Wikipedia

Talk:Cabbage/Archive 2

< Talk:Cabbage
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Zefr in topic Energy content
Archive 1Archive 2

Beta-carotene content of cabbage

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Contrary to the claim made (without giving any data) in the University of Illinois Extension web site, cabbage is not a good source of beta-carotene. Consider the carotene levels listed for cabbage in several more authoritative sources. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, cabbage has only 98 total IU of vitamin A and 52 ug of beta-carotene per 100 g. This compares to 16,706 IU vitamin A per 100 g of raw carrots and in 17,033 IU in 100 g of cooked carrots (the USDA doesn't break down the vitamin A sources in carrots but it's mainly from beta-carotene); in other words, cabbage has about 0.6% of the vitamin A content of carrots. Similarly, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, one carrot (78 g) has 110% of the vitamin A "Daily Value" (similar to the RDA) while one twelfth of a cabbage head (84 g) has 0% of the vitamin A Daily Value. Given the bright orange color of beta-carotene and the pale color of cabbage, the low beta-carotene content of cabbage is obvious. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

White cabbage on first picture

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is the first picture on the article a white cabbage? That was my edit. I am sure it is. The white flesh inner leaves makes it a white cabbage? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Cabbage and Hypothyroidism

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Zefr, why is scientifically sound and sourced information being deleted? AliMD7176 (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The edit and references for hypothyroidism you have added are speculative at best and do not establish risk with known values for thiocyanate content in a typical serving of cabbage. To validate your choice of references, which are all WP:PRIMARY, conducted in limited research conditions and unestablished in the clinical literature, you would have to provide a reputable secondary source stating that cabbage consumption endangers patients with hypothyroidism. The Univ. of Maryland summary mentions it but is unsatisfactory with no reference to a published clinical review. The case you have made is circumstantial without proof, so does not comply with WP:MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Would a book published by the National Academy of Sciences in Washington suffice, or is it also "speculative at best" and "circumstantial without any proof"? Read "The Goitrogenic Properties of he Cruciferae", pages 218-221. link AliMD7176 (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
From 1973? If this stuff hasn't found its way into better & more recent sources by now, then that's a red flag. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
this kind of food toxicant stuff is old, hoary science. it is well known. :) i think the article content is Ok now. Jytdog (talk)

Thanks, everyone, for the healthy discussion, but it doesn't settle as final for my taste. For the sake of better understanding through debate, I'll present my case for initially deleting the whole section based on WP:MEDRS, addressing the remaining two sentences in the article now.

Sentence 1: "Cabbage and other cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli and cauliflower contain moderate amounts of thiocyanate, a compound that is a potent competitive inhibitor of the sodium-iodide symporter of the thyroid follicular cell." Counterpoints: 1) although cabbage contains thiocyanate, there is no standard reference like the USDA Nutrient Database[1] that defines how much thiocyanate is ingested in a typical serving of cabbage. To a non-medical reader, the first sentence may be interpreted that ingesting any amount of cabbage causes a potent inhibitory effect on iodide transport and thyroxine synthesis. This is plain conjecture, is WP:PRIMARY and does not hold up to MEDRS. In support of my argument, this government-supported study[2] showed in Tables 4-5 that even high thiocyanate intake caused only negligible effects on circulating thyroid hormone levels. 2) the sodium-iodide symporter is a lab-derived theory, albeit probably true, of a transporter protein confirmed only in vitro (so is WP:PRIMARY). There is no need in an article on cabbage to be bringing this kind of reasoning into the discussion for the general Wikipedia user; see WP:NOTJOURNAL. It just doesn't translate as sensical that eating cabbage = high thiocyanate intake = potent inhibition of thyroid function = worsening hypothyroidism. This is loose circumstantial reasoning with no reputable review to cite, and so is only personal conjecture at best. 3) there is no warning on the CDC, NIH or FDA websites about consumption of cabbage by people with hypothyroidism, indicating that highly-qualified scientific minds do not regard eating cabbage as a risk under any condition.

Sentence 2: "The goitrogenic properties of cruciferous vegetables has long been established; experimental iodine deficiency goiter (endemic goiter) was first created in 1928 in rabbits fed a high quantity of cabbage." This statement is generally pertinent to the cabbage article, but I feel we can do better than referring to a 1928 rabbit forced-feeding study cited in a 41 year old toxicology manual with outdate references. This seems to be a better review[3], with mention of thiocyanate effects on PDF p 13 in the context that a) only very high intake levels have a thyroid effect and b) a thyroid effect occurs only when iodine intake is deficient (something not pointed out in the current cabbage article).

Summary and recommendation: for an article where the typical user is seeking information about the vegetable, I suggest the current content is well off the mark. We simply could state under a different subtitle, "Goiter and iodine intake": Cabbage and other cruciferous vegetables contain small amounts of thiocyanate, a compound associated with goiter formation in the presence of iodine deficiency.[4] --Zefr (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cabbage. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 01:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Revised URLs are ok, but need updating/revising, so will work on article. --Zefr (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cabbage. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cabbage. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cabbage. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cabbage. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cabbage. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

White or savoy?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there,

I'm totally lost. It seems to me that the picture at the top, is not a white cabbage, but a savoy one. I may be mistaken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabbage#/media/File:Cabbage_and_cross_section_on_white.jpg If I'm right, the subtitle of the picture is wrong, and very confusing.

--Emalquier (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Per Capita Consumption

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are these stats outdated? I'm seeing different ones in other locations[1] and the source is from 2006, I think.

Anne Marie (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190919005751/en/World-Cabbage-Brassicas-Market-Analysis-Forecast-Size

Wrong title or content of the article?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article is discussing cabbage as a whole and lists different forms (green, red, white). Green and red have their own article, white doesn't.

But if you click on the German link you get to the page about white cabbage. I suspected an error in the linking to the german article and wanted to change that, only to find that the technical title of the page is indeed 'white cabbage'. Then why is the page discussing cabbage as a whole? And why is there no dedicated white cabbage article like in other languages?`

Can someone with the technical knowledge please remidy this situation? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.154.7 (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know what a head of cabbage looks like - but the word "head" is used in various forms throughout the article without ever being described or defined, including "non-headed varieties" (what are those?) "loosely formed heads" (I have a guess, but...?). This may be an artifact of parts of this article being borrowed from somewhere else, or something that was lost in translation from another wiki. In any case, the article should stand on its own, which means "head" needs to be well-defined. Jd2718 (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Energy content

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Our article says that 100 g of cabbage gives 25 kcal, and contains 3.2 g sugars, 2.5 g "dietary fiber", 0.1 g fat, and 1.28 g protein. But how does that give 25 kcal? Using the standard 4 Cal/g for carbohydrates and proteein and 9 for fat, we get only 19 Cal. The "fiber" doesn't count. If we include the "fiber" as carbohydrate, we get 29 Calories. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't calculate the values in the nutrition table but rather list them from the USDA database, here, where the energy level of 25 kcal is given. Zefr (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cabbage/Archive_2&oldid=1232007038"