Talk:Goji/Archive 1

Discussion Archives created,--Paul144 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• (Added {{Talkarchive}} template, refactored for chronological order, unsigned posts, indents, etc., added previously unarchived inactive discussions from 2006, moved page as per standard talk archive naming conventions.) — Athaenara ✉ 06:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality questioned

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)

real thing

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)

Good thing, but

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)

Merge?

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)

Southwestern Wolf berry

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:

• Rea, Amadeo M. At the Desert's Green Edge, An Ethnobotany of the Gila River Pima Sumi-e illustrations by Takashi Ijichi. University of Arizona Press, 1997. ISBN 0816515409.

Thank you. WBardwin 03:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

--Paul144 17:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC) -- see below under Number of Species

natural stimulant?

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)

Solanum plants are also found in Asia. Eggplant is an example. Don't know about the stimulant part but I haven't noticed such a feeling even when ingesting large amounts of the berries. Badagnani 04:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

--Paul144 17:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC) -- Among the numerous phytochemicals identified in wolfberry, none has been described yet with any stimulant properties as found from caffeine or guarana.

Citation request

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)

I checked and there were 88, I think, under "wolfberry." Perhaps there are others under the genus/species name or Chinese name as well; I don't know. You are correct; these may show only marginal health benefit, or no health benefit at all. The changes are good, but at least saying "several dozen" or "over 80" is more accurate than "many." If there have been over 80, those studies won't cease to have been done in the future; they've been done, so the number is correct. We could say that the studies have explored health effects but without looking through the findings one by one, as you say, we don't know whether they've found miraculous things about the berries. Badagnani 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

--Paul144 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC) -- The PubMed citations number in the 80s now. Some are duplicates of the same study. The Reference book by Gross et al. 2006 addresses each citation up to November 2005 and catalogues the potential health benefits.

tibetan goji versus wolfberry

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)

Most commercially available wolfberry (gouqi) is grown in the Ningxia region of China. The myth of the "Tibetan goji" is just that. Where did they get that spelling and what part of Tibet is it grown in? None of the distributors give any specifics about this. They simply claim their "goji" is grown in the most inaccessible Tibetan mountain passes, untouched by human hands and pesticides, etc. etc. So most likely it's all from Ningxia; "Tibetan goji" is simply a marketing term. Does this answer your question? Badagnani 11:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Goji

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) ]

--Paul144 17:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC) -- Vernacular is the same as "simplified" in this case. I also feel some people are uncomfortable calling a nutrient-rich berry after a predator like the wolf. There's actually 2 interesting derivations of the name "wolfberry" I can add to the post.

There are several names for gouqi in China. One of them is gouji. I think the "goji" may be adoped from this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.63.238 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean pinyin "gouji"? What's the second character? Badagnani 15:46, 17 August 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)

--Paul144 17:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC) -- I've never seen any credible description of where Tibetan goji berries are grown. "Tibet", to me, is synonymous with Mt. Everest where even the Himalayan valleys are at altitude > 10,000 ft. and the climate and soil conditions are miserable for fruit crops. It's not credible to me that any useful berry product could be commercialized from Tibet.

Tibet used to spread over more than what is currently Xizang, including Qinghai and maybe parts of other provinces too. Ethnic Tibetans live in at least a few current-day Chinese provinces. Mongols also live in Mongolia, the Chinese Inner Mongolia, and in other more southerly provinces so those claiming a "Himalayan/Tibetan/Mongolian" origin are probably fudging due to this overlapping cultural geography -- and also the fact that to most Westerners, who have a vague enough notion of Chinese geography, put together with the fact that even many Chinese don't know much about the "western provinces" either -- they think nobody will find out their secret that Ningxia is not so untouched and isolated as they claim. Now we know, from the FDA impoundments, that pesticide use can be excessive there and the berries aren't as "wild" as is claimed. Badagnani 00:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

When one thinks of ideal berry growing conditions, one should think of Oregon's Willamette River Valley where Rubus species grow -- climate and soil conditions are ideal for producing premium berry fruit. These are the conditions that appear to exist in the Yellow River valley of Ningxia where the best wolfberries grow.

It could be my ignorance, as I have seen marketers attest that their Tibetan berries were "certified" by the Tibet government, but I challenge these companies to publicly provide such documents. [ Paul144 17:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC) ]

Ha, when you say "the Tibet government" you mean the government of the Xizang Autonomous Region? I too doubt this very much. Badagnani 00:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin C content

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)

--Paul144 16:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC) -- The vitamin C value used in the post is an independent contract lab result on dried wolfberry pulp powder. All those steps of processing once the berry is off the vine -- handling, basketing pressure, length of drying time, storage duration/packaging, pomacing, exposure to heat or pressure, solvents, etc. -- affect vitamin and phytochemical contents. Dried berries (unknown duration of storage) gave a similar result. These conditions will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, so the vitamin C levels are subject to numerous potential variables.

I cross-referenced 4 sources for the post statement, one by scientists at the Ningxia Research Institute. Three were similar and gave the 29 mg result whereas the other stated 148 mg/100 g (previously had been one of the proponents of the 2500 mg level).

I've checked another source and found that juice powder concentrate contains 968 mg/100 g of vitamin C! So an edit is needed to discuss this. That value can be estimated for the content in the berry on the vine by assuming a 93% water content, and yields about 90 mg/100 g in the fresh berry.

Organic/non-organic

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)

--Paul144 16:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC) -- Given how juicy and sweet wolfberries are, it would probably be impossible to have a pesticide-free farm. There is little hard information on this topic, though. One development I learned recently is that Chinese wolfberry farmers -- if so motivated -- can contract with US-approved organic certifiers who must visit the farm in China to perform their qualification tests. This is expensive and has been discouraging.

I have a bottle of the Young Living wolfberry juice called NingxiaRed (www.ningxiared.com). It has a label stating "Certified Organic".

On another hand, however, China issues its Green Certificate to some wolfberry farmers in Ningxia, a certification that is likely "as best as possible" assuring pesticide practices have been reasonable and minimal as possible. My guess is that is the best one can do given the sweetness of this fruit on the vine (attracts pollinators and pests of all kinds).

Serious wolfberry product marketers in the US can have their products tested for pesticide levels. I have seen the lab results from one in Seattle that shows negligible levels in their dried berries and pulp or juice powders. I have not seen these results on the various wolfberry juice products on the US market.

I get mine from Mountain Rose Herbs [1] but they haven't as yet provided me with specifics about the source and certification for their "organic" wolfberries other than generalities about the purported high standards of their company. But one can't trust statements without verification. Badagnani 16:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Some information about seizures of Ningxia wolfberries by the U.S. FDA (and names of some of the pesticides found): http://www.gatago.com/misc/health/alternative/17210582.html Badagnani 16:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of species

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)

--Paul144 16:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC) -- The plant has been well hybridized around the world, as it is "cosmopolitan" for growing readily in temperate climates and is used as a decorative vine (matrimony vine). Just in the US, the USDA lists 21 Lycium varietals some of which grow in the southwest desert and have names such as California or Arizona desert-thorn or desert wolfberry.

The 3 species listed in the post are the most common ones used for cultivation as fruit crops in Ningxia.

Tibetan Flora

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)

Yes, please do! That's very interesting. While you're at it, can you also find out the Tibetan word for "wolfberry" (both plant and berry)? I don't think it's "goji." Badagnani 12:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good to have more accurate information on Tibet, with thanks. --70.66.195.47 16:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC)

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)

Flower

The article needs a description of the flower (which is depicted in the photo at the top). Badagnani 00:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hope that suits, Badagnani. Please revise or request revisions as needed. Thanks. --Paul144 06:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. You've got good sources! This article is becoming very thorough. Badagnani 06:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Native to China?

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)

Well, what does the scholarship say about this? I think it's supposed to have been known in China for at least a few thousand years, and the New World was "discovered" by Europeans in 1492 (or 1000 if you count the Vikings). So how would it have been possible to get it to China so early? By the way, as far as I know the eggplant is certainly not native to the New World; it's an ancient food in the Middle East and India. Badagnani 14:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your right the eggplant is not native to the new world. My rule of thumb "all nightshades are new world" is wrong, learn something new. But I think it should be verified as the other nightshades are all new world afaik. I don't have a good source for "botanic history"<?> .. -- Stbalbach 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that deadly nightshade and woody nightshade are old world too jimfbleak 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

History

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)

Commercial Products?

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)

Well, that was a good summary and it took only two short paragraphs. I don't think this is a high priority but if written in a factual, NPOV way I think a mention of the various commercially available forms should be fine. I agree that the phenomenon of wolfberry's increasing popularity is driven by this commercialism, though I myself knew about it through a Korean friend who gave me some "gugija" a few years ago. In fact, I thought it was a Korean herb until just recently. Badagnani 03:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your newest edit makes it unclear which of the species of boxthorn (or all of them?) you're referring to. There are a lot of them, many of which are closely related. Badagnani 04:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we determine when the wolfberry jumped on the world scene as far as a health fad? I'm guessing about 2002? Badagnani 21:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Card Game

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)

A card game called "Wolfberry"? Never heard of it. Seems like a strange name for a card game. What country is it played in? Badagnani 21:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Goji redirects here. Goji is a popular card game in China. We need a disambiguation page for "Goji". Rockvee 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by Rockvee (talk • contribs) was actually added by 198.96.80.15 (talk • contribs) -

What are the Chinese characters for this game? Badagnani 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The proper Pinyin is "Gouji", but sometimes, when it is written in alphabet it's "goji". Chinese character is 够级. Buy the way, there's no artical named "Gouji" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockvee (talk • contribs) 16:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss changes

Badagnani

Please don't start an edit war - I gave reasons for my changes

1. otheruses is a standard and useful tool - one of the words disambed in the original, "goji", isn't an English word anyway, so doesn't need an otheruses.
2. If the alternative use of wolfberry is of equal weight, wolfberry itself should be a disamb page with links to the two fruits
3. Wolfberry neither originated in China nor is it a specifically Chinese topic, so translations into other languages should be avoided (a link to Chinese wikipedia will suffice).
4. Content of an article cannot be "agreed", however "knowledgable" the contributors. I am entitled to make justified edits, and whilst I will listen to arguments against my changes, just stating "this is what we say" is not an argument.

If you are not happy with this article as a English language article, please discuss. jimfbleak 18:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There are several issues discussed here. One is the article title. It is possible that the term "wolfberry" can apply to other species in the genus; however, the Chinese-produced "barbarum" and "chinense" (which seem to have few differences) are overwhelmingly better known than the others. As you'd know from previous discussion here, "goji" is indeed an English construction, as it appears only in English-languages sources, most likely as a "simplified" spelling of the Chinese "gouqi" used for marketing purposes. Practice for all Wikipedia articles covering medicinal herbs used in traditional Chinese medicine involves including the Asian characters and pronunciation, for obvious reasons. Badagnani 21:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• if the other uses are much less important, what's wrong with using a disamb as I suggest - it's standard practice?
• Goji isn't in my large dictionary - a transliteration doesn't make it an English word. I would dispute in any case whether someone looking for Godzilla would be searching "wolfberry"
• I'm not convinced that any articles need foreign characters - they are meaningless to non-speakers, and speakers don't need them. I converted the bird lists for Brazil and Korea to English from Portuguese and Korean respectively without causing any fuss (I also just reverted the addition of the Finnish name to Tufted Duck). However, I accept that for China-related articles, the characters have become a convention. What I am not clear about is why this article is specifically Chinese when the plant originated further west?

jimfbleak 04:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind regarding removing the "Goji" disambiguation. The sentence at the header *is* a disambiguation.

Whether it appears in a dictionary or not, "goji" as applied to the Lycium species is an English construction as such a spelling or pronunciation doesn't exist in any other language. It's not a transliteration as the Chinese is "gouqi" (pronounced "GO-chee"). It's probably similar to "Godzilla," which is a spelling of the original "Gojira" for English speakers.

Of all of your comments, I object most strenuously to the view that non-English characters and spellings given as an adjunct to the English name(s) are not helpful to English Wikipedia users, and should thus be removed. I think you'll find that (myself included) numerous users of English and other Wikipedias (including learners of Asian languages) do intensive cross-cultural study, often using several of the Wikipedias in various languages, and using English-language Wikipedia articles on foreign subjects as a way to learn more about the original subjects being discussed. Having the Chinese characters for a Chinese herb, for example, allows one to look up primary sources that are often scarce or nonexistent in English, as well as to distinguish between species, and also to more easily determine the names between the various East Asian languages, all of which use Chinese characters. As regards articles on Korean subjects, it is standard to include both the romanization as well as the Korean hangul and hanja spellings. It really is very useful, and it would be, in fact, unthinkable not to have them, if not every user is going to make use of them. I hope you'll take the time to go through some more Chinese, Japanese, and Korean pages, discuss with the users there, and gather opinions about this to gauge the way other users are utilizing the information therein before continuing to blank non-English spellings from articles such as the ones you mentioned you had already removed. Such removals can make further cross-cultural study for many editors quite difficult. Badagnani 07:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a sentence so that the second "Goji" disamb at least makes sense - otherwise you have to read half the article to discover why the wolfberry article has a disamb for an apparently unrelated word.

In fairness, the lists of birds I mentioned are not really comparable, since identical lists apppear on the Portuguese and Korean Wikipedias, so no information is lost to speakers of those languages. I won't push the point on this page, but my concern is that articles don't become cluttered with lists of foreign words for the same topic. Although I don't fully accept your argument, it is logically put, and is clearly more than just saying "we have to have the Chinese/Korean/French/Tagalog" word for this, so I won't revert the Chinesse again. jimfbleak 14:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are able to agree that the changes I have made to Goji follow directly from the opening sentences of the article. jimfbleak 14:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment about the use of Chinese characters with Chinese medicinal herbs in English-language articles. While it would be helpful in all articles to have titles in other languages for those folks who are bilingual in English and the other language, it is an American tradition to include the Chinese characters alongside the western names of Chinese medicinal herbs. I don't know about other English speaking countries. You will encounter this in scholarly articles, also. KP Botany 17:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Change in first paragraph

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)

Eating wolfberries

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)

Chinese medicinal herbs are usually prescribed in teas or brews of multiple herbs. It's not like western medicine where one pops a single pill four times a day to cure a single symptom, as Chinese herbalists address everything that is out of order. Instead of saying pop one berry every 6 hours for 14 days, the patient would be told to brew a tea with a concoction every morning for 10 days. In addition to the wolfberries they may be barks, seeds, flowers and other ingredients less likely to be palatable as a chew food. Yes, cooking does change the chemical value of some toxins, the cyanides, I believe. However, I don't know that this is the case for the toxins found in the Solanaceae. So, probably the berries are not popped into the mouth because when prescribed they are prescribed with other medicinal herbs. I don't know about individuals self-prescribing, though, how this changes how medicines are taken. KP Botany 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Fail

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:

1. The latin names of the species involved should be in bold the first time they are mentioned, unless they link to their own separate pages.
2. The introduction should give an overview of the article. In other words, mention its medicinal and culinary use. (Something like: "The Wolfberry has been shown to have antitussive properties, and has been used medicinally in China since the 10th century. etc.)
3. More Inline citations would be good, especially in the following sections: Nutrient Content, Functional Food and Beverage applications.
4. Some of your citations exist but need to be converted to inline citations.
5. I would make section 10 a subsection of section 9 (and maybe 8 of 7?)

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)

I have to say I'm a bit worried about the article's tone - it's comprehensive and inforative, however, it reads like an advertisment in a nutritional supplements catalogue. I'm not sure. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I like the article overall, but the first couple of sections make several claims with no references. I'm removing from the good article candidates. /Blaxthos 07:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The article does have a slew of problems in spite of it having a lot of good information and covering the topic to an appropriate depth (imo, but others may consider it too much). The biggest problem is its non-neutral tone that Adam Cuerden cites. I'm watching it because I would like to work on its tone--or hope someone else does--when I have a little time. I think with additional balance and references it could be a GA. KP Botany 18:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Soybean bashing / Disinformation

The article is extremely inaccurate in its comparison of wolfberry vs. soybean nutrients. For example:

• It states that the potassium content (1100mg / 100g) is more than twice that of soybeans. Yet, nutritiondata.com (Note: the figures are for 1 cup or 186g by default, I didn't find a way to make a link that automatically shows the figures for 100g) states that soybeans contain 1800mg potassium per 100g dried mass (the macronutrients section strongly suggests that the figures are those for dried wolfberries). The only explanation I have is that dried wolfberries were compared to cooked soybeans, which have a water content of about two thirds.
• Likewise, the iron content of 9mg/100g is touted as being twice that of soybeans. Yet, according to nutritiondata.com, soybeans have an iron content of almost 16mg/100g.
• The same goes for zinc, only more so: The article claims that soybeans contain 1mg/100g zinc, according to nutritiondata.com it's 5mg/100g.
• Selenium: While wolfberries seem to contain a lot of selenium, the amount cited for soybeans is again much lower: less than 8mg vs. almost 18mg.
• Riboflavin: This part incorrectly states that the RDI is 1.3 micrograms, actually it's 1.3 milligrams, or 1300 micrograms (for adult males, that is). It also incorrectly states that soybeans contain only "trace levels" of riboflavin, whereas nutritiondata.com lists (yellow) soybeans as a very good source of riboflavin (ca. 900µg/100g). Note that nutritiondata.com uses a "Daily Value" for riboflavin that's higher than the US RDA. This error may be partly excusable insofar as only yellow soybeans (the most commonly used variety) contain this much riboflavin, green (immature) soybeans for example contain significantly less, though still far more than just "trace levels" (about 500µg/100g).
• The calcium content of soybeans is claimed to be around 100mg/100g, but nutritiondata.com's figure is 277mg/100g. Suspiciously close to the other presumable dry vs. wet mass mistakes. Aragorn2 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Three points concerning this dispute about wolfberry vs. soybean nutrients. First, nutrients were presented as relevant to the way in which the two foods are commonly eaten -- wolfberries as dried fruit and soybeans as cooked (boiled) mature beans. Second, one can only choose available public data that appear to be consistent across references. World's Healthiest Foods [2] has proven to be such a source. Third, the presented values for soybeans on WHFoods are for a US cup which can be converted to 100 grams by multiplying the cup value by 0.58. Thanks for your input. The riboflavin value was in error and is now corrected. I'm certainly willing to give this section a closer look with the Nutritiondata.com values if you feel there remains disputable information --Paul144 23:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

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:

"Although not adequately demonstrated yet in published research, a synergy of antioxidant carotenoids (primarily beta-carotene and zeaxanthin) with polysaccharides and vitamin C may make wolfberries an exceptionally rich antioxidant food source."

...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)

Reply

A communication is underway with Adam to establish facts with citations from available literature, including the 2 recent books both of which publish nutrient assay reports from 3rd-party contract laboratories. As there is little published information on wolfberry nutrients in peer-reviewed journals, contract lab results are likely the best available data.

The above term representing "synergy" has been removed and the sentence reworded in the article. The implied effect of "synergy" is often used in the nutritional literature where two or more nutrients known to act on the same organ system are called "synergistic". I realize this implies effective action, but the original sentence was conservatively worded as "not adequately demonstrated in published research" and was offered to help interpret comments from numerous authors and labs describing wolfberry with unusually rich antioxidant properties and ORAC. --Paul144 03:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Need help ?

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)

Thanks for the help! I do appreciate it =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you're aware: If you have material that is more accurate, verifiable, or non-point-of-view than the current material, feel free to just edit the article directly rather than making a proposal here first. The article can serve as a running draft as various contributors edit it, while feedback or concerns can be raised here on the talk page. I look forward to seeing what you have! (And welcome to Wikipedia!!) --NoahElhardt 04:38, 3 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)

That is a good discussion, Wstefano. There is already mention of the content level of zeaxanthin in the article under Nutrient Content/Phytochemicals. Although the study by Benzie et al. is interesting and on the path to a clinical trial, it is nothing more than an observation and has not proved anything beyond the increase in blood levels of zeaxanthin. It would be a stretch to go much further than stating wolfberry consumption leads to a 3-fold increase in zeaxanthin availability which does not tell us anything about actual uptake and incorporation into the retina.

If the community agreed, however, I feel it would be interesting to make this relationship known in the article since the role of zeaxanthin in retinal health seems assured even though it has not yet been satisfactorily proved in clinical trials.

Thanks for your discussion. Please continue! You could write a draft and post it here so we can review it before agreeing whether it should become part of the article. For reference (although commercial), this is a well-done article on zeaxanthin & eye health http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/ebooks/ -- see Eye Health

--Paul144 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I fully agree with you: caution is especially important with goji. However perhaps I was not clear enough. I'd never state that "wolfberry consumption leads to a 3-fold increase in zeaxanthin availability". Benzie et al. simply demonstrated that if goji is homogenised and extracted with hot milk, the bioavailability of zeaxanthin cointained in goji increases by 3 times. [3]

By the way this is a well known fact: an oily dressing helps assimilating the carotenoids in the vegetables. See for example here: [4]

(and I am sorry for all the diet/low-fat vegetarians: they are missing all the best from their salads ;o))

Concerning wolfberry and zeaxanthin I'd like you to mention in the article at least the following. (yes, I could do it myself, but I would really prefer that you insert it, as I have never done it before and I am not sure how I to use the wiki syntax).

- Zeaxanthin content in Goji is at least 4 times higher than that of other plants known as carotenoid sources (see above). I have always been bad in math, but the value indicated now in the article (162mg/100g) means 1620 microg/g, which is simply astounding. I hope we can get more reliable figures from the assay reports from 3rd-party contract laboratories you were mentioning before.

- increase in levels of zeaxanthin in blood and retina after goji intake (or any zeaxanthin-containing source) has been clearly demonstrated (I have at least 4 pubblications saying that)

- zeaxanthin (and lutein) uptake in human body (i.e. its bioaivailability) increases when it is co-administered with fat. Independently from goji. And although I would not mind a pretty oily spinach salad, I'd still prefer a goji-frappuccino, taking the fat from milk... ;o)

--Wstefano 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm enjoying the conversation very much. I'd like, however, to caution against the adoption of the marketing term "goji," which is a misnomer and not accurately reflective of this plant/berry's pronunciation in any language. Badagnani 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Badagnani. You are very right, it's just that the g-word is soooo much shorter... and maybe the chinese knew all that bioavailability stuff we now are (re)discovering from the very beginning. You confirmed that they do not eat W raw but boil it or make soups out of it. By the way, I have just found this [5] which might be useful...for an article on carotenoids and their absorption in human body...--Wstefano 22:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd very much like to know more about this avoidance of eating raw/dried wolfberries among the Chinese. Are you suggesting it's because they somehow understood that cooking/boiling "unlocks" the nutrients and allows the berries to do more for the body? Badagnani 22:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes..in a sense: copy-pasting from the last-cited link: "For dietary carotenoids to be absorbed intestinally, they must be released from the food matrix and incorporated into mixed micelles (mixtures of bile salts and several types of lipids). Therefore, carotenoid absorption requires the presence of fat in a meal. As little as 3-5 g of fat in a meal appears sufficient to ensure carotenoid absorption".

Of course the "unlocking" trick only works for natural substances which are resistent to high (boiling water) temperatures, like zeaxanthin. Many other nutrients (most of the vitamins) are not.

Here is a more appropriate reference...for carrots: [6] --Wstefano 22:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's extremely interesting because, as you probably know, one of the general Chinese preparations in which wolfberries are used is a mixture of herbs (including some Dioscorea opposita, licorice root, and a few other herbs) that is boiled together with chicken -- something that would be highly unusual in European herbalism but which is very normal in Chinese herbology. Badagnani 22:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WOW Unusual is the less I could say. I know nothing about TCM, but I feel that I am going to learn...Ciao! --Wstefano 22:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This mixture is an extremely popular soup, advised for general health or if one has a cold, is in need of rejuvenation, etc. One buys the dried herbs and boils them up with chicken to make a soup. Ask any Chinese person you know about this and they'll confirm this. Wolfberry is always a component of this. Badagnani 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Great discussion going on guys, with thanks for the interesting information. David -- I resisted using "goji" in conversation and writing over many months of 2005-6, but a name revolution is occurring and I doubt it can be stopped -- check out [7] and search on goji then wolfberry. Even in my nearby Chinatown, native Chinese are referring to the dried berries as goji because they think this is a preferred English-speaking trend. Our consolation is that "gouqi" -- as closely as it can be translated (not an exact process due to Chinese calligraphy) -- means wolfberry plant and is pronounced in Chinese something very akin to goji so is like saying "wolfberry plant".

Wstefano and zeaxanthin content: no problem. I'll put something together as a draft and post it here first so it can be reviewed by everyone. FYI your reference to the Linus Pauling Micronutrient Inst. and data for zeaxanthin in frozen, cooked spinach as the #1-rated food source (29,000+ mcg per cup = 12,961 mcg per 100 g = 130 mcg per g or about 10x less than wolfberry) Wolfberry data came from 2 independent university groups and their publications that can be found in Pubmed [8] -- Li et al., Wuhan, China, Se Pu 1998, data derived by liquid chromatography (2,952 mcg per g!, although details of methods are not available so less certainty) and Weller and Breithaupt, Stuttgart, Germany, J Agric Food Chem. 51:70044, 2003 + private communication, data derived by mass spectrometry as reported in the article --Paul144 19:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I see lots of comments and I warn you: I am actually enjoying this!

Paul, I can confirm your numbers. Unbelievable! I had ordered an article some time ago from the Japanese Journal of Food Chemistry and arrived today. M. Piao and al. had nothing better to do than measuring “changes in carotenoid content and its composition during maturation of Fructus lycii fruits” (2005), vol 12, pages 35-39. I can see the content of total carotenoids and specifically of lutein, zeaxanthin and beta carotene during 7 stages of development of gouqizi from green to full-ripe. I cannot find any reference to this in internet, so I’ll put the figures referring to the full-ripe here (all in mg/100g).

Total carotenoid: 40 (!), lutein 5, zeaxanthin 26 (!!), beta carotene 0,75. I admit that I am very impressed.

Looking forward to read your draft.

Stefano (Don’t call me Wstefano: that was the only UID left in wiki with my name in) --Wstefano 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Zeaxanthin Draft

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)

Perfect!

I don't know how wiki works, I assume however that it may be sensible to include here only the W part (that I have put in italic bold), while the rest might be used to expand the corresponding zeaxanthin entry. Concerning the percentace of zeaxanthin in W , the figures I have are more conservative (a range from 31 to 65%), as in 26/40 (see my last-cited Japanese ref) or 31-56%

--Wstefano 16:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Original Research, Pseudoscience, and Bad Reporting

Right. Here's what I see as wrong with the article:

• Original Research comparisons with soybeans and blueberries
• Reads like an advertisement, including "In their 2005 book,[6] Young et al. report ORAC for dried wolfberries as 30,300 μmol TE per 100 grams, indicating exceptional antioxidant strength likely resulting from the synergy mentioned above for wolfberry's diversity of antioxidant phytochemicals. This exceptional ORAC has not been peer-reviewed or confirmed in publication by other research." - Not only is that bolding bad, but it has a whole section to lead up to a claim in an ADVERTISING BOOK that hasn't been confirmed.
• 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."
• 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.
• As well, the entire micronutrients section not only has OR, but varies randomly between RDI, and DRI, bolds things, has OR, and frankly, should be done as a table, to cut all that awful waffling.
• 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." !!!!
• Also, this section I cut, which was an out and out lie, if the values in the nutrient section can be trusted.

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)

Thanks for your input, which is welcome. But please keep a cool head regarding the deleted section above. The inflated value was clearly given in order to show what some companies claim, in order to debunk this claim. Go back and read the text again. Badagnani 10:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed. What is more, please see Wikipedia:Embedded lists and prosify/fix as is appropriate. There are far too many POV/unsourced claims, particularly for GA status. As for that deleted section..yuck. It was not made at all clear that this was complete bollocks and is useless anyway. It should stay deleted. Moreschi 10:15, 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)

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. Wikipedia is not a place for things made up in medicine school one day. What is more, a blurby-sounding "The Ultimate Superfood" does not look to me like a reliable source, though please correct me here if I'm wrong. Moreschi 10:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's get the two "experts" (the main contributors; I mainly edit things about the berries' use in Chinese traditional medicine, cuisine, and culture, as well as do miscellaneous proofreading rather than scientific things) back talking here and analyze those bits you feel are inappropriate. Badagnani 10:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

One more comment - I don't feel those sections are inappropriate. Per WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS, they are inappropriate. Moreschi 10:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Per above, trimmed article to remove OR and dubious claims. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:50, 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).

[Interjected] It was the comparisons I objected to: There's not significant enough comparison between a dried fruit, cooked soybeans, and fresh blueberries for us to be talking about it, particularly as dried blueberries are often sold. You'll note I kept the factual data. 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

[Interjected] If it takes three paragraphs of non-wolfberry material just to set up one claim, then it's difficult to see why we should look at it. Plus, the açai data is, again, misleading "freeze-dried powder" trickery. In short, for one datum, surrounded by sentences pointing out how doubtful it was, three paragraphs had to be spent explaining what it meant, and still didn't really give any meaningful data beyond that it has lots of anti-oxidants - data given later. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

[Interjected] If they aren't supported, I don't think we should mention them: It can be read as tacit support, e.g. "We're not allowed to tell you about all the diseases this food cures, but people say..." Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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?

[Interjected] It's the speculation being drawn from it that makes it so questionable. The fact it contains it is meaningful enough, but it's being put through a classic marketing trick to boost values, and an encyclopedia shouldn't be supporting that. Maybe a sentence about how "wolfberries contain lycopene, the only berry known to do so, but quantities in dried fruit, fresh fruit or juice are unknown."

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.

[Interjected] It's a violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

[Interjected] Yes, but this is an encyclopedia, not a journal. We report facts as they are, we don't call for further research. More importantly, that sentence is saying that because dehydrated juice powder has microgram-levels of lycopene that DRIED WOLFBERRIES (which still contain significant water, plus pulp and other things that do not go into the juice) may help inhibit cancer. This is a fallacy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

[Interjected] Yes, but the main problem with it was that it didn't actually say it was false, or even imply it was. That's bad. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

I left the facts in, but we can't analyse them that way as it comes under WP:OR - it's speculation that there's other phenolic chemicals, and giving an opinion about them. We can't report your opinion unless it's published. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"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)

Aye, I do apologise for being overly harsh: I'm afraid I get that way at times when in "editor" mode, and am trying to learn to keep it in check. I have to admit I removed a couple claims because I didn't trust the website they came from; however, if you have good cites, let's add it back! Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a major question is "How much weight do we goive to the preliminary chinese studies on it?" Looking at them, and using this link to check, it appears many of the claims are in no way what their simple description might sound like. E.g. the "anti-cancer" effects are, in fact, a boost to *conventional treatments* of some cancers: NOT what would be presumed. The anti-aging is a boost to the immune system. There's clearly some hype here, and we need to be careful. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:04, 30 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)

This was intended to refer to the books by Young et al and Gross et al that keep being used in this article: Lose it and replace it with others, if possible =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:19, 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)

The easy way is to just add a link to it as if it was already uploaded, then click on the link. You'll be sent right to a page that lets you upload. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes! It took a while but here it is: Image:Dried wolfberries.jpg. I would very much appreciate it if you yould put it in the article for me ... in a more acceptable size :o) --Wstefano 12:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!--Wstefano 12:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

References added. Your turn now...--Wstefano 20:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty happy with the article as it ccurrently stands, if everyone else is. Want to re-nominate for GA? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)