Talk:Allulose

Requested move 30 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Psicose → Allulose – Most commonly used name today Medgirl131 08:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A google search for Psicose returns 1.4 million results, compared to only 100,000 for allulose. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Psicose is apparently the Portuguese word for "psychosis", which could inflate its google numbers. When I do a google search for the term, the second results is Psychosis, and the third result is some kind of Portuguese mental health website. Colin M (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose. I did google scholar searches for English papers since 2018. I got 260 results for Allulose and 877 results for Psicose. I'm not seeing any evidence that Allulose is the new WP:COMMONNAME. (Yes, even when filtering by English results, there were still a few false positives for the Portuguese word, but they were pretty rare. I skimmed the first 100 Google Scholar results and saw only 5 false positives.) Colin M (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose on insufficient evidence that allulose is more common. PubChem lists both (14 uses of "psicose", one for "allulose") and the PubMed search results are about equal for the two terms: 281 hits for psicose with 16 reviews and 305 with 18 reviews for allulose, with some overlaps. Doesn't impress as a convincing reason to change. --Zefr (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discovery

Psicose is known/synthesized at least since 1935. See: Steiger, Marguerite; Reichstein, T., Helvetica Chimica Acta (1935), 18, 790-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.91.129.4 (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Psicose vs Allulose

I have no idea which one is the more common name, but it seems weird to have the article named psicose, then consistently refer to its subject as "allulose" throughout. Krychek (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Krychek: I noticed that too, especially since the word "psicose" is nowhere used in the article at all, just D-Psicose, which is confusing to a lay reader... Looks like there was some discussion a while ago. Fredlesaltique (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen the word Psicose before. It seems all food labels are using the term Allulose. Gorgos19 (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 March 2021

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for a move at this time. BD2412 T 04:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Psicose → Allulose – Reasoning:

1. Allulose is a synonym (see Merriam Webster)

2. Both allulose and D-psicose are used in recent scientific literature (see Google Scholar)

3. Allulose is more common in non-scientific literature (see Google results, United States FDA, EU approval application) so better fits article title criteria of being recognizable and natural.

Fredlesaltique (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging editors involved in last discussion Medgirl131, Ahecht, and Colin M Fredlesaltique (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Most recent sources prefer psicose to allulose, per Google Ngrams, and it's been that way since the 1970s. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the Ngram data by itself is a good basis for deciding a name change. It's simplified, and doesn't distinguish between academic and non-academic sources (this article explains what I mean). My original point was that allulose is more common in general use, but the Ngram data won't show that. Fredlesaltique (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that Fredlesaltique's examples of preference for "allulose" include the FDA and the European Commission's food safety division — i.e., official government regulatory bodies. It's also used widely in consumer products on the market. These considerations seem pretty compelling reasosn to use "allulose" as the primary article name. Mikalra (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dietary effect section

This section is very badly written. It spends 90% on methodology description, and includes only one very technical sentence describing the results. I think it should be rewritten or removed, but I'm not competent to improve it.

77.252.46.234 (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Psicose → Allulose – Much has changed since 2019 since the last time this was suggested. Currently, a google search for '"psicose" "sugar"' returns 97,400 hits, whereas a google search for '"allulose" "sugar"' returns 3,950,000 hits. Psicose is clearly no longer the most common way to refer to this chemical. It might as well be titled erithrohexulose; neither has a future. ~2026-37145-91 (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 04:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. My searches (CAS, Pubchem, Aldrich, and Google by CAS number) suggest that psicose is the more common name, but allulose is certainly in use as well. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. Previous arguments in opposition seem to have resolved: Google Ngrams now favor allulose, not psicose. A Pubmed search for allulose brings 658 results, whereas a Pubmed search for psicose brings 488 results. And as already mentioned, an ordinary google search brings two orders of magnitude more results for allulose. While it is true that psicose is a legitimate name for this chemical, the trajectory of the usage of these terms clearly favors allulose in scientific as well as colloquial contexts. It's likely that we've already crossed the threshold by which we are creating more confusion than clarity by resisting this change; just look at all the comments on this talk page. They all are saying the same thing, and have been doing so for years. Jonathan.Marcus (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.