Talk:Sea buckthorn oil

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

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 . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Misleading "research" section

The research section, as it stands, does not reflect the content of the article it cites. I tried to correct this, but the edit got reverted. I'm reverting it back, so we're at 3RR, and please feel free to engage in discussion. -Kieran (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It fine, and if you know what edit-warring is you certainly shouldn't be doing it. Trying to force a section on "medicinal properties" when there are none is not acceptable. Alexbrn (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the article that was cited in that section? It is literally a peer-reviewed secondary source on the medicinal properties of the sea buckthorn oil. I felt that my text reflected the review's summary of the state of the art in the research, which is that there is animal model and cell line evidence, but there have been no human clinical trials. The text as it stands is an entirely inaccurate representation of the contents of the source. -Kieran (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've taken a balanced and compromising approach, while you've outright reverted all of my edits, without even attempting to reflect the source or to engage on the topic. Please see WP:ROWN (and similar guidelines). -Kieran (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's an old and poor-quality source. If it's to be used at all this is all it's good for - it makes the point there is no human research. Any claim of therapueutic worth for cancer treatment is exceptional and so need WP:EXCEPTIONAL sourcing. Since this line of research seems moribund it is probably best if this is removed entirely. Maybe check at WT:MED? Alexbrn (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The Zeb article is borderline not usable. It is far-outdated (2006; WP:MEDRS requires within 5 years) and highly speculative. I would be fine if this section and source were deleted altogether. A scan of the medical literature since 2006 shows there have been no updates and no high-quality clinical studies since. --Zefr (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No, WP:MEDRS says to look for reviews within five years if possible, and put more emphasis on them when citing, but there is no hard and fast rule that only reviews within the last five years may be used. The spirit of that section is to use the most recent and up to date secondary sources available. In this situation, your own literature search has shown that the Zeb article is the most recent secondary source on the topic. -Kieran (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A 2017 review is very, very, very (very) pro-SBO, but I have grave concerns about the authors' point-of-view, and of their misinterpretation of articles they reference. David notMD (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Zielińska A, Nowak I. Abundance of active ingredients in sea-buckthorn oil. Lipids Health Dis. 2017 May 19;16(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s12944-017-0469-7. PMID: 28526097.

Journal has barely acceptable impact factor (2.07) and the article is written by chemists, likely not having medical expertise. We see this challenge often: is a 'review' published in a fringe-MEDRS journal acceptable when its content is based on no substantive clinical research yet proclaiming wide health benefits? In other words, it's a review source derived entirely on primary research and biased conjecture by non-specialists. As editors, do we include this source in the article and discuss it critically, or ignore it as being too deficient in MEDRS-quality evidence? --Zefr (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

An impact factor of 2.0 means that the journal has an IF that is twice that of the average journal in orthopedic surgery. Unless we're prepared to say that almost every journal on orthopedics is "a fringe-MEDRS journal", then we need to be a little more careful about interpreting those numbers.

A review article derived entirely from primary research is considered normal.

I submit that the authors actually are specialists – just not the same kind of specialists that are relevant for articles about diseases. I really do believe that a chemist is a reasonable kind of specialist for identifying what chemicals are inside something, which is one of the proposed uses for this article.

And, in the end, the key point is that all sources are reliable for some statements, and no source is reliable for every single statement. I believe, for example, that this is a reliable source for the statement that this oil is used commercially in shampoo and that it contains certain chemicals. I do not think that this source could be used to support a claim that this oil is uniquely efficacious in treating any medical condition. (Any non-poisonous vegetable oil should be effective at treating dry skin, so presumably this one is, too, but I certainly don't remember any claim being made in this article that this particular oil is the only oil in the world that has that is useful for treating that condition.) I believe that, like any other narrative review, we should use it in ways that give us the advantage of its strengths. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Ref

I cannot believe that PMC 5438513 made it through peer review. Full of woo and promotional language about these berries like: The oil is used as a soothing agent after cosmetic procedures e.g. peelings, baths, masks, hair removal. Its presence in shampoos, hair conditioners or preparations used after dying or permanent wave treatment guarantees recovery, supports regeneration of damaged hair, restores its elasticity and ensures smoothness. Due to a high content of unsaturated fatty acids and related fast rancidity process of sea-buckthorn oil is recommended that it is used in the form of capsules for cosmetic products. It is also significant that sea-buckthorn oil, thanks to its intensive colour, improves skin tone after direct application on skin, giving it a fresh and healthy appearance Snake oil much? The authors disclose no COI. If that is the case, this is clearly an example of overenthusiastic academics.

The journal is Lipids in Health and Disease (about page) published by biomed central. The editor in chief of the journal is Undurti Narasimha Das (article created just this March, single editor, promotional) has been trying to develop PUFAs as cancer drugs since the late 1980s' (see here) and the journal lists his current affiliation as UND Life Sciences, a zombie startup company (been around a while, no evidence it has gotten funding or gotten anything done) trying to develop PUFAs as cancer drugs.

The journal has an impact factor of just around 2.

It obviously has very bad peer review, and we should treat articles published by this journal with caution, and use them only as back-up when we have strong sources supporting content.

Unsurprisingly this piece is cited on the websites of companies selling woo-driven cosmetics, like this one.

We are not about woo here. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that "this oil is used in shampoo" counts as woo woo ("supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations"). Do you?

How about "this oil has a poor shelf life because it goes rancid"? Where's the woo woo in that? Where's the over-enthusiasm?

For that matter, do you have any possible reason to believe that the source is wrong on these points, and that maybe the shelf life (a commercial consideration, not a medical one) is great and that it's never used in shampoo? Do you actually think that this material is unverifiable? Or that commercial risks (such as the product going bad before it can be sold) and commercial uses (such as putting in shampoo) are automatically unencyclopedic?

Seeing your comments and edits here and at WT:MED, I don't feel like you've grasped the fact that this truly isn't a medicine. The appropriate sourcing standards are the ones that we'd use in similar cosmetics articles, such as Foundation (cosmetics) or Shampoo. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If the concerns are that some of the specific claims in that article, I'll agree this paper seems to have had weak review process if passage like "The oil is used as a soothing agent after cosmetic procedures e.g. peelings, baths, masks, hair removal. Its presence in shampoos, hair conditioners or preparations used after dying or permanent wave treatment guarantees recovery, supports regeneration of damaged hair, restores its elasticity and ensures smoothness." slip through without any references to back it up, or defining what "recovery" means.

However, as a source for the statement that the oil is used in shampoos, it seems perfectly adequate. Other, possibly better, sources could be available I'm sure, but I also suspect they'd be just as woo-y on the specific medicinal claims made. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"Recovery" and the related words here involve a strictly non-medical concept. This sentence amounts to "hair stylists have been recommending that women put some kind of oil on their hair since bleach-blondes were invented". This is the jargon of the fashion magazine, but the actual meaning is that if you strip the natural oils out of your hair through bleaching or perming, then you will be happier with the results if you smear some oils back in. (Your healthcare professionals would presumably prefer that you use food-grade edible oils, but motor oil would have the same effect.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This "improves skin tone after direct application on skin, giving it a fresh and healthy appearance" is simply spam. It is also a health claim and would require an excellent source. The bigger reason to remove it however is that it is promotional. We says "The resulting oil is used in cosmetics and skin care products." which is reasonable and non promotional. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please click this link to skin tone, and then come back and tell me whether you believe that "improves skin tone" is a health claim or a fashion statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yah actually it sounds like meaningless marketing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it is pretty much meaningless in terms of health concerns. There's money to be made there, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

In vivo antioxidant activity

Kapitanvoronin wants to make the case that oral intake of seabuckthorn oil supplements improves antioxidant status in humans, a position confused by whether the ingested antioxidant compounds are provitamin A beta-carotene and vitamin E – both of which are true dietary antioxidants – or other unconfirmed antioxidants such as polyphenols. One preliminary clinical study concluded that "The improvement in antioxidant status can be attributed to presence of beta carotene and vitamin E in seabuckthorn seed oil", but this is not a confirmed finding by more substantial clinical research. The Drugs.com source summarizes other preliminary evidence only from lab studies that seabuckthorn oil provides antioxidant effects. The only dietary antioxidants are vitamins A-C-E. We should not overinterpret the weak sources making the case for seabuckthorn oil as a dietary antioxidant source. --Zefr (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

The sentence challenged by Zefr is taken directly from drugs.com (reference found and included by Zefr) and reads as follows: "Numerous studies clearly demonstrate the antioxidant activity of sea buckthorn." It should be noted that the oral intake of sea buckthorn oil is not specifically mentioned here, although it may be argued that this may be implied. But what is beyond any doubt here is that 1) certain compounds, such as pro-vitamin A (beta-carotene) and vitamin E, do improve antioxidant status in humans, and 2) sea buckthorn contains high quantities of these compounds, as confirmed by numerous studies. Therefore, I cannot see how this statement may be challenged on the grounds cited by Zefr. There is some overwhelmingly convincing evidence of the above on that very drugs.com page, including numerous in vitro and animal studies, confirming the antioxidant effects of sea buckthorn oil, as well as other components derived from the sea buckthorn plant due to the high content of known dietary antioxidants in the oil/plant. Additionally, there is a recent in vivo study (I don't see any reason to call it "preliminary", by the way, since it is not just a study, but a registered clinical trial) confirming that the ingestion of sea buckthorn oil improves antioxidant status in humans. Even if there were no in vivo studies, the high content of known dietary antioxidants (as well as some presumed ones) in sea buckthorn, coupled with the abundance of in vitro and animal studies testifying to the antioxidant effect of sea buckthorn oil, would, in my opinion, be quite enough to support the phrase "Numerous studies clearly demonstrate the antioxidant activity of sea buckthorn." The original argument advanced by Zefr to remove the sentence in question from the article was that there were no in vivo studies to support it. For the reasons mentioned above, such studies would not even be needed to support the claim about the antioxidant activity of sea buckthorn. However, when I pointed to the in vivo clinical trial supporting the same effect, even that was not considered to be sufficient. Which part of the sentence is being challenged here? Were there no studies confirming the antioxidant effect of sea buckthorn oil? There were plenty. Is there a lack of known dietary antioxidants in sea buckthorn oil? There is an abundance of those. And there is a human clinical trial, too. Also, it should be noted that the sentence in question does not contain any claims to the effect that sea buckthorn oil may be used to cure any disease. It's just a statement summarizing a well-known and well-supported fact about sea buckthorn oil. Kapitanvoronin (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The current statement under the Research section is: "Sea buckthorn oil is under preliminary research for its possible effects on blood pressure,[10] and for its use by oral intake to improve antioxidant status by increasing blood levels of beta-carotene and vitamin E." That is sufficient based on the limited low-quality evidence for in vivo antioxidant effect; as the content under discussion is a medical topic, see WP:MEDASSESS - the existing literature on this issue is at the lowest level of research/evidence quality. --Zefr (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"...the existing literature on this issue is at the lowest level of research/evidence quality". I disagree with that. The in vivo study in question is a randomized, controlled, double blind longitudinal study of 106 human subjects. In the WP:MEDASSESS quality of research pyramid, randomized controlled studies are second to only meta-analysis/systematic review. Kapitanvoronin (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That was one study only on just a few dozen treatment subjects making it primary research. A systematic review or meta-analysis is needed per WP:MEDREV. --Zefr (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It gives protection from cosmic radiation

Goolge is still available to verify this information "It gives protection from cosmic radiation" and THIS article needs to be entirely rewritten as it is obviously poorly researched. outdated and biased. """The sea buckthorn industry has been thriving in Russia since the 1940s when scientists there began investigating the biologically active substances found in the berries, leaves, and bark. The first Russian factory for sea buckthorn product development was located in Bisk. These products were utilized in the diet of Russian cosmonauts and as a cream for protection from cosmic radiation (Delabays and Slacanin 1995; Xu et al. 2001). The Chinese experience with sea buckthorn fruit production is more recent, although traditional uses date back many centuries (Lu 1992). Research and plantation establishment were initiated in the 1980s. Since 1982 over 300,000 ha of sea buckthorn have been planted in China. In addition, 150 processing factories have been established producing over 200 products."""

"It gives protection from cosmic radiation" is nonsense quackery. For this claim and all the others, WP:SCIRS reviews are needed to make any changes in the article. Zefr (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)