Talk:Goji

Ambiguous Origin

The problem with the term "Asia" is that it refers to a vast region and doesn't give clear specificity of the actual range(s) of origin. A plurality of sources do not agree that such a broad swath from S.E. Europe to E. Asia represents its native range. For example, an older version of Malus domestica gives a confusing mention of both Turkey and Kazakhstan, while the newer version winnows it more accurately to one region, namely S. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Xinjiang.

I would suggest using GRIN as a more up-to-date source. The article should be updated accordingly. Facial (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No health benefits?

The article was like 85% a smear campaign against Goji. The previous editors mostly talked about how it's a scam and made sweeping claims that all health claims are false and it has zero proven health benefits.

How can there be no health benefits? In this modern age where science has shown antioxidants as very useful to protect against free radicals and macular degeneration. It's not even disputed by any reputable institution that antioxidants like beta carotene, etc are important to protest against DNA damage from oxidative stress. And Goji berries have a very high level of antioxidants as well as vitamin C and melatonin. Obviously there are health benefits in those fruits. The issue is that previous article was making it seem like there are no scientific studies showing that Goji berries increase antioxidants in blood and protect against oxidative stress. And all claims (not some) are wrong. Despite as of 2022, there are a number of studies showing that they do have health benefits. Not all of them are scams or exaggerated claims. It's not disputed that Goji berries have high antioxidants levels And studies have shown concrete benefits to them. I recently added in 2 studies and mentioned the Berries have high antioxidants levels as they were completely absent in previous Article. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/goji-berry#benefits 49.195.2.162 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

There's actually a large number of modern studies (so Many to list) showing conclusively the benefits of antioxidants against free radicals and macular degeneration. To make sweeping premature claims that the Natural antioxidants in Goji berries, have absolutely zero health benefits is just illogical and outdated. Example - A newly released 2022 study found that consuming a handful of dried goji berries five times a week, can "increase the density of 'sunblock' pigments" in the eyes. The researchers from the University of California (Davis), explained that the antioxidants found in Goji berries, lutein and zeaxanthin can filter out harmful blue light and hence “provide antioxidant protection” and prevent some eye disease, specifically macular degeneration, in middle-aged people. https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/wellbeing/2022/01/23/goji-berries-protect-ageing-eyes/ 49.195.2.162 (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS refs are required. Those don't appear to meet that criteria. --Hipal (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I think a true unbiased opinion should at least provide a basic proven peer reviewed nutritional profile of them. It might not be a miraculous fruit, but it's still a fruit like many others. Masacatior (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal that's false. The studies are reliable and uses decent methodology. A 90-day double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled study in 150 older adults, found that goji berry supplementing had helped increase blood antioxidant levels, protects from hypopigmentation, and helped to soften fatty protein deposits behind the retina. It found that antixoxidants didn't increase in placebo or control groups. But risen in groups taking goji berries and it protects against macular hypopigmentation.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21169874/

Another randomized controlled study with 114 subjects who had early macular degeneration, found that daily goji berry supplements had improved the density of macular pigment.

A 2018 professional study also concluded that extracts of L. barbarum (Goji berries) had shown "potent free radical scavenging activity" and protected against DNA damage caused by free radicals. It suggested that suggested that L. barbarum extracts could be used as dietary supplements to reduce the harmful effects of oxidative stress in athletes after intensive exercise.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5977381/ 49.195.2.162 (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. Single studies simply do not pass that bar. - MrOllie (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually well designed studies can be an exception especially if you ensure readers know about the methodology being used. I seen many articles citing single studies so it's allowable. 49.195.2.162 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not what the policy says. Wikipedia is a large site and volunteer time is limited - if you have seen content that doesn't meet our policies that is a reason to fix that content, not to add more noncompliant stuff. MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also a volunteer here. There's nothing wrong in getting a second opinion or village pump if I believe the study is solid yet cannot be agreed by the usual editors on these talk pages. 49.195.2.162 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No original research

@MrOllie I don't want an edit war so am addressing this here. I removed original research claiming that as of 2018, there have been zero clinical studies showing any benefits in Goji berries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goji&diff=1068098575

Because it is wrong as , the given sources does not say that at all. Secondly the given sources are like from 2007 and are heavily outdated and cannot support that statement at all. It is original research to go make a claim when none of the Given sources are actually saying those exact words.

Lastly it is also a false claim. In 2018, there have been well designed clinical studies confirming benefits from Goji.

A 2018 study concluded that extracts of L. barbarum (Goji berries) had shown "potent free radical scavenging activity" and protected against DNA damage caused by free radicals. It suggested that suggested that L. barbarum extracts could be used as dietary supplements to reduce the harmful effects of oxidative stress in athletes after intensive exercise.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5977381/

Also we know that Goji has vitamin A and C which is good for iron absorption and eye health. Clinical studies on vitamin C literally recommend that children and adults have a minimum intake of these vitamins because they are very helpful to the body. There are many clinical studies showing that Goji is high in vitamin C so the statement that Goji berries components haven't been confirmed as helpful, is not Just original research but false information. 49.195.2.162 (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't say 'zero clinical studies showing any benefits', it says 'no clinical effectiveness of such extracts has been confirmed' - please don't move the goalposts and then declare victory. - MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't move goal post? You should really take your own advice as that is what you are doing.

Give me a source that says (AS OF 2018) no clinical benefits have been found. None of the sources says that as of 2018, no clinical benefits had been found.

None of the sources are even from 2018 let alone actually say that entire statement. Show me a source that specifically mention 2018. It is original research to say something that the sources are not saying 2018. 49.195.2.162 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It's original research to use sources back from 2007, and claim the sources themselves are saying - (as of 2018), no studies confirmed effectiveness of extracts in goji). The sources doesn't even say 2018 anywhere because none of them are from 2018. It's obviously original research to make that statement. Also it is outdated information to say (no clinical effectiveness of such extracts has been confirmed') as one 2018 research found compound in goji helped protect against free radicals and DNA damage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5977381/

So if you think it is not original research and or the 2018 study is wrong, then we Just cannot agree on talk and so I am fine to take this to further channels. As Don't want to waste my time arguing with someone who seems invested in defending an original research and claiming that proper randomised controlled studies are not permitted on Wikipedia, despite I know that's wrong. 49.195.2.162 (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Really? there needs to be a Nutrition chapter

For a food article, there need to be mention that Goji berries have high levels of antioxidants, vitamin C and A, as well as iron and fiber. Why is such information forbidden?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goji&diff=1068113113

It's not even disputed by anyone that Goji berries have high levels of antioxidants and vitamin C, etc. Removing the information because WebMD is apparently banned for Wikipedia. Is arbitrary and questionable.

I also like to ask for an exception as it is highly unlikely that WebMD will lie about this. No reason at all. Other websites also say the same thing. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/goji-berry#benefits

They are reliable sources that have no reason to lie about the obvious facts that Goji berries have lots of iron, vitamin C and A, etc. And my edit should be included back in. 49.195.2.162 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

There is really no substitute for reading WP:MEDRS. We have sourcing requirements that must be complied with. MrOllie (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

WebMD and Healthline are not reliable sources, especially for nutrition analysis, as they are written by bloggers and are not peer-reviewed or subjected to editorial scrutiny. From where would they obtain such detailed analytical nutrition information? For Wikipedia food and nutrition articles, we rely on the USDA FoodData Central resource, which has only a preliminary, "label claim" nutrient analysis from a marketed dried goji berry product, i.e., not the usual rigorous, comprehensive nutrient analysis typical of USDA work, such as we have for raisin nutrition information here (see table). We don't have a nutrition section for goji because there is no reliable source available for that information. Zefr (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Zefr Respectfully I don't think you are familiar with Healthline and WebMD. Typically the articles are written by people with actual medical professional credentials. Not just anybody. An example is this article - https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/goji-berry It is written by by Rachael Link, MS, RD on September 8, 2020 and Medically reviewed by Amy Richter, RD, Nutrition. I believe University is what taught them these knowledge in which in turn, Universities gained it from scientific consensus and research. Also I highly doubt commercially sold dried goji berries in USDA database can cheat label claims as they're assessed by USDA (who don't just take their word), and the FDA is the one responsible for the majority food products and their labeling. The FDA guarantees that most prepared foods, such as packaged dried Goji berries are properly labeled. https://www.nal.usda.gov/legacy/aglaw/food-labeling

49.195.2.162 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Also lastly the USDA database seems to validate WebMD and Healthline as sources that are correct. Indeed USDA also shows the berries are high in vitamin C, A, Fiber, Iron, etc. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/173032/nutrients USDA shows that WebMD and Healthline are not at all wrong about those facts and are professional enough. WebMD even caters and are trusted by medical professionals and is a reputable massive corporation, so I highly disagree they are not reliable sources when it comes to these basic information that they likely sourced it from nutritional journals like every other licensed dietician and medical expert.49.195.2.162 (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You won't find experienced medical editors here accepting WebMD or Healthline as reliable sources compliant with WP:MEDRS. You should read through MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS which apply to any topic concerning human health. The Healthline article says "Goji berries are tiny red fruits packed with antioxidants and powerful medicinal properties." - one needs to read no further: that kind of nonsense statement reveals ignorance about what is an "antioxidant" (dried goji berries may have provitamin A carotenoids and seed vitamin E, but likely no other dietary antioxidants) and there is no sufficient clinical evidence to support the supposed "medicinal properties" - a term reserved for prescription drugs. The individual studies you have tried to use are low-quality, preliminary research projects which do not meet MEDRS standards. WebMD says "people have used goji berries to try to treat many common health problems like diabetes, high blood pressure, fever, and age-related eye problems," suggesting efficacy for these diseases, but there are no published reviews for such claims requiring the strongest evidence. Zefr (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Finding the nutritional values, isn't even rocket science. It's basic hard science where it's not hard for any food professionals to attain it. There's no credible motive for WebMD and Healthline to go fake the nutritional macronutrient profile of goji. Especially When it's likely labs have analysed it and published the information in journals which are referred to by professional dieticians and scientists. Even USDA database PROVES that they are indeed correct about this so don't know why this is even debatable. Since we cannot agree, I will take it to a noticeboard as the info is factual and the sources are perfectly acceptable. WebMD never said it cures Diabetes, etc but observing that some people believe it can help ease their conditions.

And I think you are just confusing medicine with food. A healthy diet isn't formally medicine, yet it still protects against many diseases. Eating enough fiber helps with diabetes as it slows the absorption of sugar. Eating enough anti-inflammatory natural antixoxidants, helps to reduce excess free radicals. Making sure you have enough vitamin C prevents scurvy.

Goji is simply a single holistic tool that allows diabetic people to reach a healthy diet that has properties that help maintain good sugar levels and ease oxidation damage etc. There is a nuance that certain healthy food can help prevent illnesses or worsening conditions that typically occur from unhealthy diets.

Controlled research with good methodology, shows people with macular degeneration and Diabetics who eat goji, also fare better than those who don't. So there's promise that they can play a key role in helping people.

Example is a systematic review which showed Goji Berry (Lycium barbarum) has the potential to be effective in the treatment of diabetes Mellitus.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319200037_Goji_Berry_Lycium_Barbarum_in_the_treatment_of_diabetes_melitus_a_systematic_review 49.186.234.210 (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Also it's a straw argument to say that WebMD is wrong for observing that people use Goji to help their diabetes. The thread was not about that but only about the importance on adding the minimal nutritional information of Goji. It is dubious to think that WebMD and Healthline are unable to know the nutritional info in Goji considering it's not a difficult soft science. Measuring the macronutrient profile of a food, is perhaps the easiest and most fool proof thing in food sciences. We are not arguing if vitamin C is helpful or not. We are arguing whether Goji has high level of vitamin C, etc and if WebMD is trustworthy on such info. Given that USDA database (a reliable source according to you) confirms and supports the information in WebMD about the nutritional values like high levels of vitamin A, fiber, antixoxidants, etc. I think it's obvious that WebMD is proven correct about that specific info, unless you're also claiming that USDA is now lying along with WebMD. Which is completely unlikely. 49.186.234.210 (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Seeing you haven't replied back after a week. I added USDA database which btw is a very professional detailed analysis released in 2019. I highly doubt USDA will mislead the public about this and it is obvious they used professional science to get the exact analysis of amino acids. I correctly attributed the source as USDA and their information is reliable if it's published in their official database. I am willing to take the time to discuss if you disagree. 49.195.81.81 (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Inspecting the USDA report here, the analyses were not determined by USDA typical procedures, but rather are (stated under the column "Derived by") as a) "Based on another form of the food or similar food" (estimated water content), b) a "label claim", or c) "calculated", i.e., none of the values shown were actually measured by the USDA. The report is simply a reference from a commercial product, and therefore is not a reliable source and the data may be incorrect or misleading. Removing the table. Zefr (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I am currently on my mobile phone so using the mobile browser and I didn't see that messages. But on my desktop, it shows that indeed. My apologies. However it writes "calculated from label by NDL staff; Calculated from label claim/serving (g or %RDI). Do you really think NDL staff would mislead the public by taking any analysis at face value. They obviously know who created the analysis and trusted them enough to publish it on their official database to the public. So I still think USDA database should be shown as they're reliable enough to be responsible here. 49.195.81.81 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

In addition, I found this Italian in-depth analysis. They seem competent enough to measure it and their findings that are published in journals closely match my other sources. It seems obvious they are correct unless you think there's a conspiracy within USDA and Italy to also lie about all this.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321007006_Nutritional_evaluation_of_fresh_and_dried_goji_berries_cultivated_in_Italy 49.195.81.81 (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't revert and not reply back

I did put in a discussions to add in basic nutrition information. So many top sources like Italian scientists and USDA are saying the same thing. I wanted to add them in except I waited over 10 days and still nobody replied. That's stonewalling where you just revert edits and then tell others to wait for consensus. And Not reply back for over a week.

Yet I am correct. Italian in-depth analysis showed the Berries provide significant amounts of dietary fibre and zeaxanthin and can be declared on the label as a potential source of vitamins E and C. I don't believe they would lie.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321007006_Nutritional_evaluation_of_fresh_and_dried_goji_berries_cultivated_in_Italy

Secondly USDA doesn't just trust anyone. They likely reviewed the source and judged it as reliable enough to put it in their official database.. I already stated that reasoning on Talk but what I don't approve is being told to wait for discussion to end, yet I waited patiently for over a week just for a reply. That is wrong.

You need to explain and show proof that USDA is irresponsible. I don't believe they would publish data for Goji berries and not check the sources beforehand. They're not that incompetent. Additional Italian scientists also confirms much of what USDA is saying. Are they all lying?

Image with caption: "Oil extracted from the seeds of Lycium barbarum"

In March/April of 2013, I did a makeover of the nutrition info boxes for as many foods as I could. As I did this, I noticed what appeared to be a repetition of images of vials of extracts/oils. Most of these images were added in 2013 by one user User:Itineranttrader.

User contributions for Iterinanttrader

The first issue I have with these images is that they are pointless. It's virtually the same image of a vial with a slightly different color, but what I found unencylopedic, is that at the time, I was able to ascertain that the user had (and STILL has) at least one website where such vials of extracts and oils were sold. So to me, this is more of a quasi advertisement than it is a valuable addition to any of the articles thusly modified. It has a spammy quality to it.

I know, it took me ten years to post this, but in 2013 I saw that someone has started a discussion on the matter, so I lost interest and moved on.

Somehow this user was able to come along and promote his business in a very slick way. I hope someone with a proper gatekeeping stance will take this up. I'm tempted to just delete the image out of a trial page just to see what the response would be, but that doesn't sound like the best approach.

User:zefr I remember your diligence when it came to people making changes inappropriately. I'm hoping you get to see this and respond in some way.

An example website using the same image, with the same username — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chango369w (talk • contribs) 15:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

49.195.81.81 (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This was explained to you in the section you opened at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nutritional_information_(Healthline/USDA). - MrOllie (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Not once did the other person even explain or give any opinion at all about the source on the Italian study that you deleted.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321007006_Nutritional_evaluation_of_fresh_and_dried_goji_berries_cultivated_in_Italy

Also I explained that USDA doesn't just trust anyone and they're speculating that USDA is irresponsible.. Obviously USDA doesn't just trust anyone and recognise the source as reliable enough to be published on their database that informs the public. 49.195.81.81 (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That cite has the same WP:MEDRS problems outlined above. You must read and understand this guideline and respect its requirements for high quality, secondary sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not medical science. Just normal hard food science. And not a particularly difficult science like ground breaking novel research. It's merely analysing the nutrition of goji berries using straightforward science. My source is published in Italian Journal of Food Science and it's silly to claim they're unable to even do such a basic task.

Fresh goji berries have 77.4 % moisture, 1.1 % fats, 2.5 % proteins, 15.3 % carbohydrates and 2.9 % fibre. In dried goji berries, 4.4 % fats, 10.2% proteins, 61.3 % carbohydrates and 11.4 % fibre were found. Similar results on dried goji were reported by ENDES et al. 49.195.81.81 (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biomedical information explicitly includes nutrition. MrOllie (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for 24 hours to stop sustained edit warring on this article. If you cannot come to agreement, seek a third opinion or dispute resolution. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wolfberry

per official classification, it is seen that "wolfberry" is for various specis of Lucium, not only goij. It also says that barbarum is called "matrimony vine". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This is an important point. There are multiple North American Lycium species also referred to as "wolfberry," but whenever someone searches "wolfberry", they simply receive this page as a result with no indication that any non-Asian species of that name exist. 162.191.93.162 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

See this edit, which hopefully gives a wider perspective of US species and varieties. Zefr (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)