|WikiProject Alternative medicine||(Rated C-class)|
- 1 Schnabel's statement
- 2 Factual accuracy
- 3 Nutritional Data
- 4 Allergic reaction
- 5 Species
- 6 Health Claims
- 7 Health Benefits
- 8 Questionable neutrality
- 9 Isn't it Wheatgrass Juice?
- 10 Objection
- 11 Wigmore history
- 12 B12
- 13 Health claims
- 14 Indoor growing and mold
- 15 Chlorophyll in human diet
- 16 "5000 year-old History"
(Hmmmm... a chart is presented, that shows that an ounce of wheatgrass JUICE is roughly equivalent to an ounce of broccoli or spinach (I guess, raw). If the juice is made by adding 1 - 2 ounces of wheatgrass powder to a quart of water... then... that would make wheatgrass (the dehydrated powder) roughly 23 times as nutrient-dense as these "choice vegetables"!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
"Fifteen pounds of wheatgrass is equivalent to 350 pounds of the choicest vegetables"
He never said such a thing. As a Schnabel biographer, I have read all his research and writings and have never seen any such quote from him. You use as your source for this incorrect statement a book from a proponent of growing wheatgrass unnaturally indoors, which is exactly the opposite growing method used by Schnabel. And in that book, if you take the time to review it, the author never gives any reference whatsoever for this absurd statement attributed to Dr. Schnabel. He obviously just made it up and you reported it as fact. In doing so, you tarnished the reputation of Dr. Schnabel, who never said such a thing. You allowed the use of this statement to make what is clearly straw man argument.
Moreover, to make matters worse, you allowed the author of this lie about Dr. Schnabel to go on to prove has straw man argument using bogus data in a chart that should never have been allowed (as well as the straw man statement itself). The chart regards wheatgrass grown indoors, not Schnabel's wheatgrass. The comparison with broccoli and spinach does not make it clear whether the amount is 350 pounds, one pound or what. It doesn't say whether the vegetable were fresh, dehydrated or anything about it. It is very, very unprofessional to use straw man arguments in the first place, but then to support such nonsense with bogus charts is extremely irresponsible. Whoever wrote that crazy paragraph defamed the reputation of one of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century.
You also allowed another reference from an article, probably from the same very dubious source, to support this statement:
"Proponents of wheatgrass make many claims for its health properties, ranging from promotion of general well-being to cancer prevention. These claims have not been substantiated in the scientific literature."
This "scientific citation" for the above statement was a poorly written opinion from an obscure blog. In the first place, no company that I have ever heard of has ever made any healing claims whatsoever for Schnabel's form of wheatgrass. People who grow it in their kitchen might make crazy claims, but people who grow herbs in their kitchen also make crazy claims. They make all kinds of crazy statements, but you will never see such statements made by companies that sell wheatgrass grown in the way Dr. Schnabel grew his. To allow such a statement about "claims" being made and implying that they are being made by responsible people is irresponsible. Again, this is a straw man argument. You allowed the author to make an unsupported statement; i.e., that all kinds of claims are being made, and then prove his the straw argument with an opinion by some crackpot on a blog. That is so very wrong.
Before you start looking for more accurate citations, you need to get rid of the ones mentioned above that have that have no basis in science and that are being used to support false statements in a kind of circular straw man argument fashion. Do you really want scientific citations or do you prefer that people to make up nonsense statements and use their blogs as a citation to prove what never was said in the first place? That appears to be the case.
As an indication that you reject scientific citations in favor of citations of opinions from blogs, I point out that I tried to put up a scientific article to this page today and it was rejected. That article was published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (http://www.jbc.org/content/152/2/215.short). It was rejected as not "being scientific;" Do you know anything about this Journal? It is very respected and has been for nearly 100 years.
It certainly has much more credibility than citations from blogs or unsupported quotes from books about growing wheatgrass, especially when their methods of growing are completely inconsistent with what Dr. Schnabel and other noted scientists used in more than 30 years of research actually published in respected scientific and medical journals, not blogs!
As soon as you correct these straw man arguments and the bogus citations and that bogus chart, I will sign up, log in, and try to help you turn this article into something respectable with actual scientific and medical citations from respected journals rather than opinions from blogs and third party quotations from books written by people who don't have a clue about Dr. Schnabel's research. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Let discuss editing the section here. Lord knows it needs editing. Anthon01 01:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I agree that the section needs editing, it certainly doesn't flow very well. Deleting sources from it probably isn't the best place to start though. Why do you think the source is biased? It comes from a not-for-profit consumer organisation. Pacey 22:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If the sources are not balanced or authoritative then yes. The sites contains statements like "Don’t believe all you hear or read — very little good-quality evidence exists to support the extravagant claims made for the benefits of wheatgrass juice" and "If you believe the hype..." The fact is aspirin was used for 80 plus years before anyone figured out how it worked (1983). There a whole lot of medicine still being practice today that is nothing more then anecdotal. The references on the site are very limited.
IMO, the hyperbole makes the site seem bias. I think we can find a reference for Schnabel's quote minus the rhetoric. The site also isn't authoritative. Frankly, it is difficult to find good balanced references on the internet since most of the wheatgrass sites are selling wheatgrass. You can also find a USDA reference for nutrition data. That's a authoritative reference.
Regarding his statement: Schnabel worked with wheatgrass powder; his goal was to make it avaiable year round. He produced a tablet, Cerophyll, that was accepted as a food by the AMA. I suspect that his statement was correct, if you consider that the only way his statement makes sense is if he was comparing his dehydrated wheatgrass (Cerophyll) tablets to fresh vegetables. Jrrmin49 tried to rewrite Schnabel's statement; without a reference that doesn't fly. But I think his underlying premise is correct.
I am looking for more research then what exist on the internet. I believe it exists. There is also alot more research on barley grass juice and powder. Some studies compare BGJ and WGJ and find the barley a little better. There is also research on Clorophyll. WGJ contains high amounts of it. There are a few other substances found in WG that have been researched. Most of this research supports many of the claims. Anthon01 04:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. With regard to your points:
- It seems like your problem with balance relates to the tone of the article. Bear in mind that what is available online is only a partial summary of the full article, which isn't available online. I was actually citing from the text version, as the citation indicated. I got a copy from my local library, if you can't get hold of it I may be able to scan it and email it to you or something. The text version was written quite differently. It started with a more neutral intro, discussing, in particular, the anecdotal claims about the benefits of wheatgrass and mentioning the lack of scientific evidence either way. I agree that the tone of the internet article might make it sound like they were biased - I think this is because it's been reversed, the conclusions are presented first in the online source, and they're presented in a way that's meant to seem eye-catching.
- I agree, it is difficult to find good balanced references on the internet since most of the wheatgrass sites are selling wheatgrass - I expressed this view elsewhere on the talk page. It's also difficult to find authoritative references. That's why I think this source is worth having. It is authoritative and independent: Choice is the largest consumer organisation in Australia, and the public face of the Australian Consumer Association. They're a not-for-profit organisation, and they're independent - they receive no funding from the government or any organisation. They're represented on numerous national and international committees (including the UN Environment Program). They have no vested interest in making a negative finding about wheatgrass; on the contrary, it's in their interest to give the issue unbiased consideration.
- I did originally have another source for Schnabel's statement, I think. If my memory serves me correctly it was removed because it was a commercial website...
- I think it's great that you're looking for more research - that's what this article needs.
- Back to the first point, I think the source is fine if you read the text version. With that in mind, I think it's reasonable to restore the source without the reference to the internet summary (or perhaps indicating more clearly that it is a summary, and doesn't reflect the full text of the article). Pacey 10:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Australia, but in the US, healthcare entities (medical orgs, peer-review journals, medline, medical professionals) are considered to be authoritative in regards to healthcare; we don't consider consumer magazines or orgs as authoritative. The article's citations are based on very limited review of the literature. Their conclusions are as a result, unbalanced. Who wrote the article? The online version gives no indication of who. I'd like to get a copy of the text article if possible.
A better source for nutrition info is the USDA (US Dept of Agriculture). Would you agree?
You also said nothing about my comment about Schnabel's statement being correct. That would make these comments comparing WGJ to a salad or another vegetable unnecessary. I'd like to reword that section to reflect the fact the Schnabel statement has been interupted to mean wheatgrass juice when in fact it doesn't mention juice. Anthon01 15:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
In addition, non-profits in the US are commonly set-up to further the interests of for-profit orgs. Anthon01 15:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
On further review, I'll concede that your reference is independent. I still don't consider them to be a authority on health, and consider their review incomplete and inadequate. Anthon01 16:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Addressing each of those points:
- I would say that a consumer organisation is authoritative with regard to nutritional information - one of the key roles of these organisations is to provide independent nutritional advice. The source in question is only cited in reference to nutritional info. Although the Choice article deals with health claims, these are not cited here.
- I'll have to check who wrote the article at a later date, I don't have it to hand. I've put it on hold, I'll let you know when I get it (I'll scan it in at that time too).
- I have no objection to citations from the USDA. I tried searching the USDA National Nutrient Database for wheatgrass, but I got no results.
- Even if your interpretation is of Schnabel's statement is correct, that does not make the comparison of wheatgrass to other vegetables unnecessary. The key sentence is the first sentence of that paragraph - retailers and supporters of wheatgrass use frequently claim that a shot of wheatgrass is as nutritionally valuable as a kilo of vegetables. The nutritional info on spinach and broccoli is included to disprove that point. The reason for including the statement attributed to Schnabel in that context is to illustrate where the former claim is thought to originate from. This is a section on health claims, not on Schnabel's statement - the inclusion of Schnabel's statement is incidental. I'm restoring the nutritional info on that basis, I'm also rephrasing the section so as to avoid the confusion with regard to Schnabel's statement. I think it reads better with Schnabel's statement in the middle of the paragraph, but let me know what you think.
- It occurs to me that there is a problem with this article at the moment in the arrangement of the material under the various section headings. Most stuff seems to get end up in the health claims section, when some of it clearly belongs elsewhere. I'm going to chop and change it a bit. I'm also going to add a couple of citation needed tags: some of the information presented uses weasel words, and there's at least one statistical claim with no citation. Pacey 09:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. For brevity lets use (1s1k) for "1 serving=1 kilo".
- Consumer orgs cannot compare to medical/science orgs in evaluating health data. I got a copy of the article. This org only reviewed data available on the internet. There is no author posted for the article. It is written in the same manner as the web article. A clear biased is displayed in "Don't believe everthing you hear..." There is an abundance of peer-reviewed research on wheatgrass and wheatgrass components (eg. tocopherol succinate) not available on the web, that they omitted. That would require a trip to the library. I would expect that they would have made that effort. Certainly a peer-reviewed article would have done the research before writing this kind of review.
- I think the Cultivation section is great. However I'm mot sure the last sentences belong in that section.
- Seperating the 1s1k statement from Schnabel's statement makes sense. The 1s1k comparison needs clarification. The fact that one or two nutrients are higher in broccoli then wheatgrass doesn't negate the statement, at least not completely . I am thinking of adding a chart with comparisions of a broccoli, wheatgrass juice and powder to help clarify.
- Schnabel's statement is just as much a health claim as is the 1s1k statement. The "aforementioned claim most likely originates" is a guess as far as I can tell. Perhaps it should read "The aforementioned claim may have derived" or something to that effect. Anthon01 17:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- What is "1 serving of wheatgrass?" I don't thinks that clear. Also Choice Mag. compares 1 serving of wheatgrass to 30 gm. of spinach or broccoli. Why 30 gm? I think because they are comparing it to 1 oz. of wheatgrass juice which is 28.35 gm. which rounds out to 30 gm. The reference to a garden salad is problematic. I think it makes more sense to stick to single nutrient comparision. Makes it easier to do the numbers. Take a look at this: Wheat Grass Nutrient Levels compared with fresh green vegetables Anthon01 20:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'll just make a couple of quick points, I have to get to work:
- It's good that you have a copy of the article - do you have the original print version though? It's my recollection that the authors of the articles are listed somewhere else, I think at the start of the mag.
- Incidentally, I think they're right to say "don't believe everything you hear", given the fact that retailers frequently make the 1s1k claim, and it seems to be wrong. In the context of a consumer organisation, I think the tone is appropriate.
- I like the chart, but we can't really use the stats for dried wheatgrass as they come from a retailer. I had info from retailers up here in the early days of the article and it was removed. I don't think this source is reliable in this context, it should be supported by an independent source.
- I'm not sure about the last sentences of the cultivation section either.
- "The aforementioned claim may have derived" - sounds good.
- 1 serving = 30ml, we use metric measurements. The article originally said 30ml, I'm not sure when or why it was removed. Pacey 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'll just make a couple of quick points, I have to get to work:
- The article looks like the original mag sheet. pg 24-25.
- I agree the tone fits a magazine format. "Don't believe everything you hear" fits the 1s1k claim. However the article wasn't referring to that claim. It reads "don't believe everything you hear or read, very little good quality evidence exist to support the extravagant claims made for the benefit of wheatgrass." The 1s1k is easily refuted with the available evidence. The other claims are not currently refuteable, in fact the evidence available supports or partially supports many of the claims. I don't think you would accept "Don't believe everything you hear" anywhere in this article. That's why I have a problem with the reference.
- I referenced a book for the data in the chart.
- I originally removed your 'broccoli' and 'salad' references to Schnabel's statement because I believe that his statement was generally correct if WG powder was the source of wheatgrass. The chart supports that contention and clearly refutes juice as the source. You seperation of 1s1k is a good idea, and certainly it makes sense to refute the 1s1k claim. A better way to refute it is by comparing more then just a few nutrients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Anthon01 21:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see objective research backing up the following claims:
"Wheatgrass grown under artificial conditions indoors in trays does not have the proper balance of nutrients found in wheatgrass grown outdoors under natural conditions"
"Growing wheatgrass in a tray in warm greenhouse conditions is not optimal and is certainly not natural"
"The chemical composition is not balanced"
"the juice from this "artifically grown" wheatgrass tends to have a bad flavor as well as a high bacteria and mold content which is the usual cause of the nausea"
As it stands, most of these claims are poorly defined. Under what standards do we judge wheatgrass production to be optimal or suboptimal? Where is the evidence indicating higher bacteria and mold content for wheatgrass grown indoors? Let alone evidence suggesting that this is the cause of nausea, or even that indoor wheatgrass causes more nausea than outdoor wheatgrass. As for being "not natural", similar arguments could be made for the outlawing of pants. This section reads like a new-age manifesto. --Unknown
RESPONSE TO ABOVE:
Until the information was added about the importance of growing wheatgrass naturally, this piece did read like a "new-age manifesto." The additional information about the importance of growing wheatgrass as nature intended was obviously designed to combat the newage nonsense about growing wheatgrass indoors in trays.
It should obvious to anyone that plants forced to grow 20 times faster than nature intended in temperatures that are three times warmer than nature intended are not as nutritious as plants grown under natural conditions. The photographs of the pale hot house wheatgrass being fed into a juicer compared with the dark green wheatgrass growing in the winter outdoors should prove to anyone who understands even elementary agriculture and nutrition that tray-grown wheatgrass is not as good as the real thing. Since you wrote the above, a link has been added comparing hot house wheatgrass with the wheatgrass grown under natural conditions.
For more scientific evidence that addresses your concerns, an excellent review of literature on wheatgrass and other cereal grass is Cereal Grass - What's in it for You. This review includes more than 130 scientific references in the bibliography.
Regarding the problem with mold in growing wheatgrass under unnatural conditions, even Ann Wigmore agreed that mold is a problem with wheatgrass grown indoors in warm conditions. Mold is a well-documented problem, and several hot-house operations have been shut down because of it. Since you wrote the above, an additional link has been added that also addresses the mold problem. --Unknown
Another link to the mold problem: http://www.cityfarmer.org/wheatgrass.html
To help with the problem I've added "Citation needed" to the sentences that are particularly problematic. I'm not saying that all of these marked claims are wrong, but it is without question that they are currently unsupported by the article as written. Match facts with credible sources. The book you mention does not appear to have an index and the table of contents is of no help in finding information about key claims, vis, the relative occurrence of mold on indoor versus outdoor wheatgrass, the nutrient content of spring wheatgrass grown indoors for 30 days vs spring wheatgrass grown outdoors for 30 days, whether mold is in fact the cause of any naseau, or whether nausea is more common for indoor vs. outdoor wheatgrass, etc. If you read carefully, you will agree that the reference listed for "Mold and wheatgrass" does not address any of the above issues. It is half anecdotal stories, and the other half is irrelevant to the main problems with this section. Please provide proper references if available. I have also deleted usage of biased phrases like "true wheatgrass" and "real wheatgrass", as such would imply the existence of "false wheatgrass", which is not a scientiffic position. --22.214.171.124 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding: "It should obvious to anyone that plants forced to grow 20 times faster than nature intended in temperatures that are three times warmer than nature intended are not as nutritious as plants grown under natural conditions."
This is patently untrue, should not be obvious, and makes no sense whatsoever. The cellular structure of the plant controls its nutritional content - not how nature may or may not have "intended" it to grow." In fact, the mold issue relates more specifically to how long the plant is allowed to remain in place (planted) versus being harvested. That is, once at maturity, the plant slows its growth dramatically. At this point, mold becomes an issue with respect to the plant becoming inert and a good substrate for parasitic organisms.
Regarding this whole article - it is completely inaccurate and cites no GOOD scientific studies. What it should say is that wheatgrass advocates claim all these crazy health benefits, but there has yet to be any substantiated evidence of any of these claims. Wheatgrass is just grass.126.96.36.199 01:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
RESPONSE TO PRECEDING COMMENT
The link you mentioned above comparing tray grown to field grown is in my opinion inaccurate. It compares 1 oz. wheatgrass juice to 1/8 ounce (3.5 gms) PINES Wheat Grass Powder. Wheatgrass juice is 19/20ths water. If you remove the water, you are left with 1.42 gms of powder. From 2 oz. of juice you get 2.84 gms. of powder. 2.84 gms makes the tray grown equal to or superior to the powder in almost all nutrients.
Much of the commentary in this article is scientifically unsubstantiated and/or lacking references. The writer(s) are guilty of doing the same thing that the advocates of wheatgrass are accused of doing. Also, keep in mind that 85% of medical procedures are also 'unproven.' --Anthon01 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
And Also: You did fine until this "Wheatgrass is just grass." What does that mean? Oxygen is just oxygen, right? --Anthon01 18:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the first paragraph: "Wheatgrass is a young plant of the genus..." There is a distinction between wheatgrass and wheat grass. Wheatgrass is grass grown indoors in trays for about 10 days and then freshly juiced. Wheat grass is grass grown outdoors in the ground. Please see the following http://www.wheatgrass.com/faq/factsheets/wheatgrassfactsheet.php
Regarding this statement "The unprocessed plant contains fiber, which promotes colon health."
The fiber link to cancer is no longer a given. Several large studies failed to show any link between fiber and colon cancer. See http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fiber.html --Anthon01
Librarianofages: Nutrition Data on your link is poor as almost all the items are empty. It gives the impression that there isn't much nutrition in wheatgrass, when in fact it is just a lack of data. Please check http://www.wheatgrass.com/faq/factsheets/analysisjuice.php 188.8.131.52 14:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The table for "Nutrient comparison of 15 lbs. of wheatgrass juice, dried wheatgrass and 350 lbs. of broccoli" is bizarre, misleading, and irresponsible. There is no clear source for the claimed nutritional content of dried wheatgrass. You cannot take the nutritional content of fresh wheatgrass juice, multiply it by 20, and claim that's the figure for dried wheatgrass; you have to dry the grass and directly analyse it. The drying process is likely to significantly change the nutritional content, and even if it doesn't such a result must be demonstrated. Furthermore, the drying process is unlikely to remove all the water from the wheatgrass, so multiplying by the fraction of water will prove inaccurate. I don't have access to the cited source, so it's possible it answers these caveats, but some demonstration of this would be very useful, or a reference to an independent government or scientific authority.
Also, why is the chart for 15 lbs wheatgrass and 350 lbs broccoli? Is this designed to make comparison as hard as possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Found a link at USDA it still doesnt seem to match what is currently in the comparison box with Broc etc. https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/193378?manu=&fgcd=&ds= So I have editted the page to reflect the fact that the table seems dubious. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Not adding this to the article because I don't have a citeable source for it, but ... wheatgrass juice can cause a nasty allergic reaction in some people, even people not allergic to grasses usually. --FOo 08:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like clarification on allergic reactions to gluten which is found in wheat. This is derived from wheat, shouldn't that mean that wheat grass contains gluten, even in the powder form? In the allergy section it should be made clear, as there are health products being sold with this powder as an ingredient that state "does not contain gluten". It would be nice to know for all the celiac sufferers out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Agropyron a relative of Triticum? Both graminae but beside this? Agropyron repens, I know, its a terrible weed with a very low nutritive value. In comparison to wheat, the bread making cereal? No comparison...
"These claims have neither been proven nor disproven." has been replaced with "these claims have not been proven." The burdon of proof should be on those who consider wheatrgrass to be beneficial
--AaronOfAbsalom 12:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. Wikipedia is a source of information, it is not a claims court. If too little research has been done to make any substantial conclusions about wheatgrass, the article should simply say so. --Karuna8 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- The point is that unproven claims are not somehow different from undisproven claims. "Neither proven nor disproven" is redundant. If a claim has been disproven, subsequent efforts to prove it are written off. If a claim is proven, then it's been strengthened to the point where it is generally accepted as fact and nobody bothers trying to disprove it. If something has not been proven, it doesn't bear mentioning that it has not been disproven. It smacks of a hasty attempt to make it look good in spite of a lack of evidence. --SquidDNA 13:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Saying something has been neither proven nor disproven in this case is misleading, as medical science cannot disprove that wheatgrass is beneficial. Swax 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Neither can medical science disprove that I have a solid gold house that I won't show to anyone. You can make any ludicrous claim you want to, the burden of proof is always on YOU, not on someone else to disprove. This is how science works. --SquidDNA 13:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mean to nitpick, but I have to point out that science cannot prove anything, it can only disprove. If you want to "prove" something, the best you can hope for is to disprove the opposite. This is a basic premise of the scientific method --- hypotheses are postulated, and then scientists go about trying to disprove them. If, after rigorous attacks by scientists, the hypothesis is still consistent in explaining a phenomenon, the hypothesis can then be considered to be a theory (or, "proven true" in the eyes of casual observers). However, even a theory cannot formally be considered to be proven true, because science cannot do this.
With this in mind, when someone hypothesizes anecdotally that wheatgrass has a certain beneficial health effect, it cannot be immediately considered to be "true", and it falls upon scientific skeptics to go about setting up experiments to try to disprove this claim. If, after a number of credible, unbiased, and rigorously structured studies have been performed which demonstrate no positive effects of wheat grass on health issue X, then the hypothesis can be discarded, and considered unproven. The same goes the other way. If someone hypothesizes that wheat grass does not have a certain beneficial health benefit, then it is up to scientists to create expeeriments to try to disprove that. If these experiments show positive health effects of wheat grass, then the original hypothesis can be discarded and wheat grass can be considered to be beneficial. These experiements are not at all difficult to do; this is the stuff of standard empirical medical study, and I'm surprised that so few of them have apparently been performed to cite in this article, based on the comments on this board.Kram-bc 16:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to nitpick but you have NO idea what you are talking about. I guess that is the general consensus on an edit page for wheatgrass. Science proves nothing. When I perform a fine needle aspiration of a lymph node and diagnose PJP in a patient that must disprove him being healthy. Of course it doesn't prove that he has PJP. Please don't type if you don't know what you are typing about. That is what is wrong with wikipedia, everyone can edit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I was the one who posted the "nutrition facts" external link which doesn't seem to back up any of these claims at all. -- Librarianofages 21:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Librarianofages: The link that you provided contained almost all blanks. It didn't mean that these nutrients were missing, but that the chemical analysis was incomplete. How can you use incomplete chemical analysis to prove something doesn't work?
As far as research goes, wheatgrass can't be patented; without patents research money is limited. However there are a few studies that support some of the claims.
Research supporting claims in Cancer and Detoxification and blood building.
Research supporting claims of blood building.
2) Wheat grass juice reduces transfusion requirement in patients with thalassemia }major: a pilot study. Indian Pediatr. 2004 Jul;41(7):716-20.
Research supporting claims of improved Gastrointestinal Health.
3) Wheat grass juice in the treatment of active distal ulcerative colitis: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2002 Apr;37(4):444-9. Anthon01 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I've started work on a health benefits section, relying particular on a recent article in Choice magazine which is primarily focussed on debunking myths about wheatgrass. I've noticed that the article's available online, I'll try and continue to address the health claims from that article and other sources if I get time. If someone feels like getting stuck into it though, go ahead.
Oops, didn't sign... Pacey 09:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this from the Health Benefits section - "It is also worth noting, however, that while a kilogram (about 2 pounds) of vegetables may contain more vitamins and nutrients than a shot of wheatgrass, a kilo of vegetables is an amount that very few people can eat in one sitting, which makes it impractical in every day life. Also, a kilogram of vegetables contains over 300 times the amount of calories in a shot of wheatgrass." The first sentence is irrelevant, since a small salad contains more nutrients than a shot of wheatgrass, and most people can fit a small salad into their daily meals. The calories statement needs a source. Pacey 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
wow, cleanse the liver? prevents hair loss? they didn't teach us about "cleansing the liver" in medical school. I'm sure Wheatgrass is healthy for you and a good addition to your diet but leave out these bullshit claims, poorly written article that includes trivial information throughout in my opinion. Rob
The only sourced information on this page are articles critical of wheatgrass. Someone has to take the time to find reputable counter-opinions. Further, there is clear bias in the way the article is written: it lists so many anecodotal examples of health benefits in a row as to insinuate that we're witnessing a placebo effect. Someone needs to take the time to find which health benefits are more and less supported by research. This someone is not me. Whoever added all the references to the single negative source should have found at least one reputable counter-source to not make the article so terribly imbalanced. Hpatenaude 16:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Addressing your concerns
- Firstly, with regard to the sources, I did actually put up some citations to positive sources but they were removed because they were links to commercial websites. Almost everyone supporting wheatgrass is also selling it, or selling some other kind of health program associated with it. The problem is that there aren't any reputable scholarly sources supporting wheatgrass, as far as I could ascertain. Having said that I don't think there's anything wrong with citing claims made by companies, particularly where competing claims are also being presented. I'll check Wikipedia's policy in this regard and I may reinstate some of those sources at a later date. Had I been able to find any scholarly sources supporting wheatgrass consumption I would have used them. As an aside, the transcript of the Landline article is, for the most part, fairly positive about wheatgrass. You only need look at the title of the article to establish that: "healthy for the body and bank account."
- Secondly, I dispute that there is a bias in the presentation of the material. It is an empirical fact that many proponents of wheatgrass claim that it has some or all of these health benefits. Putting those claims together isn't intended to discredit them in any way. It would simply look messy, in my opinion, to list each of the claimed health benefits seperately. If you feel they should be listed in this way, go ahead and do it. Furthermore, the only health benefit that is directly disputed here is that '30ml of wheatgrass is equivalent to a kilo of veggies'. This claim was included here because it is commonly made, and it is, according to the only studies I could find, demonstrably untrue. I could find no evidence to support the claim.
- Thirdly, you complain about "all the references to the single negative source". The source you're referring to is only cited three times, and one of those citations is positive: the assertion that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence supporting the benefits of wheatgrass use.
Finally, I should point out that the article does nothing but assert facts. I am aware that an assertion of fact can still be considered non-neutral according to Wikipedia's policy guidelines. As such I am removing the only pieces of the text which I feel may fall foul of this distinction - The phrase "these claims are untrue" and the wording of the final sentence in the section. I will then remove the 'neutrality disputed' tag. Pacey 09:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I should also emphasise that if you still feel the article isn't from a NPOV, feel free to put the tag back on. Pacey 10:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This biased description of a "fast food salad" has no citiation (or basis in fact) and should be removed: "however due to the high level of processing and lacing the vegetables with chemicals to preserve the salads for several days, most of these nutrients are stripped from the salads." 1. I have worked at fast food restaurants prepping salads - we used fresh vegetables and the only "chemical" applied was "Dihydrogen monoxide": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax 2. what "processing" and "lacing" "strips" nutrients ? Additives and preservatives may not be "health" but how do they strip nutrients? 3. I'm a newbie - do I remove this garbage or will some elite hax0r fix it for me? 126.96.36.199 15:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see it's already been removed, but to answer your question, if you notice something that's incorrect be bold in editing it.
Isn't it Wheatgrass Juice?
Wheatgrass is different from wheat grass. Wheatgrass is grass grown indoors in trays for about 10 days and then freshly juiced. It is used for therapeutic purposes. --Anthon01 03:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Drbrucek added this comment to the Usage section of the article. I moved it here:
- The average dose listed here is larger than the "large" size you can buy at a "juice" bar. There needs to be more citations about that 2-4 ounce size as well as taking it 5 times a day. That does not sound right.
--Heron 16:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- As anyone who has researched and personally felt the beneficial effects of juicing understand is that by removng the pulp, seeds and solids portions of the plant you are concentrating the 'lifeblood' of the plant. This makes the vitamins, minerals and trace elements, which are mostly found and suspended in the plant juices readily available for ingestion/digestion. This is not theory. Amounts of unuseable solid material from juicing are enormous. As much as 97% (by volume) is compost, leaving only concentrated liquid. Liquid is a freindly and fast form of nutrition available to the body. At times too fast. As Dr. Lendon Heinerman suggests it's like putting 200 octane fuel in your car, the danger is that the engine may not be able to handle it. If you make a drink that is basically from a natural and beneficial food without chemical or genetic processes wouldn't it follow that it to would be good for you? Why are we debating the use of foods which have been around for millenia? why do we not question the use of transfats, additives and sweetners in our processed foods. Why, as a nation, do we eat THREE POUNDS of white sugar a WEEK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
What you call "compost" consists of many nutrients that are not removed by juicing. It also consists of extremely important VEGETABLE FIBER, the lack of which has been shown to be a major reason that colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death. You sound like the folks a century ago who said that the husks of wheat were "indigestible compost" and should be thrown away and that we should only eat the white centers of the wheat berry. They missed the point that many nutrients are contained in the wheat bran as well as valuable fiber. Maybe you prefer a diet of sugar and white flour and other processed foods and juices, but for me I'll stick with WHOLE FOODS that our bodies were designed to consume. I wonder how many cave men had juicers. LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
RESPONSE TO LAST COMMENT
Actually the fiber link to cancer is in question. See http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fiber.html
As an adult, she developed colon cancer and faced the loss of both legs after a traffic accident shattered them
This reeks of origin myth. If you Google a bit, you find some accounts of her having colon cancer; some say she just had colitis. Sometimes both legs are gangrenous; sometimes just one. Sometimes she was in an automobile accident; others she was run over by a horse-drawn wagon. Doesn't sound a very reliable story. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- What would consider to be a reliable source? The internet is full of contradictory stories. Anthon01 (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed is already on the page. How many times are you suppose to put in on? Shouldn't it be (This section is disputed)? On another page, you said,
... main editor is a SPA with a clear promotional and anti-mainstream agenda
== If I might suggest that as mentioned before, this seems to be a topic that requires splitting and alot of editing. Wheatgrass should only contain data pertaining to the plant, Outdoors and Indoors. Wheatgrass juice should be referenced under Wheatgrass, but have its own entry. As to the Description of Wheatgrass juice, I'd like to see the first couple paragraphs contain imperical data regarding to what Wheatgrass juice is, where it comes from and various other hard facts. General taste, smell, appearance and consistancy maybe? Then we can site and discuss the available research data I suppose. Finfid (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your input. I don't think that works.
- If you notice the Wheatgrass (disambiguation) page, wheatgrass is many different plants. Also if you haven't yet, please lookup Wikipedia's Common wheat also know as triticum aestivum or wheatgrass. This is the plant that is used to make wheatgrass juice. In a sense the wheatgrass page already exist under Common wheat. We could add a section to Common wheat, that discusses the use of the immature plant for juicing. I'm not sure that would go over well. We could write a page on the immature plant, but I'm not sure if that's the best way to do this as the only value of the immature plant is for juicing, powdering or tableting it. What do you think?
- Please lookup the first section, Deciding to disambiguate under Wikipedia:Disambiguation. If you google wheatgrass, there is almost nothing on it except wheatgrass juice. So the popular meaning of wheatgrass is in reference to wheatgrass juice.
- I think you suggestions as to the introduction make sense. Taste smell, color appearance, all make sense. Are you suggesting that discussing why and how consumers get Wheatgrass in the introduction is inappropriate?
- When did you mention this before? I must have missed it. Anthon01 (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
the link in the citation on vitamin b12 content shows no such thing. it just links to a nutrition database search page that produces no results when wheat grass or anything similar is entered. if someone can't find a better source i'll delete it in a few days--Mongreilf (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sceptical, but don't have access to the citation to argue, it seems to be a health food proselytising book, which are often not reliable though this isn't enough for me to want to erase the edit. The Vegan Society insists there are no reliable vegetable sources for B12 , and the wikipedia article on Vitamin B12 lists a few claimed vegetable sources that have proved spurious - including barley grass. AFAIK vitamin B12 is synthesised only by bacteria and wheat grass may have vitamin B12 in it by virtue of soil bacteria that are present on the plant. The wheat grass I use (Garden of Life brand) makes no claim to include any vitamin B12--Mongreilf (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This still needs more/better sources. A single book isn't good enough when there are plenty of sources stating that b12 is not reliably found in plants. Perhaps a statement saying that the information is disputed could be added. If it helps, Steve Meyerowitz who is the author of the referenced book takes his information from Dr. Yoshihide Hagiwara Muleattack (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Indoor growing and mold
Chlorophyll in human diet
Sources 6 and 7 don't tell us anything about the benefits of chlorophyll in the human diet. The first is a study on rats and the second one actually makes a point of noting that the evidence it's reviewing does not pertain to chlorophyll consumed orally. Thus neither of them say anything about the human diet.
I'll fix it unless there's any objections.
Also, do we have a source for that bollocks about chickens' egg production being doubled by wheatgrass consumption? One that hasn't been written by someone trying to sell wheatgrass products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
"5000 year-old History"
I have been trying to find a source for the claim at the start of the history section:
Wheat grass can be traced back in history over 5000 years, to ancient Egypt and perhaps even early Mesopotamian civilizations. It is purported that ancient Egyptians found sacred the young leafy blades of wheat and prized them for their positive effect on their health and vitality. [non-tertiary source needed]
It seems there are plenty of things linking wheat to Egypt, but as for wheatgrass and, specifically, the historical health-use claim, things are trickier. The two links cited by the tertiary source given have both decayed. One of them doesn't mention it and the the other (presumably the intended reference) is by "Dr Wheatgrass", a "wheatgrass based skin care products" retailer. The last available version of it is a bunch of links, of which I've tried some but don't see much point as I doubt it would qualify as a reliable source.
There are a bunch of health sites which say similar things but all use phrasing very similar to Wikipedia's own, were put up later than the edit, and give no other related information, mentioning Egypt and Mesopotamia only tangentially. This is also the case for the one post-edit reference found on Google Books. There is also one from before the edit, in The Complete Guide to Growing and Using Wheatgrass, but since it is not a history text, references the claim only once, does not provide a source, and includes a disclaimer about the possible inaccuracy of its contents, I am happy to discard it.