Talk:Pulse (legume)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Agriculture (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

Protein in pulses[edit]

In fact pulses contain more protein than eggs, fish or flesh foods.

Are we talking about raw pulses or cooked? Raw pulses likely contain more protein than eggs, fish, or meat. But most people don't eat them raw, so this kind of statement seems misleading. In any case, some supporting information is needed, ideally a chart comparing the protein content of pulses to other protein sources. --Dforest 06:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)we know that egg contain more protein content but in the legume also high amount of protein present, you know that soyabean contai greatest amount of protein

"Pulse protein is equivalent in quality to soy protein which has been shown by the World Health Organization to be the equal of meat, milk and egg proteins"

this is not true, i point you to the page PDCAAS which gives soy protein a value of 0.91 (similar to beef) but other pulses such as lentils only have a score of 0.52. A value of 1.0 is the highest (ie egg, milk) and a value of 0.0 is the lowest. So lentils only have approx half the protein quality of eggs or milk. Also the quote "*Pulses are sometimes called a caring man’s meat" has no reference, I assume the '*' is suppose to be some kind of reference indicator, I did a Google search and it didn't come up once. Skeuu 01:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Jeremy.

I agree, I was about to edit that very phrase even before I read this comment. I've changed it back to "poor man's meat" as it was originally entered (and to which I can find many references). Mditto 21:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain this sentence?[edit]

From the first paragraph of the article "and crops which are used exclusively for sowing (clovers, alfalfa)." What exactly does this mean? I think it might mean that no one eats the clover seed itself, even though the whole plant is used as a fodder. ike9898 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was meant to be "for mowing" since clover and alfalfa are often mowed and baled for fodder, or plowed under to enrich the soil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.26.34 (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unclear introduction[edit]

If you are coming to the page to figure out what Pulses are, the intro is probably too technical. How about including something like, "Including a variety of beans and peas." Or "such as lima beans, chickpeas, and lentils." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.242.155 (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. If someone more knowledgeable would like to give a less technical introduction that would be good. It might also be worthwhile distinguishing between the common use of the word and the technical use. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Legume and pulse: any difference?[edit]

I'm struggling to understand what is the difference, if any, between pulse and legume. And if there's no difference, why are there two articles? Thanks for any help. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

email[edit]

i need email address of baytur.s.a(switzerland)pulses department. i need yr help

yr prompt reply is highly appreciated

regards faisal yasin kapaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.100.32 (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

email address of baytur[edit]

neeed email address of baytur pulses switzerland

faisal yasin kapaya kkapaya@cyber.net.pk faisalyt@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.100.32 (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Junk Journal[edit]

Please provide evidence for your claim that these (one or both?) [[1]][[2]] references are is "Junk". You seem to be edit warring. Note that I've reduce the intro and placed missed info into Health. PS We already discussed the second reference, which I agreed was questionable (~"anyone can publish" there, so left removed elsewhere), but left in for it's level of detail with supporting references.32cllou (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

PS Would you prefer [[3]], or [[4]], or [[5]], or give me some time and I'll find current textbook references.

If is makes you upset, go ahead and remove the www.academia.edu reference. It isn't required for those sentences.32cllou (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the academia.org source is bad. But also we don't use primary sources for biomedical information (except in exceptional circumstances) - please see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Removed Academia.edu reference. Those three new references are reveiws. The single primary is Ok to use as "basic research" as stated.32cllou (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Re primary, note that this is a food topic, not a medical one.32cllou (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
MEDRS: "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources" (my bold) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 32cllou - you are now engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR by citing articles about single pulses to support a primary source that makes different claims. You are also citing Evid Based Complement Alternat Med, which is a fringe journal. This looks to me like POV-pushing. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take that single primary out. Still leaves three good reviews that support the text. Do I have to say "specific to peas..."32cllou (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Please support your statement that Evid Based Comp Alt Med is "a fringe journal" and I'll remove that too32cllou (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Not that I care much one way or the other, but the journal Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine is considered a "fringe journal" according to whom exactly? Care to provide a source (or preferably multiple sources) demonstrating that this is the prevalent view of this particular journal? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
All altmed journals potentially fall afoul of WP:FRIND for altmed claims; there may be okay uses of them but care needs to be taken - especially if extraordinary biomedical claims are being made. For many years the publisher (Hindawi) featured on Beall's list of predatory publishers - a definite red flag. Coincidentally, this journal is being discussed at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, falls afoul of WP:FRIND according to whom? You? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You misquote. In cases where's it not clear what the fringeiness of a source is, it is wise to check at, say, WP:FT/N or WT:MEDRS. Sometimes the determination is quite involved: see here for example. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion[edit]

FYI, I have raised a query about this article at WT:MED. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. In the meantime, I've found many more review references: [[6]]32cllou (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm impressed with how quickly you read. Between "finding" your sources, reading them, digesting them and overciting them here a mere matter of minutes! Unfortunately these sources (some of them rather old) do no support the orphaned claims left behind, that you were previously referencing to a primary source. The overcited inaccurate text is making a bit of mess of our article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)2000
They are 2002, which is not "old". They are British Journal of Nutrition reviews. All the text is now supported. Please be specific re orphaned claims. Other than that seems like you promote your POV.32cllou (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess the question now, have you read the new set of references? Sounds like you have not.32cllou (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no primary research remaining in my edits to pulses.32cllou (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you put finding sources above in quotes? I simply searched the British Journal of Nutrition for "pulses".

We prefer things 5 years old, or younger, if possible. It will take some time to go through these sources (which I am now doing, give me a few hours). But on a quick first pass I could not (e.g.) find anything which supported the assertion that eating pulses "may be applicable to lowering the risk of chronic diseases such as ... stroke". Do you mean they might reduce the risk of a stroke happening, of or a stroke resulting in chronic consequences? What source supports either of these? In general a huge string of citations like this is a huge red flag - there is no integrity between the words in Wikipedia and the sources being cited. Also, as a separate issue, there are other sourcing problems in this section. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you seriously dilute the hypertension findings?32cllou (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You write:

  • There is some evidence a high proportion of pulses in a diet may help lower blood pressure, though there is concern with the quality of the supporting data.[1]

I believe a more fair representation of the review to be:

  • In a recent review of the research, consumption of pulses was found to significantly lower blood pressure in both in people with and without hypertension. The researchers note that "higher-quality large-scale trials" are needed to support these findings.[1]32cllou (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
It's for neutrality. See WT:MED#Asserting "facts". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
You text is certainly not neutral! "Some evidence" Should I just quote directly from the conclusion of that review?32cllou (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Or draw from the new references (says same)? Who are you to say all the supporting data was effectively poor quality?32cllou (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The article's conclusion has: "These findings, however, are limited by several design issues and the poor quality of the available trials". Wikipedia no longer reflects that, and so has moved away from being neutral. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • One issue is this text "may be applicable to lowering the risk of chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer" is not supported by this ref [7] which says "the evidence base for the role of pulses in prevention of cancers is unconvincing because of the difficulties, using conventional epidemiological tools, in ascertaining the quantitative contribution made by pulses to cancer risk" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Recent reviews conclude that antioxidants are not useful for human health. Thus yes 2002 is old. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ a b Jayalath VH, de Souza RJ, Sievenpiper JL, et al. (January 2014). "Effect of dietary pulses on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials". Am. J. Hypertens. 27 (1): 56–64. doi:10.1093/ajh/hpt155. PMID 24014659.