![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Discussion Archives created,--
Paul144
20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This article reads more like an advertisement than a neutral discussion of wolfberries. Dubious claims, such as the discussion of qi energy, are presented uncritically and as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.238.136 ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 November 2004 (UTC)
Link to Pubmed demonstrates that there is very real demonstrable efficacy in the berry. Some studies showing remarkable effects in cancer too. Within China, the Goji berry has almost miraculous properties - which seem to bear fruit (if you pardon the pun) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docboat ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 December 2004 (UTC)
Search the web and you'll find many hundreds, if not thousands, of pages that really do read like ads. Because they are ads. This entry seems fair enough to me. This is an interesting plant that has long been used for medicinal purposes. Maybe discount the hype over species; I sure wouldn't pay some Internet huckster $28 per pound for "official goji" when you can purchase the L. chinense variety for $5 per lb. at your local Chinese market. Pop out a few seeds and grow your own plants to avoid sulfur dioxide :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.128.233 ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't Tibetan Goji berry be merged with the Wolfberry article? I think these are the same species. Badagnani 21:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Botanists: does anyone have information on the various Lycium species known as wolf berry in the desert Southwest -- were used as food sources by indiginous people? Please see the discussion page on Hovenweep National Monument. Possible source:
Thank you. WBardwin 03:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if this berry has natural stimulant properties? Also, since it's related to the tomato, does that mean it's a new world food and not native to Asia?-- Stbalbach 01:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, saying there are over 70 published papers that mention the Wolfberry isn't saying much, it is misleading - what exactly did these 70 studies find? It sounds like sales-speak, meant to impress and wow the lay public who doesn't know better. And even then, individual papers are not the final word, they may suggest something, but there may be other views (the rats had to eat 50 pounds a day to see a benefit). Either the citations need to be refined, or the wording needs to be clarified. Also this is an encyclopedia so a "hard number" of 70 will be outdated within a month and silly within a few years. -- Stbalbach 14:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Why does goji redirect to wolfberry, if this is true: http://www.astrologyzine.com/himalayan-goji-berries.shtml Family Guy Guy 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What does it mean that "goji" is a vernacular spelling? I think it's simply a simplified spelling because people thought Americans wouldn't be able to pronounce "gouqi." The question is, why was "gochi" not used, as this is a more accurate pronunciation than "goji." Does anyone know the Tibetan and Mongolian words for "gouqi"? It would be great if this could be added to the article. [ Badagnani 19:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) ]
Also, the fact that the locations within "Tibet" where the supposed pure Himalayan goji berries are grown is never given by its marketers is interesting. Perhaps this could be mentioned as well. Badagnani 19:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Now we have two different Vitamin C contents listed -- 2500 mg/100 g fruit and 29 mg/100 g fruit. That's quite a difference! If the lower figure is true, then many of the marketing companies have a lot of explaining to do, and it needs to be made clear that such claims are false. If that claim is false then that would tend to shed doubts on many of the other claims. But the most recent edit on nutrition seems to state some of these claims (including the one that it's perhaps the most nutritious plant food on Earth). Badagnani 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
There are at least two companies purporting to offer organic wolfberries. However, the certification, if any, is from some dubious Chinese organization. The fact is that Ningxia wolfberries have been seized by the US FDA on numerous occasions for high pesticide violations. This should be discussed in the article. Badagnani 00:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The article says that there are two species, then says there are three. Other literature on goji says there are 80 species around the world. Which is correct? Badagnani 04:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I can assure readers that there are plenty of places in Tibet that are capable of growing just about anything. There are numerous areas in the far east of Tibet, now administratively part of China that are below 10,000 feet (3,048m) and are home to an amazing variety of plants. In the region of Kongpo (administratively part of the Tibetan Autonomous Region) the elevation varies from 3,280 feet (1000m) to snowy peaks over 20,000 feet (6,096m). In both Gansu and Qinghai provinces there are plenty of Tibetans living in villages below 10,000 feet. In fact Takster, the birth place of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, is below 10,000 feet and unlike the arid scenes portrayed in the movie “Kundun” (Sorsese 1997) is quite fertile. However I have yet to see the Wolfberry but I will enquire next time I visit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.214.55 ( talk • contribs) 08:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Section added today discussing the often-used ORAC value for wolfberry. It is certainly one of the highest reported for foods but likely is not the highest as claimed by some marketers -- acai appears to be higher and certain spices like clove are many times higher according to published research on ORAC by USDA scientists, now cited in the References. -- 70.66.195.47 16:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The article needs a description of the flower (which is depicted in the photo at the top). Badagnani 00:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The Wolfberry is native to China? This sounds highly suspect. My understanding it is a New World plant that was re-planted in China where is has done very well in the ecology. This is supported by being in the family Solanaceae (which also includes the potato, tomato, eggplant, and tobacco). .. all those plants are New World plants also. -- Stbalbach 13:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
As there are questions, the historical information about Tang Dynasty poetry, mention in 16th century treatises, etc. should be mentioned (if it is the same wolfberry that's being discussed in these old texts). Unfortunately the main literature available on the Internet is sales material, such as this: http://hanlin.hit.bg/wolfberry.htm Badagnani 14:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Part of the current history of wolfberry gaining public recognition, particularly in the US, comes from juices sold through the internet and multilevel marketing firms. Is it useful for the article to describe directions wolfberry products have taken, to name them, detail their composition, etc.?
There are also dried fruit, juice and pulp powders for industrial preparations, seed oils, soaps, granola bars, etc. The public may know about these and may come to Wikipedia for objective reviews of how wolfberry is being popularized. Comments?
I recognize this is not a priority but it might be of use to discuss it. -- Paul144 03:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a card game with the same name...played by 6 people and 4 decks. Anyone can do a artical for that game and add a disambiguation page? Rockvee 21:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't start an edit war - I gave reasons for my changes
If you are not happy with this article as a English language article, please discuss. jimfbleak 18:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
As "goji" is a term of recent origin used primarily in marketing (and one that doesn't reflect the actual Chinese name), I don't think it should be promoted by appearing in the lead paragraph (though it should be described later in the article). Thus, I think a new disambiguation page entitled "Goji" should include both meanings. Maybe this is what you originally had in mind. Right now "Goji" redirects to "Wolfberry." Badagnani 16:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh! I just checked and you've already done this. I'll remove the disambigs from the header, then, as they're no longer necessary. Badagnani 16:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone has just commented on a BBC website that in Chinese culture gouqi (wolfberries) are never eaten hand to mouth, as some Western marketers recommend, but instead are used primarily cooked in various soups. Is this accurate and, if, so, is there some reason why they are not eaten in this way? Badagnani 04:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've just asked a professor friend from China (she's from northern China but lives in southern China) and she confirmed that in China people never eat wolfberries "as is" but always boil them to make a tea, or in a soup. Is there some reason for this other than cultural (i.e., is it dangerous to eat them without cooking first)? Or is this just a symptom of the Chinese preference for cooked as opposed to raw foods? Badagnani 02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the more comprehensive plant-related articles on WP. However, here are a few things that need to be cleaned up before it is re-nominated:
The amount of info in this article is amazing (Nice work! now get it all cited...). I does seem somewhat onesided and a few sections don't seem to "fit", but I don't know if there is much that can be done about it. Keep it up and this will be a GA in no time. Maybe even on its way to a FA... -- NoahElhardt 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The article is extremely inaccurate in its comparison of wolfberry vs. soybean nutrients. For example:
This article keeps getting less and less NPOV: Almost every cite is to some sort of health food supplements book, particularly two of them with ten cites each. And it's spreading more and more:
...synergy?!?!?!?!?
...Seriously, we can't just copy marketing claims. Get some scientific papers, and don't spin every single piece of evidence in the best possible light. There are valid claims that can be made from the articles on pubmed. Adam Cuerden talk 15:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hallo. I hope I am doing the right thing while editing here. I am a biochemist and happen to know something about wolfberry. I have got all (OK...most of) the pubmed articles you mention printed as hardcopies. If I understand your comments correctly you are concerned that the claims you make about goji are not "scientific" enough. I´ll try to come up with something that looks more equilibrate and based on verifiable facts. Just let me know if this is the right place to write my proposal. Please be patient: this is the first tme I try to contribute to Wikipedia. -- Wstefano 22:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Here it is people...If you don’t mind I’ll write something over here and maybe you take whatever info you think might be useful for insertion in “the real thing”.
Let´s stick to facts. Not easy with goji, as the “literature” is full of unsupported wild claims, as you all noticed. I’try to refer only to recent information and exclusively from well-known scientific journals.
Out of the many natural substances present in wolfberry (in allegedly enormous amount), the most studied are perhaps carotenoids, zeaxanthin in particular, which is an oxygenated carotenoid (i.e.: a xanthophyll).
By the way, I have no idea how high/low I should keep the level of my writing (so, in case there are too many / too little technical terms please let me know). Let me also know if and where you need references to support what I am writing.
It is very well known that zeaxanthin has a photoprotective effect (it adsorbs blue light to which the retina is most susceptible for damage, thereby limiting photooxidative processes) in the skin and in the eye. This latter effect is particularly well-documented.
Now, it was observed that for a certain percentage of the population, the amount of macular pigments (the light-absorbing substances present in the macula lutea of the eye, which are – guess what - mainly zeaxanthin as well as one of its isomers, lutein) diminishes while ageing. This condition is known as age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and it happens to be the leading cause for blindness in those aged over 65 years. As far as I know there is no effective treatment for AMD yet, so for the time being we can only try with the prevention of the thinning of macular pigments.
Since both zeaxanthin and lutein are obtainable in man exclusively from the diet (animals are unable to synthesize them themselves), it has been suggested that an increased intake of carotenoid-rich foods may be a successful strategy in lowering the risk of AMD. Lutein has been the most studied xanthophyll until recently, however lutein is found mainly in the peripheral areas of the macula, whereas zeaxanthin is concentrated within the central area of the macula of the (human) eye.
Foods that contains these carotenoids include kiwi, oranges, melons, spinach, orange peppers and egg yolk. Goji fruits, wolfberry (or why not, Lycium barbarum) are one of the richest natural sources of zeaxanthin. The content of zeaxanthin in dried wolfberries reported in literature varies widely, with values ranging from 11 to 45 micrograms (sorry I cannot find an easy way to type the greek letter mu) per gram of goji. As a comparison, spinach contains less than 3 mug/g.
However, it must be stressed once more the fact that, although goji does contain a lot of zeaxanthin and although it was demonstrated that there has been an increase of such macular pigments in the eyes of individuals taking for example 30g/day of lutein and zeaxanthin for 60 days, it remains to be proved that such dietary supplements (and therefore a healthier macula) help reducing the incidence of AMD. Such an hypothesis seems now plausible but it requires controlled supplementation studies and long-term clinical trials, which are - hopefully – on their way.
Well, enough. Please give me indication if (and about what) you wish me to write more. The majority of what I wrote today was taken from I. Benzie et al., British J. Nutrition (2006), vol 96, pages 154-160.
By the way, the conclusion of this study suggests a great method to increase the assimilation of zeaxanthin from goji in human body by three times. Yes, there is the whole issue of bioavailability to discuss, which I have not treated before (should I ?) Well, instead of eating the berries as they are, homogenise them beforehand in hot skimmed milk. (A goji frappuccino!) -- Wstefano 22:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Stefano, David, others -- Please critique the following. References to be added where shown after your feedback.
Zeaxanthin
Pronounced “zee-a-zan-thin”, zeaxanthin and lutein are two of the most abundant xanthophyll (oxygen-containing) carotenoids in western diets. Unlike beta-carotene, neither zeaxanthin nor lutein is considered a pro-vitamin, as it is not converted in the body into retinol, the active form of vitamin A.
The names of both zeaxanthin and lutein reflect their natural hue - lutein is derived from the Latin word luteus meaning golden yellow while zea refers to the corn genus and xantho- is derived from a Greek word that means yellow. While these carotenoids both have yellow pigments, they are found concentrated in foods of other colors, notably leafy green vegetables (especially rich in spinach and kale which are green due to the pigment dominance of chlorophyll) and those with red or orange pigments like the wolfberry.
Zeaxanthin is found commonly in egg yolks (about 200 mcg per yolk) and in the petals of deep yellow flowers like marigolds (5,000 mcg per g) which are a major commercial source for zeaxanthin extractions.
The total concentration of zeaxanthin in wolfberries – 162 mg per 100 g (1,620 mcg per g) – is the highest reported value among edible plants, exceeding the content of frozen, cooked spinach by 10 times (ref. Linus Pauling Inst. data). Wolfberry carotenoids have been studied to reveal potential properties of their physiological roles after consuming the fruit. A total of 77% of wolfberry carotenoids exist as zeaxanthin, a carotenoid source known to be a preferred substrate for uptake by the macula lutea of the eye. In the retina, zeaxanthin acts mainly as a chromatic filter to shield photoreceptors from the damaging effects of intense sunlight. The retinal macula lutea is a model system for how specifically wolfberry zeaxanthin may benefit human eye health as this is the eye subregion in which light is transformed via photoreceptors into neuroelectrical signals providing visual perception.
In the retinal fovea and macula, zeaxanthin and lutein are preferentially absorbed from blood, stored and integrated into yellow macular pigment ( biological pigment) that serves two functions mentioned above: to filter and absorb intense light and to provide an antioxidant reserve for neutralizing reactive oxygen species (ref).
Of interest is antioxidant research showing that carotenoids are the most efficient singlet oxygen quencher in biological systems (ref). This property results from their extensive number of double-bonds, a location in chemical architecture readily providing electrons sought by reactive oxygen species (ref).
-- Paul144 00:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. Here's what I see as wrong with the article:
In short, this article is frankly awful, and seems only to have gotten worse since last I looked at it. This is exactly the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. We have to CUT ALL THE MARKETING AND PSEUDOSCIENCE. Adam Cuerden talk 09:47- 10:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. It's just that I was somewhat involved in helping remove pseudoscience from this article a bit back at the GA review, though university then pulled me away, and, well, am kind of horrified with how much crept back in/survived since then . It's not that it's a bad article in whole: everything up to the nutrient analysis is fine, sterling work, that represents some of Wikipedia's best. But then... Well, there's some good parts, but they're mixed in with a lot of questionable stuff, speculation, and a tone of voice that I can best describe as "Oooh! Shiny!" breathlessness that drives me mad. Hell, it even contains the "synergy" line still. ...I dunno. I think there's a good article here, but surely, given it's required by law in most countries, we can get a better nutrient analysis for the macronutrients and straightforward vitamins/minerals by simply citing one on the back of a food product?
Also, there are studies on wolfberries. I can see them on pub med. Any of these are eminently appropriate to cite, but it instead is citing very dodgy, questionable sources.
...I dunno. I just think we can do a lot better. So much unsourced, so much described in odd and misleading ways.... it's not really appropriate, and I almost think that, with a few possible exceptions, we'd be better deleting large parts and rebuilding. Adam Cuerden talk 10:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've numbered Adam's comments above so we can look at clarifying the article step by step. This is just a start to establishing facts as best as available. I'm certain we'll be here in Discussion for awhile before getting mutual agreement.
1. Original research comparisons with blueberries and soybeans. If you have original data from publications, please share them. The data used were the best available sources I could find. All the data for wolfberries come from independent contract lab assays, not journal publications, as none exists. I feel our role is to provide the facts as known so we have to rely on available sources, even if they are in unreviewed books (a form of publication which does not make the data invalid).
2. The report on ORAC in the Young book was from Brunswick Laboratories, a world leader in contract assays for ORAC. The value has not been peer-reviewed (few reports for ORAC are), is subject to variation (common among ORAC analyses), but is the only available data. It's a reference point. It is an exceptional ORAC value in relation to the range of published scores for common fruits and vegetables (Wu et al., 2004), exceeding wild blueberries and cranberries (highest among common berries) by 3x. The word "synergy" is commonly used in the nutritional literature (including by the American Dietetic Association) and can be demonstrated in the lab where combining effectors creates a response greater than their demonstrated individual values.
3. From above -- Lots of pseudoscience. E.g. "Despite no evidence from clinical research, myths of wolfberry’s traditional health benefits endure, including longevity, aphrodisia, analgesia, anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and immune-stimulating properties, muscular strength, energy, and vision health." That statement intends to dispel the pseudoscience and myths perpetuated by marketers of Goji juice and Tibetan goji berries. Perhaps it could be reworded.
4. From above -- Bad reporting: The whole nutrient section reports things in ways not consistant with other foods: It gives protein, carbohydrates and fat as percentages by weight. It gives all sorts of bizarre and meaningless statements, like "Lycopene. Unknown previously as a constituent of berry fruit, lycopene in powder made from wolfberry juice concentrate has been measured at 1.4 mg/100 grams" - noone eats it as a dried powder! And dozens upon dozens of other such things.
Reporting macronutrients by % is equal to using g per 100 g, and was done that way to be succinct and consistent with US food labels. You are over the top in calling the lycopene description "bizarre and meaningless". The analysis of juice concentrate powder was recently performed and is the only such analysis that exists for lycopene. Do we ignore the result and wait indefinitely for it to be repeated in dried whole fruit, or report it as a fact available now, giving additional interpretation about the nutritional content of this berry?
5. The revisions performed on the macronutrient and micronutrient sections are fine. From the previous version and removal of bolding, I see nothing wrong with that to highlight unusual nutrient qualities. You interpret bold as "hype"; I interpret it as emphasis to guide the eye.
6. From above -- Crystalballing based on questionable facts. After taking a powder made from the juice - in other words, the contents of the fruit sans many of its solid components and all its water: An artificial inflation. It then crystalballs: "As lycopene's antioxidant role as a possible cancer-inhibiting agent occurs at microgram blood levels in humans, this is a potentially important discovery inviting further research." !!!!
As originally stated, I see nothing wrong with the sentence describing the unusual and unexpected content of lycopene -- a potentially important discover inviting further research. You could find that description in any peer-reviewed journal.
7. The cut section on vitamin C was old information that shows the history and previous comparisons with other vitamin C-rich fruits reported on Wikipedia. It seemed appropriate to cite it in case some users found those data. I have no problem with the current vitamin C information.
Other comments from above -- Further comment:"Should this phenolic capacity be confirmed and extended to include the likely presence of other phenolic chemicals, the combination of rich contents in wolfberries of lipid-soluble ("lipophilic") antioxidants (carotenoids) plus water-soluble ("hydrophilic") antioxidants (phenolics) would make wolfberries exceptional as an antioxidant food source.". This is blatant crystal-balling, reads like original research, and should be savagely cut.
Rather than allowing a knee-jerk to determine how to word this information, try rewriting it. There is plentiful evidence for rich carotenoid content in wolfberries, and new evidence (from contract lab assays reported in Young's book) that phenolic content is high. No other berry has these two pigment classes both in rich contents. As a scientist, I find that intriguing and exceptional, and worthy of including in wolfberry's description.
"Superfood", as in Discovery of the Ultimate Superfood (title of Young's book), is a term not well-suited to scientists, but has become commonplace in today's functional food industry. Like it or not, it is here to stay.
-- Paul144 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
An Hurricane has passed ? Hi again. It looks like the cutting-down season has come and people are getting pretty much involved into this.
I personally tend to agree with Adam about the need to remove pseudoscience - although my comments would have probably been less harsch - but I understand Paul in that we should provide all known nutrition data, clearly stating so when those are not verified.
Concerning zeaxanthin, I would definitely put back in the article that Up to 77% of carotenoids present in wolfberry exist as zeaxanthin (Paul ref, I have 31-65% in my references), in a concentration of 162 mg per 100 g (1,620 mcg per g), the highest reported value among edible plants (Ref. Linus Pauling Inst. data). -- Wstefano 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking for references I'll try to find some reliable data from major journals - possibly also retrievable via pubmed - to improve our references. By the way, reference 6 (^ See Pubmed[1]; Young, et al; Gross, et al.) links merely to pubmed homepage and I was not able to find any article from Young und Gross (there are >1500) on pubmed concerning wolfberry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wstefano ( talk • contribs) 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Picture of dried wolfberries Since there is a reference to this in the article (section Commercial products marketed outside Asia) but the actual picture is missing, I can provide one that I am particularly proud of. I did it myself so there are no copyright problems. Just explain me how to upload it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wstefano ( talk • contribs) 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
References added. Your turn now...-- Wstefano 20:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Discussion Archives created,--
Paul144
20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This article reads more like an advertisement than a neutral discussion of wolfberries. Dubious claims, such as the discussion of qi energy, are presented uncritically and as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.238.136 ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 November 2004 (UTC)
Link to Pubmed demonstrates that there is very real demonstrable efficacy in the berry. Some studies showing remarkable effects in cancer too. Within China, the Goji berry has almost miraculous properties - which seem to bear fruit (if you pardon the pun) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docboat ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 December 2004 (UTC)
Search the web and you'll find many hundreds, if not thousands, of pages that really do read like ads. Because they are ads. This entry seems fair enough to me. This is an interesting plant that has long been used for medicinal purposes. Maybe discount the hype over species; I sure wouldn't pay some Internet huckster $28 per pound for "official goji" when you can purchase the L. chinense variety for $5 per lb. at your local Chinese market. Pop out a few seeds and grow your own plants to avoid sulfur dioxide :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.128.233 ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't Tibetan Goji berry be merged with the Wolfberry article? I think these are the same species. Badagnani 21:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Botanists: does anyone have information on the various Lycium species known as wolf berry in the desert Southwest -- were used as food sources by indiginous people? Please see the discussion page on Hovenweep National Monument. Possible source:
Thank you. WBardwin 03:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if this berry has natural stimulant properties? Also, since it's related to the tomato, does that mean it's a new world food and not native to Asia?-- Stbalbach 01:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, saying there are over 70 published papers that mention the Wolfberry isn't saying much, it is misleading - what exactly did these 70 studies find? It sounds like sales-speak, meant to impress and wow the lay public who doesn't know better. And even then, individual papers are not the final word, they may suggest something, but there may be other views (the rats had to eat 50 pounds a day to see a benefit). Either the citations need to be refined, or the wording needs to be clarified. Also this is an encyclopedia so a "hard number" of 70 will be outdated within a month and silly within a few years. -- Stbalbach 14:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Why does goji redirect to wolfberry, if this is true: http://www.astrologyzine.com/himalayan-goji-berries.shtml Family Guy Guy 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What does it mean that "goji" is a vernacular spelling? I think it's simply a simplified spelling because people thought Americans wouldn't be able to pronounce "gouqi." The question is, why was "gochi" not used, as this is a more accurate pronunciation than "goji." Does anyone know the Tibetan and Mongolian words for "gouqi"? It would be great if this could be added to the article. [ Badagnani 19:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) ]
Also, the fact that the locations within "Tibet" where the supposed pure Himalayan goji berries are grown is never given by its marketers is interesting. Perhaps this could be mentioned as well. Badagnani 19:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Now we have two different Vitamin C contents listed -- 2500 mg/100 g fruit and 29 mg/100 g fruit. That's quite a difference! If the lower figure is true, then many of the marketing companies have a lot of explaining to do, and it needs to be made clear that such claims are false. If that claim is false then that would tend to shed doubts on many of the other claims. But the most recent edit on nutrition seems to state some of these claims (including the one that it's perhaps the most nutritious plant food on Earth). Badagnani 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
There are at least two companies purporting to offer organic wolfberries. However, the certification, if any, is from some dubious Chinese organization. The fact is that Ningxia wolfberries have been seized by the US FDA on numerous occasions for high pesticide violations. This should be discussed in the article. Badagnani 00:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The article says that there are two species, then says there are three. Other literature on goji says there are 80 species around the world. Which is correct? Badagnani 04:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I can assure readers that there are plenty of places in Tibet that are capable of growing just about anything. There are numerous areas in the far east of Tibet, now administratively part of China that are below 10,000 feet (3,048m) and are home to an amazing variety of plants. In the region of Kongpo (administratively part of the Tibetan Autonomous Region) the elevation varies from 3,280 feet (1000m) to snowy peaks over 20,000 feet (6,096m). In both Gansu and Qinghai provinces there are plenty of Tibetans living in villages below 10,000 feet. In fact Takster, the birth place of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, is below 10,000 feet and unlike the arid scenes portrayed in the movie “Kundun” (Sorsese 1997) is quite fertile. However I have yet to see the Wolfberry but I will enquire next time I visit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.214.55 ( talk • contribs) 08:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Section added today discussing the often-used ORAC value for wolfberry. It is certainly one of the highest reported for foods but likely is not the highest as claimed by some marketers -- acai appears to be higher and certain spices like clove are many times higher according to published research on ORAC by USDA scientists, now cited in the References. -- 70.66.195.47 16:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The article needs a description of the flower (which is depicted in the photo at the top). Badagnani 00:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The Wolfberry is native to China? This sounds highly suspect. My understanding it is a New World plant that was re-planted in China where is has done very well in the ecology. This is supported by being in the family Solanaceae (which also includes the potato, tomato, eggplant, and tobacco). .. all those plants are New World plants also. -- Stbalbach 13:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
As there are questions, the historical information about Tang Dynasty poetry, mention in 16th century treatises, etc. should be mentioned (if it is the same wolfberry that's being discussed in these old texts). Unfortunately the main literature available on the Internet is sales material, such as this: http://hanlin.hit.bg/wolfberry.htm Badagnani 14:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Part of the current history of wolfberry gaining public recognition, particularly in the US, comes from juices sold through the internet and multilevel marketing firms. Is it useful for the article to describe directions wolfberry products have taken, to name them, detail their composition, etc.?
There are also dried fruit, juice and pulp powders for industrial preparations, seed oils, soaps, granola bars, etc. The public may know about these and may come to Wikipedia for objective reviews of how wolfberry is being popularized. Comments?
I recognize this is not a priority but it might be of use to discuss it. -- Paul144 03:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a card game with the same name...played by 6 people and 4 decks. Anyone can do a artical for that game and add a disambiguation page? Rockvee 21:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't start an edit war - I gave reasons for my changes
If you are not happy with this article as a English language article, please discuss. jimfbleak 18:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
As "goji" is a term of recent origin used primarily in marketing (and one that doesn't reflect the actual Chinese name), I don't think it should be promoted by appearing in the lead paragraph (though it should be described later in the article). Thus, I think a new disambiguation page entitled "Goji" should include both meanings. Maybe this is what you originally had in mind. Right now "Goji" redirects to "Wolfberry." Badagnani 16:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh! I just checked and you've already done this. I'll remove the disambigs from the header, then, as they're no longer necessary. Badagnani 16:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone has just commented on a BBC website that in Chinese culture gouqi (wolfberries) are never eaten hand to mouth, as some Western marketers recommend, but instead are used primarily cooked in various soups. Is this accurate and, if, so, is there some reason why they are not eaten in this way? Badagnani 04:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've just asked a professor friend from China (she's from northern China but lives in southern China) and she confirmed that in China people never eat wolfberries "as is" but always boil them to make a tea, or in a soup. Is there some reason for this other than cultural (i.e., is it dangerous to eat them without cooking first)? Or is this just a symptom of the Chinese preference for cooked as opposed to raw foods? Badagnani 02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the more comprehensive plant-related articles on WP. However, here are a few things that need to be cleaned up before it is re-nominated:
The amount of info in this article is amazing (Nice work! now get it all cited...). I does seem somewhat onesided and a few sections don't seem to "fit", but I don't know if there is much that can be done about it. Keep it up and this will be a GA in no time. Maybe even on its way to a FA... -- NoahElhardt 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The article is extremely inaccurate in its comparison of wolfberry vs. soybean nutrients. For example:
This article keeps getting less and less NPOV: Almost every cite is to some sort of health food supplements book, particularly two of them with ten cites each. And it's spreading more and more:
...synergy?!?!?!?!?
...Seriously, we can't just copy marketing claims. Get some scientific papers, and don't spin every single piece of evidence in the best possible light. There are valid claims that can be made from the articles on pubmed. Adam Cuerden talk 15:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hallo. I hope I am doing the right thing while editing here. I am a biochemist and happen to know something about wolfberry. I have got all (OK...most of) the pubmed articles you mention printed as hardcopies. If I understand your comments correctly you are concerned that the claims you make about goji are not "scientific" enough. I´ll try to come up with something that looks more equilibrate and based on verifiable facts. Just let me know if this is the right place to write my proposal. Please be patient: this is the first tme I try to contribute to Wikipedia. -- Wstefano 22:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Here it is people...If you don’t mind I’ll write something over here and maybe you take whatever info you think might be useful for insertion in “the real thing”.
Let´s stick to facts. Not easy with goji, as the “literature” is full of unsupported wild claims, as you all noticed. I’try to refer only to recent information and exclusively from well-known scientific journals.
Out of the many natural substances present in wolfberry (in allegedly enormous amount), the most studied are perhaps carotenoids, zeaxanthin in particular, which is an oxygenated carotenoid (i.e.: a xanthophyll).
By the way, I have no idea how high/low I should keep the level of my writing (so, in case there are too many / too little technical terms please let me know). Let me also know if and where you need references to support what I am writing.
It is very well known that zeaxanthin has a photoprotective effect (it adsorbs blue light to which the retina is most susceptible for damage, thereby limiting photooxidative processes) in the skin and in the eye. This latter effect is particularly well-documented.
Now, it was observed that for a certain percentage of the population, the amount of macular pigments (the light-absorbing substances present in the macula lutea of the eye, which are – guess what - mainly zeaxanthin as well as one of its isomers, lutein) diminishes while ageing. This condition is known as age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and it happens to be the leading cause for blindness in those aged over 65 years. As far as I know there is no effective treatment for AMD yet, so for the time being we can only try with the prevention of the thinning of macular pigments.
Since both zeaxanthin and lutein are obtainable in man exclusively from the diet (animals are unable to synthesize them themselves), it has been suggested that an increased intake of carotenoid-rich foods may be a successful strategy in lowering the risk of AMD. Lutein has been the most studied xanthophyll until recently, however lutein is found mainly in the peripheral areas of the macula, whereas zeaxanthin is concentrated within the central area of the macula of the (human) eye.
Foods that contains these carotenoids include kiwi, oranges, melons, spinach, orange peppers and egg yolk. Goji fruits, wolfberry (or why not, Lycium barbarum) are one of the richest natural sources of zeaxanthin. The content of zeaxanthin in dried wolfberries reported in literature varies widely, with values ranging from 11 to 45 micrograms (sorry I cannot find an easy way to type the greek letter mu) per gram of goji. As a comparison, spinach contains less than 3 mug/g.
However, it must be stressed once more the fact that, although goji does contain a lot of zeaxanthin and although it was demonstrated that there has been an increase of such macular pigments in the eyes of individuals taking for example 30g/day of lutein and zeaxanthin for 60 days, it remains to be proved that such dietary supplements (and therefore a healthier macula) help reducing the incidence of AMD. Such an hypothesis seems now plausible but it requires controlled supplementation studies and long-term clinical trials, which are - hopefully – on their way.
Well, enough. Please give me indication if (and about what) you wish me to write more. The majority of what I wrote today was taken from I. Benzie et al., British J. Nutrition (2006), vol 96, pages 154-160.
By the way, the conclusion of this study suggests a great method to increase the assimilation of zeaxanthin from goji in human body by three times. Yes, there is the whole issue of bioavailability to discuss, which I have not treated before (should I ?) Well, instead of eating the berries as they are, homogenise them beforehand in hot skimmed milk. (A goji frappuccino!) -- Wstefano 22:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Stefano, David, others -- Please critique the following. References to be added where shown after your feedback.
Zeaxanthin
Pronounced “zee-a-zan-thin”, zeaxanthin and lutein are two of the most abundant xanthophyll (oxygen-containing) carotenoids in western diets. Unlike beta-carotene, neither zeaxanthin nor lutein is considered a pro-vitamin, as it is not converted in the body into retinol, the active form of vitamin A.
The names of both zeaxanthin and lutein reflect their natural hue - lutein is derived from the Latin word luteus meaning golden yellow while zea refers to the corn genus and xantho- is derived from a Greek word that means yellow. While these carotenoids both have yellow pigments, they are found concentrated in foods of other colors, notably leafy green vegetables (especially rich in spinach and kale which are green due to the pigment dominance of chlorophyll) and those with red or orange pigments like the wolfberry.
Zeaxanthin is found commonly in egg yolks (about 200 mcg per yolk) and in the petals of deep yellow flowers like marigolds (5,000 mcg per g) which are a major commercial source for zeaxanthin extractions.
The total concentration of zeaxanthin in wolfberries – 162 mg per 100 g (1,620 mcg per g) – is the highest reported value among edible plants, exceeding the content of frozen, cooked spinach by 10 times (ref. Linus Pauling Inst. data). Wolfberry carotenoids have been studied to reveal potential properties of their physiological roles after consuming the fruit. A total of 77% of wolfberry carotenoids exist as zeaxanthin, a carotenoid source known to be a preferred substrate for uptake by the macula lutea of the eye. In the retina, zeaxanthin acts mainly as a chromatic filter to shield photoreceptors from the damaging effects of intense sunlight. The retinal macula lutea is a model system for how specifically wolfberry zeaxanthin may benefit human eye health as this is the eye subregion in which light is transformed via photoreceptors into neuroelectrical signals providing visual perception.
In the retinal fovea and macula, zeaxanthin and lutein are preferentially absorbed from blood, stored and integrated into yellow macular pigment ( biological pigment) that serves two functions mentioned above: to filter and absorb intense light and to provide an antioxidant reserve for neutralizing reactive oxygen species (ref).
Of interest is antioxidant research showing that carotenoids are the most efficient singlet oxygen quencher in biological systems (ref). This property results from their extensive number of double-bonds, a location in chemical architecture readily providing electrons sought by reactive oxygen species (ref).
-- Paul144 00:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. Here's what I see as wrong with the article:
In short, this article is frankly awful, and seems only to have gotten worse since last I looked at it. This is exactly the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. We have to CUT ALL THE MARKETING AND PSEUDOSCIENCE. Adam Cuerden talk 09:47- 10:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. It's just that I was somewhat involved in helping remove pseudoscience from this article a bit back at the GA review, though university then pulled me away, and, well, am kind of horrified with how much crept back in/survived since then . It's not that it's a bad article in whole: everything up to the nutrient analysis is fine, sterling work, that represents some of Wikipedia's best. But then... Well, there's some good parts, but they're mixed in with a lot of questionable stuff, speculation, and a tone of voice that I can best describe as "Oooh! Shiny!" breathlessness that drives me mad. Hell, it even contains the "synergy" line still. ...I dunno. I think there's a good article here, but surely, given it's required by law in most countries, we can get a better nutrient analysis for the macronutrients and straightforward vitamins/minerals by simply citing one on the back of a food product?
Also, there are studies on wolfberries. I can see them on pub med. Any of these are eminently appropriate to cite, but it instead is citing very dodgy, questionable sources.
...I dunno. I just think we can do a lot better. So much unsourced, so much described in odd and misleading ways.... it's not really appropriate, and I almost think that, with a few possible exceptions, we'd be better deleting large parts and rebuilding. Adam Cuerden talk 10:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've numbered Adam's comments above so we can look at clarifying the article step by step. This is just a start to establishing facts as best as available. I'm certain we'll be here in Discussion for awhile before getting mutual agreement.
1. Original research comparisons with blueberries and soybeans. If you have original data from publications, please share them. The data used were the best available sources I could find. All the data for wolfberries come from independent contract lab assays, not journal publications, as none exists. I feel our role is to provide the facts as known so we have to rely on available sources, even if they are in unreviewed books (a form of publication which does not make the data invalid).
2. The report on ORAC in the Young book was from Brunswick Laboratories, a world leader in contract assays for ORAC. The value has not been peer-reviewed (few reports for ORAC are), is subject to variation (common among ORAC analyses), but is the only available data. It's a reference point. It is an exceptional ORAC value in relation to the range of published scores for common fruits and vegetables (Wu et al., 2004), exceeding wild blueberries and cranberries (highest among common berries) by 3x. The word "synergy" is commonly used in the nutritional literature (including by the American Dietetic Association) and can be demonstrated in the lab where combining effectors creates a response greater than their demonstrated individual values.
3. From above -- Lots of pseudoscience. E.g. "Despite no evidence from clinical research, myths of wolfberry’s traditional health benefits endure, including longevity, aphrodisia, analgesia, anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and immune-stimulating properties, muscular strength, energy, and vision health." That statement intends to dispel the pseudoscience and myths perpetuated by marketers of Goji juice and Tibetan goji berries. Perhaps it could be reworded.
4. From above -- Bad reporting: The whole nutrient section reports things in ways not consistant with other foods: It gives protein, carbohydrates and fat as percentages by weight. It gives all sorts of bizarre and meaningless statements, like "Lycopene. Unknown previously as a constituent of berry fruit, lycopene in powder made from wolfberry juice concentrate has been measured at 1.4 mg/100 grams" - noone eats it as a dried powder! And dozens upon dozens of other such things.
Reporting macronutrients by % is equal to using g per 100 g, and was done that way to be succinct and consistent with US food labels. You are over the top in calling the lycopene description "bizarre and meaningless". The analysis of juice concentrate powder was recently performed and is the only such analysis that exists for lycopene. Do we ignore the result and wait indefinitely for it to be repeated in dried whole fruit, or report it as a fact available now, giving additional interpretation about the nutritional content of this berry?
5. The revisions performed on the macronutrient and micronutrient sections are fine. From the previous version and removal of bolding, I see nothing wrong with that to highlight unusual nutrient qualities. You interpret bold as "hype"; I interpret it as emphasis to guide the eye.
6. From above -- Crystalballing based on questionable facts. After taking a powder made from the juice - in other words, the contents of the fruit sans many of its solid components and all its water: An artificial inflation. It then crystalballs: "As lycopene's antioxidant role as a possible cancer-inhibiting agent occurs at microgram blood levels in humans, this is a potentially important discovery inviting further research." !!!!
As originally stated, I see nothing wrong with the sentence describing the unusual and unexpected content of lycopene -- a potentially important discover inviting further research. You could find that description in any peer-reviewed journal.
7. The cut section on vitamin C was old information that shows the history and previous comparisons with other vitamin C-rich fruits reported on Wikipedia. It seemed appropriate to cite it in case some users found those data. I have no problem with the current vitamin C information.
Other comments from above -- Further comment:"Should this phenolic capacity be confirmed and extended to include the likely presence of other phenolic chemicals, the combination of rich contents in wolfberries of lipid-soluble ("lipophilic") antioxidants (carotenoids) plus water-soluble ("hydrophilic") antioxidants (phenolics) would make wolfberries exceptional as an antioxidant food source.". This is blatant crystal-balling, reads like original research, and should be savagely cut.
Rather than allowing a knee-jerk to determine how to word this information, try rewriting it. There is plentiful evidence for rich carotenoid content in wolfberries, and new evidence (from contract lab assays reported in Young's book) that phenolic content is high. No other berry has these two pigment classes both in rich contents. As a scientist, I find that intriguing and exceptional, and worthy of including in wolfberry's description.
"Superfood", as in Discovery of the Ultimate Superfood (title of Young's book), is a term not well-suited to scientists, but has become commonplace in today's functional food industry. Like it or not, it is here to stay.
-- Paul144 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
An Hurricane has passed ? Hi again. It looks like the cutting-down season has come and people are getting pretty much involved into this.
I personally tend to agree with Adam about the need to remove pseudoscience - although my comments would have probably been less harsch - but I understand Paul in that we should provide all known nutrition data, clearly stating so when those are not verified.
Concerning zeaxanthin, I would definitely put back in the article that Up to 77% of carotenoids present in wolfberry exist as zeaxanthin (Paul ref, I have 31-65% in my references), in a concentration of 162 mg per 100 g (1,620 mcg per g), the highest reported value among edible plants (Ref. Linus Pauling Inst. data). -- Wstefano 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking for references I'll try to find some reliable data from major journals - possibly also retrievable via pubmed - to improve our references. By the way, reference 6 (^ See Pubmed[1]; Young, et al; Gross, et al.) links merely to pubmed homepage and I was not able to find any article from Young und Gross (there are >1500) on pubmed concerning wolfberry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wstefano ( talk • contribs) 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Picture of dried wolfberries Since there is a reference to this in the article (section Commercial products marketed outside Asia) but the actual picture is missing, I can provide one that I am particularly proud of. I did it myself so there are no copyright problems. Just explain me how to upload it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wstefano ( talk • contribs) 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
References added. Your turn now...-- Wstefano 20:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)