Talk:Spirulina (dietary supplement)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spirulina (dietary supplement) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"Dried spirulina contains about 60% (51–71%) protein. It is a complete protein containing all essential amino acids, though with reduced amounts of methionine, cysteine and lysine when compared to the proteins of meat, eggs and milk. It is, however, superior to typical plant protein, such as that from legumes."
>What do you mean by superior protein??? There's no reason to call meat protein better than legumes protein or spirulin protein. This type of terminology is no longer used and is absolete.
"Companies which grow and market spirulina have claimed it to be a significant source of B12 on the basis of alternative, unpublished assays, although their claims are not accepted by independent scientific organizations."
>Talking of a very conceited way of making observations on a work supposed to be respected as an encyclopedia. You just nulified the effect that you were trying to push forth. Such an abusive language clearly shows what your views are on the topic. Also, the references listed lack in consitency since only one was an actual study, the other was a brief mention. If you are trying to prove that Spirulina is not a good source of b12 so that people eat more meat, vegans already know that. That's why there are b12 pills. And vegans are not the only ones who suffer from b12 deficiency, most americans do, knowingly or not, even after consuming such gigantic quantities of animal products.
"The U.S. National Library of Medicine said that spirulina was no better than milk or meat as a protein source, and was approximately 30 times more expensive per gram."
>Another ridiculous claim. True it is expensive, but 30 times seems largely over exagerated. I saw a pound of raw spirulina on sale for 15 dollars. How did they get that 30 figure goes beyond my comprehension. Instead of spreading incorrect information, you should be more intrusive on how much a pound of meat really costs in water, soil destruction, trees cut down and destruction of the ozone layer and not on how much money the current government subsidizes the absolete meat industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Attended immediate above exagerration . Let us be more neutral in WP. Certain statements on spirulina in the article appears to discourage the use of spirulina!! why such partiality? - Rayabhari (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Uh. Uh. Sorry. What ever I tried to modify, to attain some neutrality, was almost reverted by one editor who claims Medial backgroud. Ridiculous claim, as suggested above by another editor, still continues!! More editors with "medical background" should bring this topic for debate and decide how to attain more neutrality in the article. Till then, the "ridiculous" content continues!! - Rayabhari (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Ref says "Several groups of investigators indicated that pseudovitamin B12 is hardly absorbed in mammalian intestine with a low affinity to IF (64, 65). Furthermore, researchers showed that spirulina vitamin B12 may not be bioavailable in mammals (63, 66). Herbert (67) reported that an extract of spirulina contains two vitamin B12 compounds that can block the metabolism of vitamin B12" 
The ADA position paper states "Foods such as sea vegetables and spirulina may contain vitamin B-12 analogs; neither these nor fermented soy products can be counted on as reliable sources of active vitamin B-12 (29,88)" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Per the cost bit the ref says "You may have been told that blue-green algae are an excellent source of protein. But, in reality, blue-green algae is no better than meat or milk as a protein source and costs about 30 times as much per gram."  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Cyanobacteria are not green algae
The following paragraphs about a virus of green algae should not be in this article, which is about a cyanobacterium:
- Scientists at the Johns Hopkins Medical School and the University of Nebraska have discovered an algae virus that makes us more stupid by infecting our brains. The researchers were conducting a completely unrelated study into throat microbes when they realised that DNA in the throats of healthy people matched the DNA of a chlorovirus virus known as ATCV-1.
- ATCV-1 is a virus that infects the green algae found in freshwater lakes and ponds. It had previously been thought to be non-infectious to humans, but the scientists found that it actually affects cognitive functions in the brain by shortening attention span and causing a decrease in spatial awareness.
I removed the following content:
The author of that article works for Bisen Biotech & Biopharma Pvt. Ltd. which is a company that sold spirulina as a dietary supplement and the article is very promotional. This is not the kind of thing we should be including in WP. On top of that the content based on the source is uselessly vague. I replaced this content with updated content from a better source. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
30 times more
Once again an editor has removed the complete drivel that claims spirulina is "30 times more expensive", and this has been restored, because, meds. This has been discussed before, it's a completely ludicrous claim (see the talk archive). I'm not interested in revisiting, but the editor who removed may wish to take it on and try improve this article. Greenman (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I restored the content because the source provided is very strong. What source can you bring that is stronger? Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please read the archives. Essentially, "30 times more" is meaningless without a unit, and claiming a price differential without placing it in a particular time and place is also meaningless. I don't have another source, I am simply pointing out that mindless parroting of a source when it provides obviously meaningless information is not that helpful. For this reason, new editors who read the sentence and see this will most likely continue to remove the statement. Greenman (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)