User talk:Jbrad123

accurate information on mangosteen
Hey Paul - you reversed some edits about mangosteen. There are two key points that could be considered misleading to someone who is honestly seeking accurate information. These statements are not inaccurate, but could use some greater illumination.

First is the statement: "Among six exotic fruits, the unpigmented, white fruit of the mangosteen was ranked lowest overall for these qualities." This is accurate, but for someone seeking to determine whether a mangosteen supplement is worth trying, he or she may not realize that some of the mangosteen supplements include outer, pigmented, dark skin is included. perhaps you would agree to add a statement like, "This test did not include the outer shell of the mangosteen, which is included in some mangosteen supplements."


 * The article is about the fruit as a whole and the parts of interest to mankind -- the edible arils. No human would eat the exocarp -- just like no human would eat a coconut shell -- so I don't see the issue about an artificial process making juice from the puree is relevant. I've drunk Xango, and I don't detect any fibrous elements in it so this argument you make about the puree having noteworthy properties (which I believe are physiologically trivial anyway) is beside the point of the article.--Paul144 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Second is the case study about lactic acidosis. The article clearly states which brand is used - a cheap product that is manufactured by agrolabs and routinely sold at COSTCO. This is not a quality preparation of mangosteen juice and it should not be compared to whole food, whole fruit preparations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.130.145 (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't find this type of analysis pertinent at all to an article about the natural mangosteen. You can try to make your case on the Xango article. I monitor that one too.--Paul144 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)