Talk:Siraitia grosvenorii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pekinensis' work[edit]

Very nice edits, Pekinensis. However, I think the desciption of "guo" (Chinese term for melon-type fruits?) which was removed should probably stay. A "sucker" is a (mainly U.S.?) slang term for a lollipop or similar wrapped hard candy. Badagnani 20:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. With regards to "guo" (), I believe it is more general than that; are you possibly thinking of "gua" ()? With regards to "suckers", the funny thing is that I grew up calling them that ("lollipop" being more of a book or television word), but somehow still failed to understand. Your generalization to candy makes more sense anyway. — Pekinensis 21:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of "gua." So the reference to "guo" meaning pumpkin is incorrect? Badagnani 21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe so. Pingguo is apple, kaixin guo is pistachio, shuiguo is fruit in general, tangguo is candy, and so on.
Tangguo = "sugar fruit"? Great name. My favorite is "tanghulu," but it seems to be totally unavailable in North America. Badagnani 21:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I figured you didn't know "suckers" because you were from Beijing. But I guess that's just your Wikipedia name, because your level of Chinese would be higher than "2" if you were really from there. :) In botany, anyway, "sucker" usually means some kind of offshoot of a plant. Badagnani 21:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think my brain was in botany mode. :) — Pekinensis 21:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

Most of this article was translated from the German article. Unfortunately, it does not provide many sources, either. This article is full of information and needs sources. I marked some of the guiltiest sections, but most of the article is at least partially guilty.

Actually it looks like the German article was mostly using the ITM article that I cited in the sources. Karen S Vaughan 04:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried looking up "Siraitia grosvenorii" and "Luo han guo" in the NEJM but got no results. Cholerashot 22:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they deal much with herbal medicines. Pubmed has 10 hits for Siraitia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed Badagnani 22:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll look those over and see what we can reference in here. Cholerashot 18:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the sources and removed the tags. I also took out the mention that it was waterproof since that seems to be an indexing error (if you look at Chinese general mercantile pages it comes in waterproof bags.) Anyway if it is water soluble it isn't waterproof. And btw, most of the references are probably under Mormordica grosvenorii and possibly under Podocarpus Fruit or Momordica fruit): Karen S Vaughan 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Thanks and congratulations to those responsible for this thorough and beautifully written article! A credit to Wikipedia.– Noetica♬♩Talk 07:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Calorie data[edit]

The article said that the fruit extract "has only 230 kcal/g compared to granulated sugar which has 387 kcal/g." Are these numbers correct? The extract seems to consist mostly of steroidal glycosides which I would expect to have much lower food energy value. Perhaps this is the combustion energy contents? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Those calorie figures are way off 86.29.7.158 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Needs context[edit]

I have removed these sentence fragments from the article because they are quite meaningless without context, explanation, or elaboration: Antioxidant, [1] Enhance immunity (in mice).[2] Glucose-lowering effect on hyperglycaemic rabbits[3] Inhibitory effects against the Epstein-Barr virus early antigen.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.216 (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/c 20:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)



Siraitia grosvenoriiMonk fruit

  • articles merged, but merged into a less common title per WP:ARTICLENAME Curb Chain (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:FLORA has something to say on it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: Monk fruit was merged into Siraitia grosvenorii, and has a substantial history that should be saved. Apteva (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - as Alan Leifting says, WP:FLORA is quite clear on cases such as this. Splitting the article back into two, one for the plant, and one for the product, also wouldn't work, because the common name that has a history of being attested in English is luo han guo, not monk fruit (or the other names listed). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    • What it says is if there is a non-botanical use for the plant, such as watermelon, the common name should be used instead. Monk fruit seems to have taken over but it is a marketing name – luo han guo is more commonly used in books.
      • Siraitia grosvenorii 224
      • Monk fruit 194
      • Arhat fruit 145
      • Luo han guo 571
    • Buddha fruit more commonly refers to Annona squamosa, or spiritual development Apteva (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sure. The article lists several names: arhat fruit, Buddha fruit, monk fruit, or longevity fruit. Is there a clear preference for one name? Guettarda (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Revising my opposition above (to a comment), I would support moving to Luo han guo, but from what I can see "monk fruit" is a very recent marketing effort that is likely to be eclipsed by the next super-fruit or alternative sweetener that comes along as a high-priced novelty, at which time the older names are likely to resurge in popularity. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm suggesting a move to monk fruit because it has significantly more google hits than Siraitia grosvenoriiCurb Chain (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As stated above, "Luo han guo" gets more google hits than "monk fruit". Of course, the numbers vary according to where you are located, but for me the number of hits are 385,000 and 180,000 respectively. The scientific name Siraitia grosvenorii may not get many hits, but in a case like this where there are multiple common names used in English (and Luo han guo is attested as English), WP:FLORA is quite clear that the scientific name is to be preferred. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think that based on the results Apteva presented there are two options - Luo han guo or Siraitia grosvenorii. Guettarda (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Response That contradicts my results: "monk fruit" gets about 2,090,000 results while "Luo han guo" gets about 1,470,000 results. Per Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title, Monk fruit fulfills bullets 1 and 2, and bullets 4 and 5 because it is an English name.Curb Chain (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "English" in this context means "used in English" not "English in etymology". Both Luo han guo and Siraitia grosvenorii are English names in that sense. Guettarda (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Those are web views, I would guess. Apteva (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Additional discussion I recognize the fact that the article is about the plant, and not about the fruit, but as mentioned above, WP:FLORA does help in determining the best title for a plant's article. In this case, the fruit is making the plant notable. ThisThus the common name of "monk fruit" is the most logical article title.Curb Chain (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Using Google gives a subjective response per each user, because they (Google) customize to each individual computer's history (even when you tell them not to they still seem to do it). My results, for instance, are Siraitia grosvenorii - 35,300; Luo han guo - 333,000; and Monk fruit - 172,000, so Luo han guo wins, I suppose. Although I don't know what their algorithms are, I can say without a doubt that the Google method is unreliable (maybe somewhat less so if you at least aggregate totals from different computers/users). Hamamelis (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - For me today, "Siraitia grosvenorii" gives 44,500, "monk fruit" gives 181,000 (different from yesterday's count), "Luo han guo" 329,000 (different from yesterday's count). There's also spelling variation: "Luohan guo" 14,900; "Luohanguo" 54,900; "Luo hanguo" 44,500. All in all, I'd like to stay with the scientific name. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Just for a test, I tried "Monkfruit" (minus "monk")—result: 3,820. I know it's an insignificant number, but I just wanted to see if "monkfruit" was also used.
To amend my comment: I should have said this type of Google search (meaning the simplest, and usual type). Apparently there are better methods for using search engines at Wikipedia:Search engine test. I'll cast a vote. Hamamelis (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the ambiguity shown by Sminthopsis84, above and per WP:FLORA. Siraitia grosvenorii is where the article should remain, and redirs be made of all the spelling variants. Hamamelis (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Response Well I've cleared all my history cookies etc. on Firefox, IE and Chrome and still getting 2M hits. Why?Curb Chain (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Note I'm using the general search, not the google books, google news, or google scholar search.Curb Chain (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It's my understanding that Firefox, and other open source, bare-bones type browsers are better than what I'm using (Chrome) for a "purer" search. But I'm not sure why (if I'm understanding you properly) all three are giving you identical (?) numbers. If other users using Firefox cleared their histories and got the same results as you, you might be on to something interesting. Hamamelis (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't reproduce your results. If the quotation marks were somehow being lost or ignored, that for me gives 8M hits. Are you signed in to Google (I'm not, but wonder if that could make a difference). I don't see any options under google search options that could have such an effect. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per confusion in English, and WP:FLORA. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IIO. There's too much ambiguity in the common names, so the scientific name is the best way to be precise and accurate. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nutrition Section[edit]

I don't see a nutrition section or any nutrition information on monk fruit on this page at the moment. This would be a great addition for anyone who is contributing to this page. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Matsumoto S., Jin M., Dewa Y., Nishimura J., Moto M., Murata Y., Shibutani M., Mitsumori K."Suppressive effect of Siraitia grosvenorii extract on dicyclanil-promoted hepatocellular proliferative lesions in male mice" Journal of Toxicological Sciences 2009 34:1 (109-118)
  2. ^ Li J., Huang Y., Liao R.-Q., He X.-C., Su X.-J., Zhong Z.-X., Huang C.-P., Lu X.-W.'Effect of Siraitia Grosvenorii polysaccharide on immunity of mice' Chinese Pharmacological Bulletin 2008 24:9 (1237-1240)
  3. ^ Lin G.P., Jiang T., Hu X.B., Qiao X.H., Tuo Q.H.'Effect of Siraitia grosvenorii polysaccharide on glucose and lipid of diabetic rabbits induced by feeding high fat/high sucrose chow.' Experimental diabetes research 2007 70:5 (783-788)
  4. ^ Akihisa T., Hayakawa Y., Tokuda H., Banno N., Shimizu N., Suzuki T., Kimura Y. "Cucurbitane glycosides from the fruits of Siraitia grosvenorii and their inhibitory effects on Epstein-Barr virus activation" Journal of Natural Products 2007 70:5 (783-788)