![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Almost exclusively eaten cooked and cold in salads here. Can often be bought ready cooked (and cold), often sealed in plastic, or pickled in jars. 78.149.172.237 ( talk) 12:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It's the usual problem of American editors refusing to accept that their local naming conventions aren't used anywhere else. See the rutabaga talk page as a further example. Even now the article still claims beetroot is also known as the table beet, garden beet, red beet or informally simply as beet. Not outside the US it isn't. -- Ef80 ( talk) 11:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm Canadian and I've never heard it referred to as beetroot, always and only beet. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 17:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of article naming is that the most common name will generally be used unless other factors are involved. Google gives: Beetroot - 1,440,000 hits Garden beet - 49,600 hits
"Beetroot" is 30 times more common than "Garden beet"
Unless the existence of "other factors" can be shown here then the name of this article needs to be changed.
My mother (in the UK) was very fond of beets as a baked/roast vegetable. FWIW a Google search on baked beetroot give around 270,000 hits, boiled beetroot give approx. 160,000. Should it be added? 122.107.58.27 ( talk) 06:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The articles Beet, Beetroot and Chard should be merged into a single article under the title "Beta vulgaris". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.14.161 ( talk) 20:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The next sentence talks about cooking it. However, here in Oztralia young beetroot leaves are served raw in a salad, b oth for taste and for colour. May I go ahead and include that in the article? Old_Wombat ( talk) 08:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
In the section on effects it says that betaine "is important for cardiovascular health" and that homocysteine "can be harmful to blood vessels and thus contribute to the development of heart disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease".
There's a citation for this and I looked it up ( http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/betaine-000287.htm). It says "researchers don't yet know exactly how high levels of homocysteine and heart disease are related" and "scientists don't yet know whether homocysteine itself is harmful, or whether it is just an indicator of increased risk for heart disease". I don't think this citation actually supports the claims I refer to. It doesn't say whether homocysteine is a risk factor or a marker of risk burden. It actually says they don't know either way.
I've seen a paper that concluded that adjusting for renal function "eliminates the relationship between tHcy and markers of vascular risk in subjects with proven cerebrovascular disease" and that "Our data are thus consistent with the hypothesis that mild renal impairment is an independent risk factor for vascular disease and elevated tHcy simply a marker for reduced GFR. The underlying relationship between tHcy and renal function is not altered by long-term B-vitamin supplementation and it is possible that, by treating homocysteine, we may be shooting the messenger rather than attacking the true risk factor." http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/6/1158
I think that those claims I've highlighted are controversial at best (from the various scientific papers I've seen, I get the impression they have actually been disproved) and that they were never supported by the reference cited. Prak Mann ( talk) 19:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I've proposed moving Beet to the scientific name, Beta vulgaris, and redirecting Beet to this article. Please comment here: Talk:Beet#Requested move Plantdrew ( talk) 21:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I apologize if this is the wrong place to say this i am new to the wiki community. I believe the information from Source: USDA Nutrient Database( http://ndb.nal.usda.gov) is incorrect due to a typo. the value size is per 100g. should this be per 10g? According to nutritional facts from many other sites would suggest this to be the case.
SynthSyn ( talk) 09:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Before we start an edit war, I'd like to better understand the WP:CULTIVAR standard. My take on it is enclosing the cultivar name in quotes is only needed if the genus, or genus x species, is specified with it. Since the cultivar names are given by themselves, I don't see the need for quotes. There's lots of articles listing variety names that don't use quotes, for example List of sweetcorn varieties. n2xjk ( talk) 20:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
A google search for "is beetroot dye used in ink" returns a result from fountainpennetwork.com, giving recipes for beetroot-based ink. Is this an acceptable source, and should I cite it? Benjamaster1 ( talk) 15:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Beetroot → Beet – In American English, the root of the plant is called beet, and no part of it is called beetroot. In the UK, to the besdt of my knoledge, the leaves are refered to as "beet". Since this article is about the whole plant, I think that beet is a better name for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
beet | beetroot | |
---|---|---|
The dark red root | US | British |
The plant with the dark red root | US | British |
Any Beta vulgaris | British, US | - |
There is plenty of recent research supporting the idea that the nitrates in beetroot improve exercise performance in the order of 16%. -- Penbat ( talk) 08:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
-- Nitrate10 ( talk) 08:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
76% of the trials used Beetroot juice as the form of supplementation. 581 subjects (mean : 10.8). PEDro score of 8.8. Zefr please read the article before you criticise the paper - it does a disservice to the authors of the paper and all of the studies selected. The trials have been systematically broken down 1 by 1 with all of the characteristics listed. Therefore, your point on "vague experimental designs, knowledge of the subjects or the applicable physical performance conditions" carries no weight. The authors listed all performance measures and the subject's fitness level (VO2max/peak). 61 of 76 trials improved performance (91% of those testing endurance exercise capacity). These are significant numbers especially when you take into account that the authors only used trials that used a crossover single/double blinded randomized protocol (subjects taking part in nitrate and placebo trials). As for the conclusion - that is typical wording used because guaranteeing something 100% is negligent and very rarely the case in any form of research. The authors also evaluated the studies using the PEDro scale so please do not criticize the individual studies as it is disrespectful to the authors that carried out those studies. If the studies were not good enough the author would have omitted them along with the 10 not selected in the study selection phase. Sports Medicine is one of the best journals in the field with an impact factor of 5.579 (they don't publish articles just for fun) so if they have selected it there should not be an issue.
Why are you not voicing concern for the previous sentence? They have 12 trials using beetroot juice and had a significant decrease in SBP but not DBP. 254 subjects (less than half of the study above). The journal has a lower impact factor (3.3). The only difference is the authors in that study used different wording ("associated with a significant") and said it decreased BP. It significantly decreased SBP and decreased DBP (not significantly). The McMahon et al. study had the same outcome (significantly improving endurance capacity (significantly). Improving time-trial and graded exercise performance (slightly non-significant). Please read the article in its entirety before making continual edits. Nitrate10 ( talk) 23:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Nitrate10
-- Zefr: The article can be accessed by anyone with library/database access and I have no interest in risking a copyright breach. You could contact the author. Doc James agrees that it should be included. I am a researcher in a related field and feel it should. That should be enough. Before you continue I think you should do some research on what statistically significant means and what a meta-analysis represents. Based on your reasoning of what constitutes "dubious" the encyclopedia would have to strip most of its articles (head over to the caffeine page because they have comparable results. Creatine too). Nitrate10 ( talk) 21:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Nitrate10
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beetroot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep. It already mentioned this, but I slightly rearranged it to where in the first sentence it talked about the beet in general. Somebody reverted it.
Oh, why?
APPARENTLY, I didn’t cite any sources... Wait, why would I need to cite any sources for merely rearranging the terms?
Oh, and also, when it talked about "beet juice", I assumed it meant from the root and not the greens, so I clarified this.
I also added commas where they needed to be added (I did some typo fixes). Do I have to cite a grammar site to prove that they were proper grammar?
Some cuisines and dishes with "beets" in them—you could tell they were talking about specifically the root, so I again clarified.
“Harvested earlier for use as greens”, or “Harvested earlier for use of beet greens”. Which sounds better? You gonna "use" the ROOT AS greens?
One part said they were "deep purple", and as it mentions this in another part and shows YELLOW AND WHITE ONES, I figured I should remove that (as, in a way, you could say it was being "racist", stereotyping most beetroot to be only purple-colored, which is false).
The stems are considered part of the leaves (which are edible) too, but some plants have edible leaves with poisonous stems, so I clarified that the stems are edible as well, and that collectively, the leaves and stems may be called the "beet greens".
One part mentioned beetroot is able to be peeled. Pretty obvious, right? Not a necessity.
One part mentioned they could be steamed, and in the main part where it talks about how they can be cooked, it didn’t mention that, so I went ahead and added it.
It talks about beetroot nutrition, but didn’t the link provided refer to both the beet greens and the beetroot?
By the way, what is a "frozen novelty"? :/ SaltySemanticSchmuck ( talk) 08:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Not even mentioned on page. 2601:647:CB02:5034:7C8B:A4EE:D641:4A30 ( talk) 22:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The leaves are compared to spinach but no mention is made of the (to me) unique flavour of beetroot. To me it is an 'earthy' taste reminiscent of petrichor. Should something be added? Stub Mandrel ( talk) 16:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Almost exclusively eaten cooked and cold in salads here. Can often be bought ready cooked (and cold), often sealed in plastic, or pickled in jars. 78.149.172.237 ( talk) 12:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It's the usual problem of American editors refusing to accept that their local naming conventions aren't used anywhere else. See the rutabaga talk page as a further example. Even now the article still claims beetroot is also known as the table beet, garden beet, red beet or informally simply as beet. Not outside the US it isn't. -- Ef80 ( talk) 11:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm Canadian and I've never heard it referred to as beetroot, always and only beet. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 17:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of article naming is that the most common name will generally be used unless other factors are involved. Google gives: Beetroot - 1,440,000 hits Garden beet - 49,600 hits
"Beetroot" is 30 times more common than "Garden beet"
Unless the existence of "other factors" can be shown here then the name of this article needs to be changed.
My mother (in the UK) was very fond of beets as a baked/roast vegetable. FWIW a Google search on baked beetroot give around 270,000 hits, boiled beetroot give approx. 160,000. Should it be added? 122.107.58.27 ( talk) 06:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The articles Beet, Beetroot and Chard should be merged into a single article under the title "Beta vulgaris". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.14.161 ( talk) 20:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The next sentence talks about cooking it. However, here in Oztralia young beetroot leaves are served raw in a salad, b oth for taste and for colour. May I go ahead and include that in the article? Old_Wombat ( talk) 08:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
In the section on effects it says that betaine "is important for cardiovascular health" and that homocysteine "can be harmful to blood vessels and thus contribute to the development of heart disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease".
There's a citation for this and I looked it up ( http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/betaine-000287.htm). It says "researchers don't yet know exactly how high levels of homocysteine and heart disease are related" and "scientists don't yet know whether homocysteine itself is harmful, or whether it is just an indicator of increased risk for heart disease". I don't think this citation actually supports the claims I refer to. It doesn't say whether homocysteine is a risk factor or a marker of risk burden. It actually says they don't know either way.
I've seen a paper that concluded that adjusting for renal function "eliminates the relationship between tHcy and markers of vascular risk in subjects with proven cerebrovascular disease" and that "Our data are thus consistent with the hypothesis that mild renal impairment is an independent risk factor for vascular disease and elevated tHcy simply a marker for reduced GFR. The underlying relationship between tHcy and renal function is not altered by long-term B-vitamin supplementation and it is possible that, by treating homocysteine, we may be shooting the messenger rather than attacking the true risk factor." http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/6/1158
I think that those claims I've highlighted are controversial at best (from the various scientific papers I've seen, I get the impression they have actually been disproved) and that they were never supported by the reference cited. Prak Mann ( talk) 19:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I've proposed moving Beet to the scientific name, Beta vulgaris, and redirecting Beet to this article. Please comment here: Talk:Beet#Requested move Plantdrew ( talk) 21:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I apologize if this is the wrong place to say this i am new to the wiki community. I believe the information from Source: USDA Nutrient Database( http://ndb.nal.usda.gov) is incorrect due to a typo. the value size is per 100g. should this be per 10g? According to nutritional facts from many other sites would suggest this to be the case.
SynthSyn ( talk) 09:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Before we start an edit war, I'd like to better understand the WP:CULTIVAR standard. My take on it is enclosing the cultivar name in quotes is only needed if the genus, or genus x species, is specified with it. Since the cultivar names are given by themselves, I don't see the need for quotes. There's lots of articles listing variety names that don't use quotes, for example List of sweetcorn varieties. n2xjk ( talk) 20:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
A google search for "is beetroot dye used in ink" returns a result from fountainpennetwork.com, giving recipes for beetroot-based ink. Is this an acceptable source, and should I cite it? Benjamaster1 ( talk) 15:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Beetroot → Beet – In American English, the root of the plant is called beet, and no part of it is called beetroot. In the UK, to the besdt of my knoledge, the leaves are refered to as "beet". Since this article is about the whole plant, I think that beet is a better name for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
beet | beetroot | |
---|---|---|
The dark red root | US | British |
The plant with the dark red root | US | British |
Any Beta vulgaris | British, US | - |
There is plenty of recent research supporting the idea that the nitrates in beetroot improve exercise performance in the order of 16%. -- Penbat ( talk) 08:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
-- Nitrate10 ( talk) 08:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
76% of the trials used Beetroot juice as the form of supplementation. 581 subjects (mean : 10.8). PEDro score of 8.8. Zefr please read the article before you criticise the paper - it does a disservice to the authors of the paper and all of the studies selected. The trials have been systematically broken down 1 by 1 with all of the characteristics listed. Therefore, your point on "vague experimental designs, knowledge of the subjects or the applicable physical performance conditions" carries no weight. The authors listed all performance measures and the subject's fitness level (VO2max/peak). 61 of 76 trials improved performance (91% of those testing endurance exercise capacity). These are significant numbers especially when you take into account that the authors only used trials that used a crossover single/double blinded randomized protocol (subjects taking part in nitrate and placebo trials). As for the conclusion - that is typical wording used because guaranteeing something 100% is negligent and very rarely the case in any form of research. The authors also evaluated the studies using the PEDro scale so please do not criticize the individual studies as it is disrespectful to the authors that carried out those studies. If the studies were not good enough the author would have omitted them along with the 10 not selected in the study selection phase. Sports Medicine is one of the best journals in the field with an impact factor of 5.579 (they don't publish articles just for fun) so if they have selected it there should not be an issue.
Why are you not voicing concern for the previous sentence? They have 12 trials using beetroot juice and had a significant decrease in SBP but not DBP. 254 subjects (less than half of the study above). The journal has a lower impact factor (3.3). The only difference is the authors in that study used different wording ("associated with a significant") and said it decreased BP. It significantly decreased SBP and decreased DBP (not significantly). The McMahon et al. study had the same outcome (significantly improving endurance capacity (significantly). Improving time-trial and graded exercise performance (slightly non-significant). Please read the article in its entirety before making continual edits. Nitrate10 ( talk) 23:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Nitrate10
-- Zefr: The article can be accessed by anyone with library/database access and I have no interest in risking a copyright breach. You could contact the author. Doc James agrees that it should be included. I am a researcher in a related field and feel it should. That should be enough. Before you continue I think you should do some research on what statistically significant means and what a meta-analysis represents. Based on your reasoning of what constitutes "dubious" the encyclopedia would have to strip most of its articles (head over to the caffeine page because they have comparable results. Creatine too). Nitrate10 ( talk) 21:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Nitrate10
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beetroot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep. It already mentioned this, but I slightly rearranged it to where in the first sentence it talked about the beet in general. Somebody reverted it.
Oh, why?
APPARENTLY, I didn’t cite any sources... Wait, why would I need to cite any sources for merely rearranging the terms?
Oh, and also, when it talked about "beet juice", I assumed it meant from the root and not the greens, so I clarified this.
I also added commas where they needed to be added (I did some typo fixes). Do I have to cite a grammar site to prove that they were proper grammar?
Some cuisines and dishes with "beets" in them—you could tell they were talking about specifically the root, so I again clarified.
“Harvested earlier for use as greens”, or “Harvested earlier for use of beet greens”. Which sounds better? You gonna "use" the ROOT AS greens?
One part said they were "deep purple", and as it mentions this in another part and shows YELLOW AND WHITE ONES, I figured I should remove that (as, in a way, you could say it was being "racist", stereotyping most beetroot to be only purple-colored, which is false).
The stems are considered part of the leaves (which are edible) too, but some plants have edible leaves with poisonous stems, so I clarified that the stems are edible as well, and that collectively, the leaves and stems may be called the "beet greens".
One part mentioned beetroot is able to be peeled. Pretty obvious, right? Not a necessity.
One part mentioned they could be steamed, and in the main part where it talks about how they can be cooked, it didn’t mention that, so I went ahead and added it.
It talks about beetroot nutrition, but didn’t the link provided refer to both the beet greens and the beetroot?
By the way, what is a "frozen novelty"? :/ SaltySemanticSchmuck ( talk) 08:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Not even mentioned on page. 2601:647:CB02:5034:7C8B:A4EE:D641:4A30 ( talk) 22:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The leaves are compared to spinach but no mention is made of the (to me) unique flavour of beetroot. To me it is an 'earthy' taste reminiscent of petrichor. Should something be added? Stub Mandrel ( talk) 16:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)