Talk:Pumpkin seed

The article needs help
As it existed in 2009 July, the article needed a lot of help. I have done a little housecleaning, but more is needed. A perusal of the references (actually looking them up) shows that many (Pepita Preparation, World's Healthiest Foods, and The Benefits of Pumpkins Seeds) seem to be little more than advertising copy, hence the suggestion that they may be unreliable. The Alternative Medicine reference (I added a bit more information to the citation) claimed "small studies have shown" without actually citing any of the alleged studies.

"New Study Demonstrates..." likewise claims that there is a study, but does not name it. This reference copies a claim from its unnamed source that one gram of pepita protein contains more L-tryptophan than a full glass of milk (and so did the reference article before I changed it). Because "a full glass" is a rather non-standard unit, I looked up the tryptophan content of one cup of milk on the USDA website, as well as the tryptophan and other amino acid contents of pumpkin seeds. The results dramatically contradict the assertions of "New Study Demonstrates..." unless "a full glass" is a volumetric unit much smaller than a cup.

Some interpolated claims were just plain wrong. The statement The oil is also of research interest in the treatment of clinical depression and other disorders responsive to tryptophan at larger doses than can be practicably provided by whole seeds. which had been tagged as needing a reference, has been removed. Tryptophan (combined in protein) is concentrated in the meal left behind from oil extraction, and not in the oil.

Many of the statements currently tagged as needing a reference should probably be removed, as well as all backed up by the unreliable references, but I feel I have done enough for now.... Jay L09 (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A good start! —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is one reference supporting the folk medicine statements: Gerald H -oldeststudent2004- (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There should be something about eating them with the shells, or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.158.119 (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move (Jan 2010) - no consensus

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. —  Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Pepita → Pumpkin seeds — I suggest moving this article to pumpkin seeds. The name pepita is never found in British English whereas pumpkin seed is easily understood by speakers of all types of English. Calling it pepita because that is the Mexican Spanish name isn't really a good enough reason as pumpkin seeds are used in other cuisines too and the name can result in a confusion with sunflower seeds, which are universally known as pepitas in Spain. Alboran (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Pumpkin seed already redirects here and you are free to use that at will. This, however, is not an article about pumpkin seeds, but about squash seeds, including pumpkin seeds among others, used as a food. The only name we have for this is pepitas (that is, "squash seeds" is not a generally used term in English for the topic of this article) and the fact that it's a loanword from Spanish is of no concern. Most of our language is made up of loanwords. PS: even if it was renamed, it would be to pumpkin seed not pumpkin seeds, per naming conventions. —  SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish has a good point, except that apart from the page name and passing mention of squash seeds in the lede, the article actually is about pumpkin seeds. I have contributed to the article and have thought it would work better as Pumpkin seed, with a paragraph explaining that some large-seeded squashes other than pumpkins may be used.  (Pumpkin seeds seem to be preferred.)  --Una Smith (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment — I would support moving this page to its redirect . --Una Smith (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Una Smith has a good point, except that the discussion of Cucurbita maxima lipids actually concerns the seeds of squash, not of pumpkins. (Or does it? The distinction between squash and pumpkin depends upon who is using the words -- a subject which could be the basis of a much larger article, except for the concern about "no original research.")  According to Stevenson & al., the "pumpkin cultivars" studied included "four buttercups (Cha Cha, Delica, Kurijiman, and Sweet Mama)," and "one Hubbard-type (Warren Scarlet, also known as Red Warren)."  Buttercups are almost universally described as "buttercup squash," not as pumpkins; Hubbards are almost universally described as "Hubbard squash", not as pumpkins.  (Both buttercups and Hubbards are described as "squash" in the Wikipedia C. maxima article, for example.)   Fans of giant pumpkins frequently distinguish between true pumpkins (C. pepo), and those which are actually squashes (C. maxima).Jay L09 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The English term "pumpkin seeds" is sometimes used to describe sorts of pepitas which are not actually seeds of pumpkins, and is therefore an example of misleading jargon (rather like the American political term "health care" which does not mean medical care but rather medical insurance).  Using a potentially unfamiliar loanword, defined in the lede, seems a more sure way to avoid misleading the reader.Jay L09 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We could resolve this by moving most of the content to Pumpkin seed (limited to seeds of C. pepo), and either making Pepita a disambiguation page or expanding it into an article about seeds of calabazas more broadly. --Una Smith (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NB Similar discussion below in 2017.

Expand or contract?
In references to the above move discussion: I'd be happiest with keeping the article expansive. While I'm a fan of WP:SUMMARY when article length makes it necessary, I lean towards merge-ism. It's better to have an informative general article, than a multiple fragmentary ones. —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Before any move to "pumpkin seeds" please consider that "pepita" refers to any squash seed, so the terms overlap but are not synonymous. A disambiguation page may be in order. Since food terminology is fraught with regional variants and trendy changes, this issue must be unfortunately common. Gerald H -oldeststudent2004- (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

L Tryptophan
I've edited this phrase According to the USDA, one hundred gram of pepita contain 0.569 g Tryptophan and one gram of pepita protein contains 15.3 mg of L-tryptophan, whereas one cup of milk contains 183 mg. The source at the USDA did not readily yield the originally quoted value. The sentence still has a problem, that I can't resolve. The comparisson to milk isn't apparent to ordinary users from the values and quanities given. I also don't know where they found the "pepita protein" if it's from the USDA site. There seem to be many varieties of pumpkin seed sold as pumpkin seeds or pepitas in the US. It would be nice if someone could add a definition as to what consumers are looking at. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I sympathize with 99.11.160.111 (talk). Perhaps the entire "Nutraceutical uses" section should be removed:  much of what passes for "information" about nutraceuticals is pseudoscience at best, and more often either advertising copy or mere flights of fancy (notice the number of "citation needed" tags vs. the number of citations).  The strange sentence to which 99.11.160.111 objected was originally lifted from the reference (an advertisement for a mental health clinic) and stated that a gram of pepita protein contains more L-tryptophan than a cup of milk.  I put the sentence into its strange form, using the data (as I recall) for dried, not roasted pepita, to deny the original miserably false claim with reliable information.  (The number for pepita protein, as I recall, came from the simple exercise of dividing the published tryptophan content by the sum of the amino acid contents—a "change of units" operation which did not involve any original research.  Re-doing the calculation on dried pepita, I get 17.2 mg/g.)  — Jay L09 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is true that, as with most food commodities, there are many varieties of "pumpkin seeds" or "pepitas" for sale (not to mention what a home gardener might decide to grow). What must be understood is that there is some uncertainty in any claimed or published values for nutritional content.  The USDA (like many other sources) does not usually address uncertainty. It is not clear to me how to handle this problem, but see the fatty acid analysis in the article.  — Jay L09 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nutrition
I have removed two sentences from the Nutrition section:
 * The seeds also provide essential polyunsaturated fatty acids (including at least one ω-3 unsaturated fatty acid and at least one ω-6 unsaturated fatty acid).
 * The information (some of it contested as not properly cited) is repeated in the cited table below. The sentence is therefore superfluous, as is the concern about citation. — Jay L09 (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Lightly roasted seeds provide better nutrition than dark ones, as excessive heat destroys some of their nutritive value.
 * The information in this sentence is both vague and not backed up by the citation, to which objections have been raised. — Jay L09 (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Claims of American Culture
There are several comments made in this article that are unsupported and definitely do not reflect American culture.

"Marinated and roasted, they are an autumn seasonal favorite in the rural United States," Being an American that has traveled around the U.S., I know that pumpkin seeds are a seasonal favorite everywhere. Maybe this comment means that people typically buy pumpkins on rural farms, but that does not restrict the seasonal favoritism to rural areas. Also, to me, the use of the word rural insinuates that pumpkin seeds are a favorite of the low class or uneducated, which, due to the immersion of culture of all social classes, this distinction does not exist in the United States.

"...typically salted and sometimes spiced after roasting (and today also available as a packaged product), in Mexico and other Latin American countries, in the American Southwest..." This statement about the American Southwest is also unsubstantiated. Although I have never lived in the Southwest, I have lived in the North/Midwest and the South, and this practice is just as popular there as the article claims in the Southwest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobjoesmithers (talk • contribs) 13:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Pumpkin seeds and cholesterol
Are pumpkin seeds OK to eat for people with high cholesterol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.197.229 (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Chew for digestion?
Are shelled pumpkin seeds swallowed whole completely digested, or is it necessary to chew them first to get full nutritional benefit?-71.174.175.150 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 2017 -- Done

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 15:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Pepita → Pumpkin seed – WP:ENGLISH Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. Within the English Wikipedia, the commonly-used English-language term pumpkin seed should not be a redirect to a term primarily used in another language. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as is common for use in English for this encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, though originally a Mexican-Spanish word, "pepita" is now commonly used to refer to pumpkin seeds in English, including in the NY times.   The issue is which term is most commonly used to refer to this article's topic, and I don't see evidence supporting either term. --В²C ☎ 17:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, searching the New York Times site for "pumpkin seed" (in quotes) produces more than twice as many results than for pepita. Deli nk (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Searching the National Library of Medicine PubMed database, there are 3 results for 'pepita food' and 316 for 'pumpkin seeds food'. A simple Google search on these terms shows about 6 times higher incidence of use for pumpkin seeds. --Zefr (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Pumpkin seed is the much more commonly used name for this topic.  Deli nk (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The English name is common enough, and appropriate for English Wikipedia.--Srleffler (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:UE.  Calidum   04:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Summary table of fatty acid content of oil disagrees with detail article
Summary table of fatty acid content of oil disagrees with detail article Pumpkin seed oil (eg Linoleic acid	5.1–20.4 vs Linoleic acid 18.1-62.8 ) although both seem to use the same source. - Rod57 (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Anthelminthic properties
I guess I fail to see why including this information fails to meet WP:MEDRS. There is nothing in any of the sources that suggest overt "traditional medicine misinformation", given that they are cited in peer-reviewed articles and not NP books or faux-journals. Furthermore, my edits read "Studies suggest...", not "Studies confirm" or "Pumpkin seeds are..." Additional input would be greatly appreciated.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for coming here, . To the point, your sources do not meet the qualifications of medical evidence for the encyclopedia. They are all primary research, best described here. Medical content for WP relies on systematic reviews and/or meta-analysis of completed, high-quality clinical trials, not one-study human findings, mouse or bird research which are at the bottom of the research-quality pyramid; also see WP:MEDANIMAL. This may provide further guidance. --Zefr (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What about something like this (bold indicates places I've edited to comply better with WP:MEDANIMAL):


 * Some pre-clinical and primary studies suggest that pumpkin seeds might be anthelminthic, meaning that they help to expel intestinal parasites. One such primary study published in Acta Tropica focused on pumpkin seeds consumed with areca nut extract, and concluded that this caused possibly infected patients to expel tapeworms at a success rate of 89%.[Cite] A pre-clinical in vitro and in vivo animal study on mice, published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, concluded that "pumpkin seed extracts may be used to control of Gastrointestinal (G.I.) nematode infections."[Cite] Another pre-clinical in vivo animal study on ostriches published in Tropical Animal Health and Production reached similar findings.[Cite] However, clinical evidence for these results in humans is limited.[Cite]


 * WP:MEDANIMAL reads, "Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans." I take this to mean that you can use these sources, you just have to be extra clear about what they are. Furthermore, WP:MEDASSESS reads: "Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance". I take this to mean that we need to treat prelim reports and studies just as that and make this clear to the reader. I'd love to hear your thoughts.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, might this be considered within the boundaries of WP:MEDASSESS? The book was published by World Scientific.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your proposed edits, including the book (which is outdated and from traditional medicine, a weak source), are not encyclopedic. Words like "might", "suggest", "primary study", "mice", "imply" etc. all refer to highly preliminary research which is not encyclopedic, i.e., not educating the WP user about something relevant to human health. I would not agree with this content or sources even if we had a section called "Preliminary research", as there is no evidence these studies have been followed up with more substantial and rigorous human research. Explore the medical literature further, such as using these search terms. If you want to obtain other feedback from different medical editors, introduce a discussion at WT:MED. --Zefr (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have made this edit, which while talking about traditional medicine, mentions it purely in a historio-anthropological context, which I feel is completely warranted.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pumpkin seed. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016003715/http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Cucurbita/ to http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Cucurbita/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814101554/http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/19116/1/IND43913544.pdf to http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/19116/1/IND43913544.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Nutrition - Box
Shouldn't it have WAY more vitamin E? Chaptagai (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The important analysis appears to be for gamma-tocopherol which PubChem defines as "the orally bioavailable gamma form of the naturally-occurring fat-soluble vitamin E." A possible manufacturing factor affecting vitamin E content: the table shows data for "roasted and salted" seeds. "Roasting" may mean high temperatures over varying duration (and storage conditions), depending on the manufacturer's methods for the consumer product. The gamma-tocopherol content, however, is high (12.7 mg/100 g). This USDA analysis of pumpkin seeds "roasted in oil" shows very high vitamin E content. We should probably add discussion of and data for tocopherols (see lede discussion), and how preparation methods may affect nutrient contents for consumer pumpkin seed products. --Zefr (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Pumpkin seed oil not for cooking!
"Pumpkin seed oil, a culinary specialty in and important export commodity of Central Europe, is used in cuisine as a salad and cooking oil."

as I know, it is not recommended for cooking - is an addition to meals. so please provide a source for this claim: "cooking oil". 84.191.14.106 (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Literally 2.5 seconds on Google . Pick whatever from the results, other than a shopping/marketing site, that you like and make a citation out of it. These ones seem reasonable: . Here are also some that recommend using it like a salad oil instead of a cooking oil (at least with high heat) because of its low smoke-point: .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)