What the Data Reveal About First-Generation Acemannan and Early Symptom Improvement
Click the Play button to begin
Today we’re going to examine a small but fascinating pilot study published in 1998.
The researchers set out to answer a straightforward question:
Can a nutritional supplement containing specific saccharides—specialized sugars used by the body—help reduce the symptoms of ADHD?
This study doesn’t claim to provide the final answer. But it does provide some intriguing findings. More importantly, it opens the door to questions the researchers believed deserved further investigation.
Along the way, we’ll also discover where Acemannan enters the story—and why that matters.
So, let’s dig deeper… and reach wider.
First, here is a screenshot of the 1998 study. It’s titled “Effect of Nutritional Supplements on Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.”
Acemannan is the main nutritional supplement used in this study but is referenced as a glyconutritional supplement employed in the experiment. We know Acemannan is present because it is the first generation Acemannan that was marketed in a product called Ambrotose provided by its sponsoring company, and is listed here in the Notes section of the paper. I also talk about this same first generation Acemannan in a video you can access at the link in the transcription below.
Many people think Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ADHD simply means being hyperactive.
But ADHD is actually made up of several different symptom categories.
The researchers measured four of the categories, which I will cover shortly.
To provide important transparency, this was a small pilot study with only seventeen children.
So it was not a large clinical trial.
The 17 children were all diagnosed with ADHD and included 5 children who were on no medications at all. Another 6 children were on a medication called methylphenidate, commonly known as Ritalin. And then another 6 children were on the Ritalin at the beginning of the study but the dosage was reduced by 50% on week two of a six week study.
WHAT DID THEY TAKE?
This is where the study becomes unique with the introduction of saccharides—the sugars contained in the glyconutritional supplement. Glyco simply means sugar.
But the researchers weren’t testing sugar in the everyday sense of the word.
In fact, they devoted considerable space to explaining that they were not referring to table sugar or sugary foods—the kinds of sugars most people naturally think of when they hear the word “sugar.” They were referring to specialized biological sugars that play important roles throughout the body.
These are saccharides, which point to a much bigger scientific picture. These sugar compounds, these sacchardies, are used by the body in cellular communication. And these cell-to-cell saccharides (or sugars) are listed here and were part of the glyconutrients present in the supplement.
The Eight Saccharides
- Mannose
- Galactose
- Glucose
- Fucose
- Xylose
- N-Acetylglucosamine
- N-Acetylgalactosamine
- N-Acetylneuraminic Acid
Mannose is specifically delivered by way of Acemannan.
The glyconutritional supplement used in this study was built around first-generation Acemannan—the form of Acemannan first discovered in 1985.
The researchers believed that the saccharides contained in this supplement might help support normal biological function. At the time, this was a relatively new area of scientific investigation. And Acemannan had been available in the market for only about four years, and only one company was marketing an Acemannan-based nutritional product.
That company’s scientific focus was centered almost entirely on Acemannan and its potential role in supporting healthy cellular function and cell-to-cell communication. This ADHD study was one of the earliest efforts to investigate whether Acemannan’s biological effects on cellular function might also translate into measurable improvements in behavior.
Clarification of the Premise
The researchers were not arguing that ADHD is caused by a deficiency of these sugars. That was never the premise of the study.
Instead, they wanted to know whether providing these compounds directly could improve the health and behavior of children who had already been diagnosed with ADHD.
Those are two very different scientific questions. The only question in consideration was “Can this kind of nutritional intervention lesson symptoms after the disorder is already present?”
WHAT HAPPENED?
The children were evaluated four times over a six-week period.
The glyconutritional supplement, built around first-generation Acemannan, was introduced immediately after the baseline assessment. Then, at the beginning of Week 3, a phytonutritional supplement—a blend of fruits and vegetables—was added to the program.
That timeline is important because the greatest improvements had already been observed before the phytonutritional supplement was introduced. By the two-week assessment, measurable reductions in symptoms were already evident. As a result, the strongest early improvements in the study are associated with the period during which the children were receiving only the glyconutritional supplement containing first-generation Acemannan.
Now let’s look at the Four Behavioral categories measured in this ADHD population. As we move from left to right across these categories, we are generally moving from less severe and less disruptive symptoms toward more serious behavioral concerns.
First is Inattention—difficulties with focus, organization, listening, and task completion. These symptoms primarily affect learning and academic performance.
Then there is Hyperactivity and Impulsivity. In addition to attention problems, these children may struggle with self-control, excessive activity, interrupting others, and acting without thinking.
Then there is Oppositional Defiant Disorder. This reflects a higher level of behavioral difficulty characterized by persistent arguing, defiance, irritability, and resistance to authority.
And then Conduct Disorder, This is generally considered the most serious category shown here. It involves more severe patterns of behavior such as aggression, rule-breaking, property destruction, deceitfulness, or violations of the rights of others.
For that reason, it is common to see more children exhibiting Inattentive symptoms than symptoms of Conduct Disorder. As the behaviors become more severe and socially disruptive, fewer amounts of children typically meet the diagnostic criteria for the more severe disorders.
The researchers used ADHD-related symptom items from the DSM-IV
This adds credibility to the study as the researchers evaluated the children using the DSM-IV, which stands for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. Think of it as the standard diagnostic handbook used by mental health professionals to define and diagnose conditions such as ADHD.” The researchers were not inventing their own rating system. They based their evaluations on the accepted clinical criteria for ADHD,
The researchers rated each symptom on a 0-to-3 severity scale.
A score of 0 meant the symptom was not present at all.
A score of 1 meant the symptom was present just a little.
A score of 2 meant the symptom was present pretty much.
A score of 3 meant the symptom was present very much.
The four bars you are about to see in each category represent four time points during the study.
Time 1 represents the baseline assessment conducted by parents immediately before nutritional supplementation began
Time 2 represents the parent assessment conducted after two weeks of glyconutritional supplementation
Time 3 represents the Week 5 assessment, approximately two weeks after the phytonutritional supplement was introduced on Week 3
Time 4 represents the final parent assessment conducted after six weeks of nutritional supplementation
“Let’s begin at the baseline assessment, before any nutritional supplementation had started.
This section highlights the Inattention category. Parents gave the children an average symptom rating of 20, making this the most significant behavioral concern at the very beginning of the study.
Now let’s move forward just two weeks.
The average Inattention rating has dropped from 20 to 15.
Notice that this improvement occurred while the children were receiving only the glyconutritional supplement. The phytonutritional supplement had not yet been introduced.”
“By the Week 5 assessment, the average Inattention rating had fallen again, this time to 13.
The children continued to improve,
“Finally, at the end of the six-week study, the average Inattention rating reached 12.
This section highlights the Hyperactivity / Impulsivitycategory. Parents gave the children an average symptom rating of 16 to begin
At the two-week mark, the average Hyperactivity / Impulsivity rating has dropped from 16 to 11.
To repeat, this improvement occurred while the children were receiving only the glyconutritional supplement. By the Week 5 assessment, the average rating had fallen again, this time to 8.
More improvement.
“Finally, at the end of the six-week study, the average Hyperactivity / Impulsivity rating reached 7.
Oppositional Defiant Disorder
This section highlights the Oppositional Defiant Disorder
category. Parents gave the children at Baseline an average symptom rating of 13,
At the two-week mark, the average rating has dropped from 13 to 8.
“By the Week 5 assessment, the average Oppositional Defiant Disorder rating had fallen again, this time to 6.
Finally, at the end of the six-week study, the average rating reached 5.
Conduct Disorder
This section focuses on the Conduct Disorder
category. Parents gave the children at Baseline an average symptom rating of 6,
At the two-week mark, the average Conduct Disorder rating has dropped from 6 to 4.
By the Week 5 assessment, the average rating had fallen again, this time to 3.
Even among the most serious behavioral concerns the children showed improvement,
Finally, at the end of the six-week study, the average Conduct Disorder rating reached 2.
We will now look at a graph that shows Teacher Ratings using the same four symptom categories:
Teacher ratings are extremely important in an ADHD study because teachers observe children in a structured classroom environment. They see whether the child can pay attention, follow instructions, complete work, and manage behavior around other students. This doesn’t discount the home environment where parents had made their assessments, but it adds an important perspective to the study.
The teacher graph shows a similar general trend to the parent graph, but the changes are not as strong.
Parents saw clearer improvement.
Teachers saw a similar direction, but less dramatic improvement.
That does not destroy the study. In fact, it gives us a more realistic picture. Behavior can look different at home than at school. Parents and teachers are observing different settings, different demands, and different kinds of stress.
The main thing to notice is that the overall direction still moved downward, meaning symptoms generally improved.
Here are the Teacher Ratings and as was pointed out already the teachers ratings were less dramatic. However, the overall pattern was remarkably similar. When we place these two graphs side by side, we see that both groups of observers identified the same overall trend: symptoms steadily declined over the course of the study.
This table drives home the point that the best results based on Parent assessments occurred in the first two weeks of this six week study. We first see the percentages of total improvement had already occurred by the end of Week 2. But then these percentages in the column to the far right represent the improvement that occurred during the remaining four weeks of the study. Notice that every percentage is smaller—or at best equal—to what occurred during the first two weeks. The greatest gains came early and before the second nutritional product was introduced.
The Teacher assessments tell the same story. Most of the measurable improvement occurred during the first two weeks, followed by smaller gains over the remaining four weeks. All of this draws our attention to the impact of the glyconutritional supplements where the Acemannan was present.
“One criticism often directed at studies like this is that parents may simply think their children are improving because they hope the supplement is helping. Be it far from me that I should be anything but an energetic proponent of hope. After all we are HopeQuestGlobal.
But that’s why the teacher evaluations are important. Teachers were not administering the supplements and they were not told the children were receiving them. Yet the teachers generally reported the same downward trend in symptoms that parents reported. The improvements observed by teachers were typically smaller than those reported by parents, but the overall direction of change was remarkably similar.”
But the study didn’t stop with behavior.
The researchers also wanted to know whether the children were simply behaving differently—or whether they were actually becoming healthier.
That brings us to the study’s final assessment—and perhaps one of its most interesting findings—a Health Benefit Rating completed by the parents.
This was NOT done haphazardly by the parents as they were asked to complete a structured inventory derived from Barkley’s Side Effects Scale to guide their ratings
This scale included common issues like difficulty sleeping; Irritability; Moodiness; Crying; Stomachaches; Headaches; Social withdrawal; Anxiety; Reduced appetite; Fatigue; Dizziness
There were three groups in this study. One group was the MedRed Group: This group was on Methylphenidate (Ritalin) but reduced their dosage by 50% after Week Two. The 50% reduction in Ritalin was a planned part of the study design. Although all three groups improved, this pilot study did not find a statistically significant advantage for the reduced-dose group (MedRed)over the full-dose group (Med). What it did show was something arguably more important: every group receiving the nutritional supplementation moved in the same direction—toward fewer ADHD symptoms.
Then there was the NoMed Group: This group was on no medications
Then the Med Group: This group was on Methylphenidate (Ritalin) and their dosage was maintained during the entire six-week study.
Based on everything said so far perhaps a sense of anticipation is triggered and you wonder if we are going to see something that is similar to what we have seen so far. If so, you will not be disappointed. At baseline the MedRed Group scale started at a 44, moved to 28 at the two week mark. 18 at the 5 week mark and then at the end of the six weeks was at 15.
And there was more of the same with the NoMed group. They started at 41, at two weeks a 20, at five weeks a 13 and at 6 weeks an 11.
And then finally the Med group started at 33, at two weeks a 20, at five weeks 12 and at six weeks 10
And here again we see the lion’s share of results at the two week mark.
So, what have we learned?
This small pilot study found measurable improvements in ADHD symptoms, associated behavioral disorders, and overall health ratings over a six-week period.
The greatest improvements consistently occurred during the first two weeks of the study—pointing our attention to the glyconutritional supplement and the first-generation Acemannan it contained.
We were asked Can this kind of nutritional support make a measurable difference?
The researchers believed the answer was encouraging enough to justify further investigation.
Nearly three decades later, the science surrounding Acemannan has continued to evolve. This 1998 study was one of the first chapters. And sometimes, the first chapter is exactly where the most important discoveries begin.
I hope you will always be careful to maintain good works to meet urgent needs and become heroes to your generation.