Talk:Apple cider vinegar/Archive 1

added yeast
When I grew up we grew apples and pressed our own cider. It always turned first to a alcoholic drink and then to vinegar. We never added yeast. I suggest you double check your comment about yeast being added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

yeah just to add to the person above questioning yeast - can we call out both yeast and bacteria being mentioned as this is Wiki and there's no source provided! Let a source be provided for this hopefully

AVC

 * This article looks more like a biased medical journal and not an encyclopedia article. What, Where and How is apple cider vinegar not "why" you shouldn't take it. The facts don't seem to have any really backing outside of mainstream medicine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.150.198 (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe it should be about time to initiate the very existance of this article? It is after all, not just one of the most popular current folk remedies for improved beauty and health, its greater family, vinagers, was introduced to the world in a documented form by mister Hipocrites himself, the father of medicine, 2400 years ago, making it one of the very first medicines known to mankind there is. There's practically an article on anything here on Wikipedia at the moment, so it astonishes me greatly that there is still not one on apple cider vinegar, by many considered as the number one everyday medicine for keeping good health. What other medicines can cure or greatly heal around 60 of the most common everyday illnesses? No wonder farmers use this on their farm animals almost as the cure for any animal illness. ;) Erik 20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I started a page on Apple Cider Vinegar because it is a great substance. It is very basic so far but just to get it going... Jmckone (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Horray! Copied the apple cider paragraph from vinegar to get things moving. Had some wonderful veggie pasta tonight prepared with plenty of apple cider vinegar. Ewheeler (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the article as was seemed very biased and even misleading, as if someone was out to get apple cider vinegar, so I tried to at least make the referenced material more truthful and balance it back out. Another problem--I didn't see references/ footnotes on one of the referenced medical websites, either. 219.69.16.94 (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)grego

The 6th reference is baloney and doesn't substantiate the "lots of empirical evidence" claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.137.56 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who posted the abundance of information on Apple Cider Vinegar a few weeks ago, and I just wanted to inform everyone that I got all of the information from substantial resources. I have the book written by Paul and Patricia Bragg (Bragg brand Apple Cider Vinegar) right here, where I obtained most of my information. I also used an online encyclopedia which is obviously credible. I am an avid user of this product, I have seen all of the good qualities at work, and was dismayed to see most all of my work deleted without a good reason. I believe that the information that I added to the article could have been very helpful to any reader. --Gsushelby (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Apple cider vinegar on mice and rats
There are a few medical papers on experiments with AVC on rats (2008),  (2011),  (2014), although they don't seem to fit in with the rest of the article so I will leave them out for now. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

thanks for posting, the conclusion of e.g. 2014 study seems quite supportive (obviously based on experiments with mice): "In conclusion, ACV induced a protective effect against erythrocyte, kidney, and liver oxidative injury, and lowered the serum lipid levels in mice fed high cholesterol, suggesting that it possesses oxidative stress scavenging effects, inhibits lipid peroxidation, and increases the levels of antioxidant enzymes and vitamin." --Moaltmann (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These are WP:PRIMARY studies, i.e., not confirmed by additional research and not usable to imply human effects per WP:MEDRS. Suggest leaving them out. --Zefr (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hair Health
Apple cider vinegar can be used as a conditioner for hair also. Letting this sit in your hair for about 30 minutes after a good shampoo will leave your hair shining. Rinsing your hair with apple cider vinegar helps to seal the hair cuticle. As a result, light is reflected off the hair, making it smoother, softer and shinier. Apple cider vinegar helps to balance hair and scalp pH. There are many commercial hair-care products that have a negative effect on the hair, leaving it dry and brittle. Our hair has a pH of about 4 to 5. The acidity of the apple cider vinegar rinse means that it can help maintain the pH balance of your hair and remove buildup at the same time without stripping the hair of its natural oils which is the healthiest way to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishell514 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not encyclopedic information, but rather is WP:SPAM. --Zefr (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see links or likely personal benefit. It's just unencyclopedic because there are no references. The fact that such claims are widely made is relevant to the article. Chriswaterguy talk 04:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Benefits of ACV
The article lacks information on the medicinal values of ACV and its corresponding medicinal properties. ACV is not just used for salad dressings and the likes, consumption of ACV lowers cholestrol, reduces blood pressure, increases metabolism, has probiotics which are good for the gut, etc. A new section will be added that talks about medicinal properties and benefits of ACV. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNApoorva (talk • contribs) 09:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Allow me to help you get the ball rolling Some Dr. Carol Johnston research out of Arizona State. She is a solid resource for ASV research in regards to lowering glycemic spikes if supplemented with a meal. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The many benefits of apple cider vinegar (whether or not they're real) deserve a section. Shouldn't be hard to find suitable sources showing that these beliefs are widespread. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All seems a bit fringe. Any description of medical "benefits" would need to be sourced to good WP:MEDRS or (to counteract any fringe claims) to good science-based sources per WP:PARITY. The claims about blood pressure, metabolism etc. are not supported by science AFAICS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am adding the external and internal benefits of apple vinegar, precautions, warnings and adding more to the description.David16622 (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)David16622

Apple cider vinegar in use
you can use Apple cider vinegar as a home remedy for gastralgia issues such as; vomit, diarrhea, upset stomache ect.


 * posted by bryce roberts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.104.41 (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Proof? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Kidney stones
I wanted to note that the editor who noted that ACV dissolces kidney stones. There is a major flaw in your thinking, because you have to get the kidney stones out of the kidney and into a petri dish first ! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Effect on Blood Sugar
There have been experiments on humans. I added the following but it was deleted:

Experiments performed on insulin-sensitive and diabetic patients have shown that ingesting of vinegar at the time of a high carbohydrate meal can attenuate glucose and insulin responses.

A similar experiment performed with healthy subjects showed a glucose response was reduced by 31.4% after consumption with white bread. This effect was diminished when the acid was neutralized.


 * These are not reliable sources. Please see WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background. Alexbrn (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * How many reproduced experiments of the same kind does it take to be considered reliable? If there were a half dozen experiments of the same kind would that be considered reliable?
 * Given the studies that have been performed, I think it is misleading fir the article to claim "Apple cider vinegar has no medicinal or nutritional value." Why is the same standard for medical advice not applied to this statement?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.60 (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are WP:MEDRS sources we are missing, then please identify them. We are bound to reflect reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't responsible for the deletion, but maybe I can help clarify what the problem is.


 * The sources appear to be reputable — the first reference is to an article in an Index Medicus core journal, which certainly meets the standard described in WP:MEDRS. The problem, as per Alexbrn and Zefr's comments above, is that individual journal articles (primary sources) — even several of them all apparently coming to the same conclusion — don't necessarily suffice to establish an accepted claim about human health by the standards detailed in WP:MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS.


 * Human biology and medicine is a large and complex enough field that it is often possible to find several high quality studies agreeing on some conclusion, and match them with several other high quality studies that fail to produce the same result. The standard of evidence for an accepted claim about human health therefore has to be high.


 * A large collection of journal articles of a high standard — reporting studies with large sample sizes and all clearly demonstrating the same result, with no contradictions of equal strength evident in the literature — may well be sufficient to establish an accepted claim, but aggregating those results in a Wikipedia article would amount to original research, which isn't the purpose of the encyclopedia. Editors therefore have to wait for that original research — the process of aggregating papers together and carrying out an analysis in a formal Review Article — to be completed by the scientific community and published in the literature. If enough high quality reviews are published, and there appears to be a consensus view in the literature, then those reviews can be cited in a Wikipedia article and the citation will be compliant with the guidance in WP:MEDRS.


 * The studies cited in the references above were published in reputable journals, but they represent data points in an ongoing process of accumulation of evidence on a subject which doesn't yet seem to have been studied well enough for firm conclusions to be drawn by the medical community.


 * I agree that some of the language in the article needs to be reworked to accurately reflect the current state of knowledge, and I've made some edits along those lines, working with the existing sources in addition to some new secondary and tertiary references.


 * There were a couple of statements in the article that were worded a little too strongly to be supported by the cited sources:


 * (1) The claim that consuming apple cider vinegar during pregnancy is potentially 'hazardous' is not really supported by the source with the same force as the wording in the article appeared to suggest. The source says this: 'Use of apple cider vinegar is not recommended in pregnant and breastfeeding women because of lack of sufficient data. Apple cider vinegar is likely safe when taken orally as food flavoring, but possibly unsafe when used in larger amounts.' The message here is clear: it's a widely-used food product. It hasn't been studied well enough to indicate either harm or benefit, but significant harm seems to be unlikely if it is consumed in normal quantities, as with most foods. I've amended the wording of the article to better reflect this.


 * (2) The statement that no claims of benefit [from apple cider vinegar] are supported by scientific evidence needed to be moderated a little; clearly there is some credible scientific evidence of benefits to be found in the literature, but the studies are small and there is as-yet no consensus worth noting. There is a well-established consensus that acetic acid solutions — of which apple cider vinegar happens to be one — have antimicrobial properties that can be useful for topical treatment of mild otitis externa, but apple cider vinegar has no special status in that regard, and superior formulations are available. I've again amended the wording of the article to reflect this.


 * I hope this is satisfactory to other editors.


 * 95.144.253.183 (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * While I don’t think the article should claim there are benefits, I also think it’s disingenuous to assert that there are no benefits when what little research has taken place indicates potential benefits. The article should have a more neutral statement that there is no conclusive evidence either way. 75.66.0.93 (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No it shouldn't. We follow the sources. The concept of "evidence either way" in evidence-based-medicine is nonsensical. Alexbrn (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not present the controversy to people and let them draw their own conclusions? Essentially saying "health benefits are drawn from a limited number of studies (citations) but without reproducibility studies, it is impossible to determine the accuracy of these claims." Something along those lines. It also really screams at any researcher reading this article that reproducibility studies are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.197.77.130 (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and when and if those studies get done, and reviews or reliable sources comment on this, then and only then will we do as you suggest, perhaps. Until then, we will continue to report that there are no benefits, as our policy mandates. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this the "Let's Sh*t All Over Apple Cider Vinegar Page" or what?
Did the editor have a terrible experience with Apple Cider Vinegar while growing up in the orphanage?

I've never seen such an irrational hatred of vinegar before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.94.141.243 (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This source reports what it is, what various people have claimed it can do and the seeming reality that there doesn't seem to be science to back up those claims.


 * If you feel there is anything in the article that does not reflect what independent reliable sources say about the subject or that a source cited is not reliable, please be more specific.


 * If you feel there is material in independent reliable sources that we do not have, please either add it to the article (citing the source) or discuss it here.


 * Other than that, if there is another problem, you will need to clarify. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. To the OP, do you have a specific suggestion for improving the page. For example, I propose changing ___ to ____. If so, that would be the most helpful. Otherwise, please see WP:NOTFORUM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerDurden8823 (talk • contribs) 15:51, April 29, 2020 (UTC)

Evidence as aid in weight loss
This article asserts that there is no clinical evidence that ACV helps in weight loss, and, yet, these articles, which appear to be reliable sources, assert that the evidence is that ACV helps modestly with weight loss:, ,. Attic Salt (talk)


 * The specific assertion is "There is no high-quality clinical evidence...", which is strongly supported by the Mayo Clinic's general article on the subject.


 * The first of your cites refers to a single study: "ACV may have a modest effect on weight loss, but don’t get rid of your gym membership. Keep in mind that the people in this study were on a calorie restricted diet and they exercised. The researchers argued that ACV affects weight by lowering one’s appetite." In addition to a lot of hedging, Wikipedia's policy, WP:MEDRS, generally steers away from putting much value on individual studies. That said, the source is a reliable one.


 * The second of your links has exactly the same problems, but from a weaker source.


 * The third source is superior in one respect, but with a fatal flaw. It's a meta-analysis, which (in a reliable source) is a top notch source -- exactly what we're looking for. However, the section on weight loss looked at two studies (which is tiny for a meta-analysis), one using "vinegar" and one using pomegranate vinegar. This article is about apple cider vinegar. Further "The evidence for the effect of vinegar on weight loss is very limited, and has only shown a very modest effect."


 * Of the three, only the first has any bearing at all, IMO, and I'm far from moved. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Understood. I'm just wondering if the article is overstating things by saying that there is "no high-quality clinical evidence", as in none. I don't have a strong opinion on any of this. I only dropped in on this article because I was curious as to whether or not there was any evidence at all. The article did not help me in that respect, so I started poking around the internet. Attic Salt (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Browsing through google scholar shows what appears to be only skimpy evidence. I'm okay to drop this subject. Attic Salt (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the literature, I think our article has a very good summary. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Article is biased on negative side of Apple Cider vinegar
Need to add neutral content with references.SWP13 (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as health claims go, all good sources seem to be negative. So to be neutral, the article reflects that. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Culinary uses
Need to add a section with contents for Culinary uses. It is noted in the summary at top but missing a Culinary uses section.
 * salad dressing.
 * See ref such as 12 Ways To Use Apple Cider Vinegar — And Actually Enjoy It at delish.com SWP13 (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See ref such as How to Use Apple Cider Vinegar for Weight Loss SWP13 (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkap91 (talk • contribs)
 * A WP:RS source would be needed, not a recipe site, WP:NOTRECIPE, WP:NOTHOWTO. Also please note that Healthline is not an expert site on nutrition or human health, so don't add their links to Wikipedia. Zefr (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Treating infections
This revert was justified because a) the Scientific Reports article was lab research combined with conjecture, b) the Medical News Today article is not a WP:MEDRS source, and is quackery, and c) the Whole Dog Journal article is quackery for dogs. No reliable sources are provided. claims personal success in treating ear infections in dogs with ACV, but this is WP:OR. Zefr (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. I totally disagree with you.  Discounting a peer reviewed scientific study seems rather extreme.  I known of at least two vets who recommend its use for ear infections.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is a published, peer reviewed scientific study published by the National Institute of Health (nih.gov) considered a primary source? It is a republished article which consolidates numerous papers on unique studies by various groups listed in the references. Why is content being distributed by nih.gov unsuitable for Wikipedia?  Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PMID 29379012 is primary research, so unsuitable. See maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background. It is published by Nature Publishing Group (a division of Springer) in their lower-quality open-access journal Scientific Reports. The NIH run a search engine which sweeps up a lot of stuff, some good some bad. We need WP:MEDRS sources for biomedical content. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

reads like a 5th grade op-ed
I have attempted to make this read more like an actual encyclopedia entry rather than an opinion piece. I'm not interested in the debate over ACV's usefulness or lack thereof. I am interested in the fact that the article looks like it was written and organized by a 5th grader and that it contains some sentences that are clearly opinions. Jsunwall (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

no clinical evidence to support any health claims
Article states:

The "no clinical evidence to support any health claims" is not supported by the cited sources. The sources say the evidence is little, inconsistent, mixed results, or limited. This is not equivalent to "there is no clinical evidence to support any health claims". This is not a summary of the sources cited. It's a gross misrepresentation.

The "use is not recommended for any indication in medical guidelines of major public health organizations or regulatory agencies" is, as far as I can tell, a complete fabrication or original research, and is not supported anywhere in the source material.

Mayo source states:

Ulbricht source states:

Poison Control source states:

MarshallKe (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The way we summarise those sources, such as they are, is to say "no clinical evidence to support any health claims" or "use is not recommended for any indication in medical guidelines of major public health organizations or regulatory agencies" or "... no evidence ..." I have corrected the article. -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 17:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like we're not going to be able to agree on what the sources say, so I'll move the consensus process forward. MarshallKe (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC about accuracy to sources
Considering above discussions, under the section "Folk medicine", should "there is no clinical evidence" be changed to "there is insufficient clinical evidence"? MarshallKe (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's how a scientific journal says no clinical evidence - they don't want to claim to have proved a negative, but just because there might hypothetically be some evidence in the future doesn't mean there's any now. If there was, we could list it - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, and Wikipedia shouldn't claim that the science has proved a negative, either. Regardless, I have listed the evidence above, straight from the sources. The sources say the evidence is little, inconsistent, mixed results, or limited, which is not synonymous with "no evidence". MarshallKe (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It can also be translated as "Please do not take away our research funding, thanks. " -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 17:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That one cuts both ways, and seems to be used solely when scientific findings do not match up with one's preconceived notions. I do get the humor, though. MarshallKe (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It always amuses me when people use the argument that alternative medicine is a profitable industry to criticize it, as if pharmaceuticals are some big nonprofit charity industry. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's "no clinical evidence" - David Gerard (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No change. I looked into this to see what's out there and the communicated consensus among medical sources seems to be that there is just not enough good evidence about any health benefits to make confident claims. I would personally prefer more elaboration with statements like these, but there are bigger fish to fry in that Wikipedia arena than this. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer more elaboration, as well, but I think the first priority should be to not lie about the content of sources. Your "not enough good evidence..." more closely matches a 2018 version of this article, which said No claims of benefit are supported by good evidence, and medicinal consumption of apple cider vinegar may be hazardous, particularly if taken during pregnancy or consumed chronically., which I would be in support of. The reason this discussion is so important to Wikipedia is because it deals with the very most basic beliefs about what claims, knowledge, and proof are and what words mean. If the sources say there is not enough evidence to form a clear conclusion and that there have indeed been some studies that do indicate a medical use, does that mean we get to confidently imply that the case is closed? No, of course not. This is why so many people are losing trust in Wikipedia - we used to describe the science. Now we just write arrogant, oversimplified, point-of-view conclusions that ignore all the nuance in the sources. MarshallKe (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with some of this. At least some of our readers will have observed that a healthy lifestyle effects their overall health and weight loss. They may conclude that our encyclopedia is not a good source of information because it contradicts something they know to be true (like healthy food has benefits). Medical benefits may be difficult to prove for apple cider vinegar. But healthy lifestyle choices generally do lead to improved health feelings. All doctors will say is that it's a combination of factors. But they can't tell you exactly why. How can they tell you what they don't know? So, when all of our individual articles say "no good evidence of any health or medical benefits" isn't it fair to say this is misleading or oversimplified overall? Spudlace (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is that fools and frauds promote this stuff for various fake health benefits without evidence. If this is unclear perhaps we need to spell it out. Wikipedia needs to reflect accepted knowledge and ensure bogus claims are properly framed. Alexbrn (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just wandering into this RfC, I don't think either "no" or "insufficient" are appropriate summaries of the source given, which states "there's little scientific support for these claims". I wonder about editing into something that better reflects the source: "According to a dietician at the Mayo Clinic, there is little scientific evidence that regular consumption of apple cider vinegar helps to maintain or lose body weight".  Suriname0 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That would present WP:YESPOV problems; we should WP:ASSERT here. Alexbrn (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can leave the POV rider off to the same effect. I'm not that concerned about creating seeming controversy here, since no alternate view is presented and, as you say, the source is a bit iffy. Anyway, the [common] problem here is that this is a weird "view from nowhere": we refute a claim without raising it in the first place i.e. not mentioning its role in home remedies in the lede. As a result, I think it makes the language awkward. "No good evidence" seems like a fine phrase, if we want to keep the current info in the lede as-is. Suriname0 (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. In situations like this, a common form of wording in the literature is "no good evidence". On Wikipedia such wording has the benefit of heading off discussions like this. The sources aren't great (Mayo Clinic, ick) but the claim is commonplace so this is not a huge concern. Alexbrn (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "no good evidence" sounds good. MarshallKe (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Change to "no good evidence" per Alexbrn's argument above. Stonkaments (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Change to "no good evidence" to emphasize both the presence and inconsistency/lack of quality of evidence. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed section about risks of tablet form
Article stated:

There was no mention of this in the primary source, and although there may be support of this statement from the secondary source cited, WP:MEDPRI applies. I have removed this statement and replaced it with an explanation that high acid content was found. The only mention of tablet form in the primary source is:

I feel like a reasonable editor can agree that one mention of one incident of someone getting a tablet stuck in their throat is 1) an example of a risk of tablets getting stuck in your throat, and 2) anecdotal and unscientific. MarshallKe (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that if we think that the secondary source establishes validity of the primary source (the Hill study) and gives us the freedom to use information directly from the primary source, then this principle should be equally applied to claims that ACV has been preliminarily shown in studies to benefit jellyfish stings and type 2 diabetes, which are claims supported by secondary sources, quoted in the discussion above. MarshallKe (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I notice has found a systematic review that mentions the esophageal issue as well as tooth enamel erosion. However, this does not address the concern that these are still described in the new source to be reports from single patients. I question whether the reports of single patients should be mentioned in Wikipedia, even if they have been scientifically published and mentioned in a systematic review. If they should be mentioned, I see many other claims in this paper that can also be mentioned, and they have much more support than just the reports of one patient.

MarshallKe (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The test would be whether those reports and lab tests are considered noteworthy by secondary sources, rather than by Wikipedia editors. Alexbrn (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm happy to hear you believe that. Then you won't have a problem with summarizing that 10 studies in this review showed ACV to lower blood glucose, balanced out with summaries of the negative and neutral studies, and making it clear that the overarching conclusion is that the evidence is insufficient and more research is needed? MarshallKe (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In a section called "safety concerns" Wikipedia should summarize safety concerns per sources cited. We could of course also say elsewhere there is no good evidence CV helps glucose control, but not with any "more research is need" fluff. Alexbrn (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am now speaking to the article as a whole here, not just the safety section. You say The test would be whether those reports and lab tests are considered noteworthy by secondary sources, rather than by Wikipedia editors, but then when I propose including a summary of the below text from the review, you disagree. How is this not a logical contradiction? You just got done saying that if the RS says it's noteworthy, we should note it in our article. And of course if we're going deeper and more detailed into the source, we should make sure to go into more detail on all aspects of the review and not just the positive results. What am I missing?
 * MarshallKe (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't "disagree", but I'd expect use of the source to be aligned with its own main thrust (risk of adverse effects and paucity of evidence for benefit). Cherry picking stuff to veer away from that would be problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing cherry-picking stuff, and I don't appreciate being strawmanned in that manner. I am proposing to describe the source faithfully and in a balanced way. I will quote the results and conclusions sections below. It appears that your reading of the "main thrust" ignores the fact that the results section says there may be beneficial effects and that the risk of side effects is inconsiderable.
 * MarshallKe (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On safety, the very first thing we have is "Although low-level consumption of apple cider vinegar is of low risk, particularly if it is diluted", so that is well done. You are not quoting the "results section", but part of the structured abstract. We should generally avoid abstracts per WP:NOABSTRACT and instead align ourselves fairly with the main thrust of the paper. I'd support having something on glucose control ("no good evidence" would sum it up nicely). Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Point taken on the abstract, but the actual conclusion section near the bottom of the paper reads as follows, and agrees with what's in the abstract.
 * Furthermore, the entire paper contains details about how low-quality the studies were, including the adverse effects studies. If we are to apply the same standards of evidence to adverse effects as we do neutral and positive outcomes, we must either 1) remove from our article the phrase reported adverse effects include esophageal damage, tooth enamel erosion, and excessive burping, flatulence, and bowel movements., or 2) include more positive and neutral outcomes in the article, as the paper's abstract, conclusion section, and "main thrust" of the paper as a whole all suggest that the studies are insufficient. Allowing low-quality evidence of adverse effects into our article while applying a much higher standard of evidence for positive effects is a glaring example of POV editing.
 * I would prefer describing the paper in detail, but if we are to remain NPOV while keeping the length of the article to an absolute minimum, our article should read "there is no good evidence of adverse effects" just as much as it says there is no good evidence for health benefits.
 * MarshallKe (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that drinking acid can damage your teeth etc. is kind of obvious (per multiple sources too) so, as a light-weight claim, doesn't require heavy-weight sourcing. That drinking vinegar helps diabetes management is more in the realm of WP:EXCEPTIONAL so would require stronger support - and in any case the sources we have say it is poorly evidenced. The source doesn't say the quality of evidence for adverse effects is poor. So if Wikipedia said that it would be bad. Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer "no evidence" to "no good evidence" but I support Alex' view that we should report the conclusion accurately. -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 17:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Roxy you may have intended to reply to the RfC section above this section. If not, disregard. MarshallKe (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that drinking acid can damage your teeth etc. is kind of obvious (per multiple sources too) so, as a light-weight claim, doesn't require heavy-weight sourcing. That drinking vinegar helps diabetes management is more in the realm of WP:EXCEPTIONAL so would require stronger support - and in any case the sources we have say it is poorly evidenced. The source doesn't say the quality of evidence for adverse effects is poor. So if Wikipedia said that it would be bad. Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer "no evidence" to "no good evidence" but I support Alex' view that we should report the conclusion accurately. -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 17:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Roxy you may have intended to reply to the RfC section above this section. If not, disregard. MarshallKe (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Tooth enamel issues are supported by the other sources, so no objection to that remaining. However, the new source provided by Alex says in the conclusion at the end of the paper that the risk of adverse effects from taking normal amounts of vinegar is "inconsiderable". I have quoted this above. It also says in the body of the review that the adverse effects were either reports from single patients, cases of taking large amounts of vinegar, or from in vitro studies. So, this paper very much does say the quality of evidence for adverse effects is poor. We all want to report scientific conclusions accurately, it's just that we seem to be having trouble agreeing on what the paper says. MarshallKe (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Note: The reference in question is: MarshallKe (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "very much does say the quality of evidence for adverse effects is poor" &larr; this seems to be untrue, unless you csn provide this "very much" quotation? Alexbrn (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have provided a large amount of quotations to support my argument. Would you please provide quotations for yours? MarshallKe (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is looking like trolling now. You said the source "very much does say the quality of evidence for adverse effects is poor". Let's see this very muchness. Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will not engage you in circular discussion. Please PLEASE report me to AN/I if you believe I am trolling. I have no interest in personal bickering. MarshallKe (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Would it be useful to mention that apple cider vinegar and it's relation to health has become more mainstream (like for Goli gummies)? Aswomenandmed (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
I have added the following text to the top of the safety concerns section of this article.


 * A 2020 systematic review concluded that "the risk of side effects when ingested according to recommended quantities and in the recommended way seems inconsiderable".

This is directly quoting the most recent scientific conclusions on the side effects. Quoted in the previous section is nearly as much as can be quoted from the paper without violating copyright in order to explain why this edit is verifiable, reliably sourced, due weight, and neutral point of view. The editor above has asserted that including this information amounts to cherry picking and has demanded higher and higher standards and moving goalposts to avoid including my neutral summary of the conclusions of this paper regarding adverse effects, and at the end of the discussion, has insisted that I have not provided enough quotations for my edits and says my behavior "looks like trolling", and has failed to provide a quotation supporting his argument. If my edit above amounts to cherry-picking, then the scientists who authored, peer-reviewed, and published this paper are also cherry-picking.

Conclusion at bottom of paper:

Abstract:

MarshallKe (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you made the edit and immediately launched an RfC I (and others) will no doubt respond to that rather continue here. You never did provide any evidence that source said "the quality of evidence for adverse effects is poor", so I assume you can't.Alexbrn (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC
Considering the above discussions regarding the section of this article currently labeled "Safety Concerns", should the following text be in the article?
 * A 2020 systematic review concluded that "the risk of side effects when ingested according to recommended quantities and in the recommended way seems inconsiderable".

MarshallKe (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, but move. I don't see anything wrong with the source, or its inclusion, but it might be more suitable a bit farther down in the section. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems redundant Since we already say "Although low-level consumption of apple cider vinegar is of low risk, particularly if it is diluted" immediately after the proposed insertion, which conveys more info in fewer words. In general Wikipedia content is meant to be a summary of source in editors' own words, and not copy-and-pasted chunks. We could add what the source means by "low dose" to be even clearer. Furthermore, having the gubbins about "A systematic review concluded ..." is bad style to be avoided. It seems premature to launch a RfC, a heavyweight call for editor attention, before this specific edit has been even discussed, especially while the OP has an open RfC already running on this very page . WP:RFCBEFORE Alexbrn (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC); amended 09:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not useful. Both the RfC and the quote offered are not useful. The safety section of the article already adequately covers the risks and adverse effects of ingestion or topical uses of ACV. The subject of safety concerns is generally not well-studied (as indicated in the Drugs.com review), but 5 of the article's 8 references say something about it, and are used in that section. The 2020 EJN review is not a useful source to add a further summary statement about safety. It's already used in support of the first sentence in the safety section (without a subscription, I can read only the abstract). Further, 1) its listed references are mostly years or decades out of date, 2) it addresses primary, low-quality studies in humans, and 3) it includes lab rodent research, collectively indicating a review based on weak literature. Zefr (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redundant, per Alexbrn & Zefr.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redundant I concur with Alexbrn on this.Sea Ane (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not useful The Safety Concerns and Health Effects Sections cover the topic. Tepkunset (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Considering that the same source says that, there is and it's  I propose either to drop the proposal or provide a better source.
 * It's concluding that the risk of side-effects is inconsiderable. It means the study thinks it's considered safe, which matches up with what the FDA says about it. MarshallKe (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): David16622.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Apple cider vinegar
Can Apple Cider Vinegar Lose Weight? 122.163.248.143 (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you leave the top off the bottle, yes it can. -Roxy the English speaking dog 06:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The article is almost completely about one aspect
What about legitimate use of apple cider vinegar in cooking and as a condiment? Reading the article, one might not even realize that this is an item commonly purchased in supermarkets... Drsruli (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT? Bon courage (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)