Jump to content

Talk:Casein: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 58: Line 58:
== China Study Controversy ==
== China Study Controversy ==


Where's the controversy in the China Study paragraph? There's nothing in the current text that suggests any controversy.
Where's the controversy in the China Study paragraph? There's nothing in the current text that suggests any controversy. [[User:Barraponto|barraponto]] ([[User talk:Barraponto|talk]]) 03:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:04, 15 November 2012


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Wrong percentages for human milk

The stated Percentage of total protein for human milk as stated at the beginning of this article does not agree with the abstract of the referenced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.217.74 (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article [1] (even just the abstract) should be helpful. Especially "The principal proteins of human milk are a casein homologous to bovine B-casein, a-lactalbumin, lactoferrin, immunoglobulin IgA, lysozyme, and serum albumin." But I don't know how to paraphrase that and keep it true to its meaning. I would also like an expansion on "homologous to bovine B-casein" (How do they differ?), but I don't have ready access to the article itself which might say. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page vandalised or misedited?

Under "Description" the paragraph starts:

Casein bites peoples heads off there bodies ...

This seems a bit strange? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.227.111 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is BCM7?

What is BCM7 ? (Why would someone include a quote with "BCM7" in it without explaining what [the hell] it is?) 109.149.158.177 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of searching Wikipedia indicates it is Bovine β-casomorphin 7. I provided a wikilink, but probably some further explanation is needed. Deli nk (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

China Study Controversy

Where's the controversy in the China Study paragraph? There's nothing in the current text that suggests any controversy. barraponto (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]