Jump to content

Talk:Chlorella: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic
Line 144: Line 144:


The only mention of nutrition that I saw was that it has protein. [[Special:Contributions/47.6.185.31|47.6.185.31]] ([[User talk:47.6.185.31|talk]]) 12:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The only mention of nutrition that I saw was that it has protein. [[Special:Contributions/47.6.185.31|47.6.185.31]] ([[User talk:47.6.185.31|talk]]) 12:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

== Extinction is inevitable ==

chlorella is the only lifeform to exist for Billions of years and not become extinct [[Special:Contributions/103.226.243.133|103.226.243.133]] ([[User talk:103.226.243.133|talk]]) 01:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:50, 1 October 2023

Template:Vital article

use for dogs

chlorella is printed on the packaging of Johnson's bitch tablets for dogs in season so I think that might be another common usage https://www.vetuk.co.uk/dog-accessories-dog-hygiene-c-628_822/johnson-s-bitch-and-deodorant-tablets-40-tablets-p-8418

On claims of health and healing effects

This section seems to be worded rather oddly. First the subtitle uses the word 'claims' but the text contains copious references. It seems like the qualifier is either unnecessary, or should be replace with 'evidence for'. Second the use of quotation marks around 'detoxifier' suggest that this is somehow spurious, again despite copious references indicating otherwise. This sentence could also stand to be reworded.

Finally, the last sentence reads "However, the use of Chlorella for healing effects has received criticism." and reference '6' is cited - "Micro-algae as a source of protein". I just read this whole article and it does not say a single negative thing about Chlorella, the entire article is basically devoted to corroborating claims of high nutrition content and lamenting the fact that no one has found a way to produce it more efficiently. In other words using this reference to corroborate a claim that it has received criticism in this way is completely dishonest. If there is some other evidence that does support this claim that should be listed and the citation should be fixed, otherwise that sentence should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.156.27.239 (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There may be many references, but most are to pseudo (non peer reviewed) publications like "Journal of Nutrional Science and Vitaminology" or "Journal of Medicinal Food" (which, as far as I can see, simply exists to provide marketing material to "nutraceutical" manufacturers).
    Other references grossly misstated the contents of valid references (eg, the Soviet CELS experiment).
    I'm not even sure how to go about correcting the radiation study claims, let alone the unsubstantiated statements about toxic metals accumulating in the gut (a touchstone of the "detox/cleanse" industry that has no basis in reality). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.172.37 (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about the Journal of Nutritional Science and Vitaminology, but the Journal of Medicinal Food is peer reviewed and the editors are basically all PhD/MDs from major US and international institutions. The editor in chief is a PhD/MD professor of medicine at UCSD... Have you (has anyone?) actually read any of the studies you are claiming are being mis-stated? I read about half of the ones listed in this section and they are by and large from reputable peer-reviewed journals but with rather variable accuracy in the reporting vis-a-vis the article. I don't know about the 'where it tends to accumulate' bit, but the three reputable articles cited after that sentence all provide evidence of the oxidative properties of the algae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.91.214 (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of this section should to be changes to something less dismissive. I suggest:

"Chlorella and Alternative Health"

This indicates that the section will be about chlorella and it's relationship to alternative health in general. I chose to use the term, 'alternative health,' rather than, 'integrated medicine,' because it is a more commonly used term. I understand the argument to use, 'integrated,' but I find it cumbersome and misleading in the context of the the current market, common perception and vocabulary.

In this section we could describe the current usages and beliefs regarding chlorella's health effects and whatever proof there may or may not be. We may also address and represent the criticisms of skeptics fairly. Futurebeast (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chlorella and Long Chain Omega-3

I have seen anecdotal accounts on the web claiming that Chlorella is a rich source of long chain Omega-3's. I would like to know if this is true and would like to see some citations if so. --RJMS 01:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "Recommended Daily Dosage" section all about, what studies do these dosages derive from, and which of this algae's chemical components are responsible for the alleged immune strengthening and detoxifying effects? While the description of the algae is good, the Recommended Daily Dosage section is out of place, and appears to serve only advertising purposes...

"when dried, it is about 45% protein, 20% fat, 20% carbohydrate, 5% fiber, and 10% minerals and vitamins" - actually there is only 9 % fat. 20 % of energy is out of fat. Totally different thing. My english is too bad to edit the originally... 91.158.176.241 (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


chlorella and eyes

I have noted that my eyes are blurry and a bit unfocused since I began using chlorella. Could this have anything to do with toxin elimination taking place?

E. Theodore Breedlove says You might be experiencing symptoms of old age, it happens to all of us, get your eyes checked; chlorella does not have any detoxifying effect, it simply gives your body energy and the ability to heal and therefor expel toxins that otherwise would continue to weaken your systems natural healing ability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.97.8 (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"chlorella does not have any detoxifying effect"

Actually, it does. For example, in mice, diets consisting of 5% and 10% of Chlorella significantly increased urinary and fecal excretion of mercury, and decreased mercury levels in the brain and kidneys, without affecting glutathione levels -> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21297350/ ..... 101.98.237.148 (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Chlorella cell wall contain cellulose?

Is there a reference for the Chlorella cell wall being cellulose? While the walls of many Chlorophyta contain cellulose, I think the Chlorella wall is a glycoprotein. See, for example, Planta 156(3):270-273 ([1])


Bot-generated content

A computerised algorithm has generated a version of this page using data obtained from AlgaeBase. You may be able to incorporate elements into the current article. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to create a new page at Chlorella (alga). Anybot (contact operator) 16:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ʑ ʂ ʐ ʝ ɣ ʁ ʕ ʜ ʢ ɦ ɱ ɳ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.230.119 (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it negative?

Hi, this page seems very negative about chlorella for nutrution. I find this a little strange becuase I can't find much other negative info out there. It's not just the herbal salesmen either, for example, Brendan Brazier is an Iron man athelete who created the Thrive Diet... he is incredably respected in his knowlege, and he sais its a world-saving wonder food. He has addressed congress!!

I am concerned that this article is highly biased.

Anna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.55.251 (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's not, however, a nutritionist. Anyhow, post a link here to what you specifically think is negative, and editors, including you, can start editing it. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a pass at trying to deal with some of the text in terms of WP:NPOV. But to really clean this up would take sources which I didn't find in a quick google search. For example, I found that 50% of the Chlorella production in the 1990s was in Taiwan, and the other producers seem to mostly be in Asia (but I didn't find a source which really seemed especially citable). A vague claim is "Chlorella never lived up the hype". A slightly more factual version is "Chlorella has not yet been cultivated on the scale that its proponents(who?) had forseen". But much better would be something more like "The yearly production of Chlorella in 2000 (or whatever we have data for) was xxx tons, compared with yyy tons for Spirulina, zzz tons for wheat" (or whatever comparisons would seem to help). I don't imagine having more time to work on this, but maybe someone else will. Kingdon (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganized the article

I reorganized the article into sections that make more sense. Previously, it was hard to quickly skim the article to find the basic facts. Now, it should be much more straightforward. I moved some paragraphs around, and simplified the headings. I didn't need to rewrite much though. It seems to flow well with only very minor tweaks, within this new organization. Badon (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "Chlorella" in italics?

Currently, both in the article title and the continuous text, italics are used for the term "Chlorella". Why? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By convention, scientific names (Latin names), including genus and species names, are rendered in italics (or are underlined if italic typeface is unavailable). If my memory is correct, this is because species names were in a ‘foreign language’ and this is indicated by use of italics. Phycophile (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing/Flawed cite in Alternative Medicine section

Hopefully someone has this talk page on watch and can look at this with a better eye than I. Rhyming not intended.

There's this interesting section that has me puzzled:

''Chlorella'' has a number of purported health effects,<ref>[http://www.lasentinel.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3180:sun-chlorella-going-green-from-the-inside-out&catid=67&Itemid=157 Sun Chlorella, Going Green from the Inside Out – LA Sentinel<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> including an ability to treat cancer.<ref name=acs/> However, according to the [[American Cancer Society]], "available scientific studies do not support its effectiveness for preventing or treating cancer or any other disease in humans".<ref name=acs>{{cite web|url=http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/chlorella|title=Chlorella|date=29 April 2011|publisher=[[American Cancer Society]]|accessdate=13 September 2013}}</ref>

See, the source doesn't seem to support the use as a cite for "Chlorella has a number of purported health effects, including an ability to treat cancer." Especially not when the very next sentence is using the ACS cite for a directly contradictory statement, that there are no studies supporting any beneficial health effect on cancer. As evidenced by these this quote from the source: 

  What is the evidence?
  
  Available scientific evidence does not support claims that chlorella is effective against cancer or other diseases in humans, although its nutrients may help those who have low levels of certain vitamins or minerals. For example, pregnant women who took 6 grams of chlorella a day were less likely to get iron deficiency anemia, a common problem of pregnancy.
  
  Limited research in cell cultures and animals suggests that chlorella powder may inhibit the activity of some molecules involved in the growth of cancer cells. These results have not been tested in humans, and further testing must be done to find out if these results hold true for people as well as animals.

Now the reason I'm not outright removing the first ref tag, and the reason I used a nowiki tag to quote it above, is that both of the ACS refs were added in the same edit and appear quite intentional. I have to conclude that I may be missing some understanding of why this is correct within wiki policies even though it initially appears contradictory.

And while we're looking at this section, a quick look at that LA Sentinel article makes me suspicious. It reads like a press release or promotional leaflet that's been blindly republished, there's no real by-line or indication that a journalist has touched it, and nothing to suggest that any kind of fact checking or verification happened. At best it seems like a Vanity Op-Ed, at worst it's a paid advert that's not marked as such. In either case seems like clear WP:SPS and, given the obvious promotion of a specific company, WP:COI and WP:NOR material. I'd outright remove it now, but I don't have a cite to replace it and I don't want to leave it hanging there for a cite needed tag.

Input please? - Nazzy (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chlorella. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chlorella. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allma redirects here

Allma redirects to section 'As a food source' in this article, but there is only one minor mention of Allma in that section. Does this redirect actually make sense? It seems to add confusion for other articles that link to it. I'm not familiar with the process to change or remove redirects, so a more experienced editor might want to look into this. Sfern824 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Allma" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Allma. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Allma until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sfern824 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History: Photosensitivity episode

The History section used to include the store about photosensitivity cases in Japan on first introduction, because the danger of unbroken cell wall was not yet realized (chlorophyll blisters). What is the reason to omit this? Drsruli (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like there used to be a section on the nutrition of chlorella, or the possible health benefits, but now it is completely gone?

The only mention of nutrition that I saw was that it has protein. 47.6.185.31 (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction is inevitable

chlorella is the only lifeform to exist for Billions of years and not become extinct 103.226.243.133 (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chlorella&oldid=1178009360"