Talk:Theanine

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)

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)

How is adding more content of what L-theanine is bad? If you want to refer this page, people can look it up and find some important information? Daniel 020125 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm an avid Wikipedia user who finds the article's conservatism in judging L-Theanine's effects rather troubling. Almost every authoritative source I have consulted considers L-Theanine to have subtle but clinically significant effects on the brain. Taking a look at the National Library of Medicine, I count 89 *pages* of text articles on L-Theanine, or 1769 results total. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=L-Theanine 79 of those text articles were the result of NIH grants. Can't anyone find something more exciting to say about this interesting amino acid than what is mentioned in this article? Mike.97301 (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:MEDFAQ#PUBMEDRIGHT. Any WP:MEDRS to consider? Bon courage (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)