Talk:Green coffee

The cited article "Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, linear dose, crossover study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a green coffee bean extract in overweight subjects" uses a number of probands of 16 (n=16). This shows that further reading the study will be a waste of time since the data can never be significant and representative. Find the full text article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267522/?tool=pubmed For questions concerning my note: sebastianwolff at hotmail dot de
 * You really shouldn't post your address here, if you want to discuss, discuss here. It's a terrible article, we know, and it's given very little weight here. I keep deleting anything that tries to make it more than it is, which is nothing. Green coffee doesn't do anything.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * i please you also to look at this article http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/dr-oz-and-green-coffee-beans-more-weight-loss-pseudoscience/,showind that the study is in a probably interest conflict, in India, without knowing how the patients have been recruited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.124.56 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Early research, impact, notability
Hi SkepticalRaptor. Point taken on the low-impact scores of the journals being cited here. Unfortunately, that's what we're dealing with, and the threshold for content inclusion is primarily WP:Verifiability. This content has it. I have replaced some well cited content you recently removed, but added an emphasis that these journals score low on the impact scale. I do not agree that WP:FRINGE or WP:WEIGHT apply here. I see no evidence of a fringe theory being put forward by those papers. Nor by the way they are presented in the article. These are simply some early research to see what effect chlorogenic acid has on the body. Neither the 2002 nor 2005 paper suggests that green coffee extract is a magic elixir or that it should be taken to treat any condition. In fact, the papers explicitly make a call for more research. This is to be expected in a new field. --Ds13 (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're throwing in junk research that has no relevance and trying to show some "clinical" significance that has neither been repeated and is from really poor journals. See MEDRS. There is NOTHING that has been found with green coffee, and if it is a "new field" then the research will come. We don't predict the future. If you want to advertise for green coffee, try the Alt Med wikipedia, they're fine with this kind of writing. There has been no further research, if you haven't noticed. In fact, almost all of this research fails. I only use almost because I might have missed one, but in general, ALL FAIL to show anything. Until such time you can bring real evidence with real clinical trials with real results in a real journal, then why should we violate MEDRS to write an article that violates undue weight restrictions to push a fringe theory? We don't. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, addressing your points, SkepticalRaptor:
 * re/ "no relevance"... The article is about green coffee and these studies were specifically studying green coffee. Relevant.
 * re/ "trying to show 'clinical' significance": Neither the words "clinical" nor "significant" were used in any content or talk.  If they were, then I agree it would be a very quantitative and strong claim.  But that's not what's happening.  Simply, a selection of available research on green coffee was being reported as published and verifiable in journals.
 * re/ "real journals" vs "really poor journals": According to whom?
 * re/ "push a fringe theory"... What is the theory you believe is being pushed?  No conclusions or dots are being connected in the article.  There is not original research here.  There is no synthesis here.  The attempt is to give the reader an overview of the facts and current work to date on green coffee, making it very clear that these are very small studies and pointing out that the researchers themselves are reluctant to draw conclusions and are asking for more research.  That's really, really far from proposing a theory.  It's a verifiable overview on green coffee research.
 * re/ "if you want to advertise"... I fail to see any advertising.  That the largest coffeehouse chain in the world recently began selling drinks made from green coffee, a largely unknown and unstudied substance, is notable.  How else would you propose presenting this fact for readers, if not with a reference so the reader can verify the statement?
 * Hoping we can expand this article, as much as Wikpedia policy allows. Regards. --Ds13 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I just removed all the info about the study... I hadn't looked here but we shouldn't be basing anything about the supposed health benefits of a substance off one study in a crappy journal. If people disagree then I think a trip to WP:RSN will be needed. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good job. I quit arguing here a few months ago. People don't understand how clinical trials work, and they think one study in one lame journal with a small cohort is somehow REAL SCIENCE. That's why we deprecate any medical statements that are unsupported with secondary research. I'm glad you did this. And green coffee does NOTHING. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you for giving up. It was massively WP:UNDUE even without the shoddy sourcing. I'll keep an eye on the article and hopefully he crap will be kept out. SmartSE (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Applications
Hi SkepticalRaptor. I have replaced, twice now, content removed by you about how green coffee is used in mainstream products. I think a very notable example is its presence in a line of beverages at a large coffee house chain. I believe it to be notable that a new, barely understood, substance has gone mainstream this way. Since you displayed some sensitivity to advertising previously, I intentionally did not mention the name of the company in the article content. Ultimately, it must be linked to or referred to, to ensure WP:Verifiability. If you know of another way to accomplish this, I am open to it. Regards. --Ds13 (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep adding complete junk science to this article, and I will keep deleting it. You are adding advertising. I will delete it. You obviously are not understanding that one article that you have mined from PubMed is NOT equivalent to scientific consensus but is absolutely nothing. To make a medical claim, it takes numerous publications before a consensus is established. All you're finding is essentially lame attempts to show something when there is nothing there. And if something is shown, and there's no indication that there will be, then we can add it to the article. But we cannot prove the future. There is NOTHING here. Have you read WP:MEDRS? Have you read WP:RS? You haven't verified anything, but nothing. Stop it. You're just pushing an agenda that green coffee does anything when there is no proof that it does anything whatsoever. The evidence is incredibly weak. In clinical studies, you need thousands of subjects to make a claim. We've got what, 20-30? That's junk science. Give me a break, and stop edit warring for bad science, it's rather silly. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I make no claim about scientific consensus so I'm not sure why you bring that up. The fact I attempted to state is that research has been done on green coffee and here it is, as published by reliable secondary sources.  If you can show me consensus among scientists that the journals I was citing are fringe or pseudoscience or unreliable, then please share that information and I'll completely back off.  Back on topic...  with respect to applications of green coffee, I think we can both agree that the substance is in use in mainstream products.  This is worth noting in the article.  There are no company names in the article content, only in the URL to demonstrate a Very Notable Company's use of it.  If you know of a better way to let the reader know how this product is commonly consumed, I'm open to it.  There is no advertising intent here.  Regards.  --Ds13 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability
This product often as "Green Coffee Bean Extract" is being sold on Amazon, and promoted by Starbucks. It is certainly notable. However, without reliable research, other than noting it is being sold for supposed health effects, we should not be repeating information from poor sources about its possible health effects; all stimulants, even sugar, can produce weight loss. Not hot news. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Reason
It's never mentioned that there's a reason why the grains have to be roasted for consumption; and that's because they are naturally poisonous. They don't taste good raw; it's their warning. Furthermore; that's their defense mechanism; like hot pepper's capsaicin. Although a better analogy perhaps would've been cashews. The proper "coffee" and "coffee processing" articles fail to mention this as well; and the "health effects of coffee" barely mentions an ambiguous remark. Maybe it's too common knowledge; but I'd expect a brief commented statement; at least... On any of them; especially here; which I'd obv like. 186.151.24.52 (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)