learning disabilities. Educational program; Behavioral strategies; Speech therapy; Occupational therapy. They have all helped.
But researchers have continued asking another important question.
Could nutrition also play a role?
This preliminary investigation doesn’t claim to answer that question once and for all. But it does something important.
It gives us another trail to follow.
It adds another piece to a growing body of evidence suggesting that nutrition, and not just nutrition but specifically Acemannan-enhanced nutrition, may deserve a place in the conversation.
This study was based on what people closest to these children actually observed. A teacher with years of experience working with special-needs students. Parents who lived with these children every day.
Neither group reported perfection. Not every child responded the same way.
The researchers didn’t hide the exceptions—and neither should we.
But when 66 of 70 individual observations demonstrated what the authors described as a marked improvement, I believe that’s evidence worthy of our attention.
Because behind every graph…every percentage…every data point…is a child who struggles to learn.
A teacher searching for another way to help.
And parents who would give almost anything to see their son or daughter take one more step forward.
If there is even a possibility that Acemannan-based nutritional support can become one part of that journey, then I believe it deserves careful, thoughtful, evidence-based investigation.
Because every meaningful discovery begins with someone willing to follow the trail just a little farther.
I hope you will always be careful to maintain good works to meet urgent needs and become heroes to your generation