Talk:Safflower/Archive 1

Oils & Vitamin A's effects on insulin use

I was reading American Diabetes Association forums, and someone messaged me and told me that Vitamin A (Alpha Lipoic Acid) and (Linoleic Acid) were going through clinical trials as being able to boost healing in Cancer and Diabetes patients by reversing between 40 and 60% of nerve damage, 2012.

:As a new diabetic T2 I had to try it out and it does work in reducing the glycemic load from foods, but only as long as you continue to take supplements once you stop the numbers start creeping back up. I've watched Alpha Lipoic Acid triple in price and then become unavailable locally. After I wrote an article for the local newspaper.
:As a medical student, I have learned that it isn't the medicine that heals the body, it's the body that heals the body and regenerates itself, my thought on this topic (and reminder JUST A STUDENT!) Is that either Vitamin A (Alpha Lipoic Acid and Linoleic Acid) is reducing the glycemic load of high carb foods and giving the body a chance to heal itself, and Vitamin A is needed for essential neuro-repairs and we don't get enough of it from regular supplements and diet. I suspect maybe Vitamin A helps the pancreas produce insulin, and/or reduces insulin resistance. I know, citations needed, don't have any. Learned all that in lecture and from ADA I think. MissySkaldi (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human insulin

http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/07/20/0141220.shtml
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frap (talk • contribs) .

Quote: "The Globe and Mail reports that a Calgary biotech firm has developed a process to turn genetically modified safflower oil into human insulin in commercial quantities. The process reduces capital costs by 70% and product cost by 40%. 'SemBioSys says it can make more than one kilogram of human insulin per acre of safflower production. That amount could treat 2,500 diabetic patients for one year and, in turn, meet the world's total projected insulin demand in 2010 with less than 16,000 acres of safflower production.'"

--Stephane Charette 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the company's press release, in case someone wants to somehow work this into the article: Canadian Biotechnology Company achieves commercially viable level of insulin in safflower --Stephane Charette 18:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

According to this article The Secret to Perfect Summer Legs the linoleic acid in safflower oil makes a great skin moisturizer. -- Christopher Sajdak 19:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various folk, from beauty and cosmetic industries especially, would say this is not trivia! It's probably worth expanding upon! Tzf (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

There is a need to check if the safflower blooms in July in both hemispheres to make this statement in the introduction.... Jdcounselling (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant Statements

The Safflower seed is also used for bird seed. Crows and squirrels will not eat this seed so it's good for hanging in the garden or to keep undesireables away.

Safflower seed is also used quite commonly as an alternative to sunflower seed in birdfeeders, as squirrels do not like the taste of it.

Both statements are in the "Uses" section. I suggest one should be removed.

too bad you didn't tag your comment - someone removed all of the above references, and it would make it easier to know when that happened. I just bought some safflower seeds for feeding birds, and came here for more info. Without knowing when the bird food references were removed it makes it harder to backtrack to find out if there were proper citations. Tzf (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"turkish safron"

this was bought at a bazaar in alanya, turkey as "turkish safron". Is this dried safflower?? If so, the picture can be used in the article, if you please. Thank you. -- ExpImp^talkcon 21:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you! --Una Smith (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uses

The Uses section at present needs a reorg, to separate out the uses of seeds and flowers. --Una Smith (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date of the binomial name

The date of the scientific name for Safflower -- 1967 -- doesn't seem right. First, safflower has been known as a plant for a few thousand years; it would be very unusual if it was only described in 1967. Second, this isn't a new name for the species; I came to this article from Charles Johnston's book, Travels in Southern Abyssinia through the Country of Adal to the Kingdom of Shoa (London, 1844), where at vol. 2 p. 104 he refers to "the orange red flower of the Soof, (Carthamus tinctorius,) the compound corolla surrounded by sharp thorns". Something just doesn't make sense here, & I strongly suspect a hoax somewhere in that date. (And no, I'm not the one to hang a {{fact}} tag there.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a link to Conjugated linoleic acid?

This article contains a link to Conjugated linoleic acid but no indication why. Neither this article nor the one on Conjugated linoleic acid say that Safflower contains Conjugated linoleic acid, though the discussion page says it contains plain linoleic acid. If it contains the conjugated (whatever that means, I am no chemist) variety would it not be a good idea to say so here, and also maybe to say on the referenced page that Safflower is a source of Conjugated linoleic acid. I have no axe to grind, I just noticed Safflower extract in the list of ingredients of Tesco's Soda Water with Lime and wondered if it was in any way harmful or healthy so consulted wikipedia to find out. Probably its just used as a dye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.161.219 (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; this reference doesn't seem to fit. As far as I can tell, Safflower oil contains little to no CLA. Could someone with access to the full-text of the linked reference comment on this issue and/or remove this reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.38.202 (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparision table should be split out

The comparision table comparing composition of different vegetable oils should be separated out into its own article - perhaps vegetable oils composition or vegetable oils comparision ? We wouldn't want to repeat this table in each of 20+ vegetable oil articles; a similar table is in olive oil. - Rod57 (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

link to taller needed

article needs link to herman taller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Taller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.61.39 (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrels and Starlings don't like Safflower

Citation needed? Here's a few. do they meet wikipedia's standards? http://icwdm.org/prevention/birdfeeders.asp http://www.wbu.com/education/squirrels.html http://www.ebirdseed.com/safflower.html https://www.kingslynn.org/cla-saflowwer-oil-review/ http://www.wildbirdhabitatstore.com/index.php?_a=viewDoc&docId=78 http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/928273/#b http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?pcatid=11116 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C052:B2E0:221:FF:FEE7:503E (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is the only source that comes even close to qualifying as a Reliable source by Wikipedia standards. It seems to be a collaboration between some universities. The rest are commercial sites and community/forums that don't meet WP:RS. A slightly more authoritative source says that, "Grackles, starlings, House Sparrows, and squirrels usually avoid safflower, but this may not always be the case."[1] First Light (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of health research

I removed this material because there are no reviews of clinical studies specifically on safflower oil, but rather only individual studies like those removed according to WP:MEDRS. Extrapolating effects from studies on oils rich in linoleic acid, the main PUFA in safflower oil, is an example of synthesis, which we should avoid per WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". --Zefr (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: Why did you remove this specifically, where in WP:MEDRS is this recommended? --Distelfinck (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit sources primary research, i.e., a preliminary study involving a small number of subjects (221 receiving the safflower margarine; only men). It is unencyclopedic to include it. Restricting such studies is the purpose of WP:MEDASSESS for quality of sources used to discuss health (medical) effects. The cited study does not meet the standard, and implying it does borders on the editor's original research, WP:OR. --Zefr (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will read WP:MEDASSESS. So a second source about the study would not suffice? --Distelfinck (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When stating a health effect, the burden is on the quality of evidence as summarized in a systematic review or meta-analysis of several high-quality clinical trials (defined in MEDASSESS), which do not exist for safflower oil or linoleic acid consumption. Whether one or several clinical studies, especially for dietary compounds, the studies remain "preliminary" and primary research until there is sufficient weight written into an expert review. --Zefr (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we stating a health effect? We are just saying, that in this one particular experiment, this happened. Wikipedia:MEDRS is applied to "biomedical information", and the sentence you removed doesn't seem to be biomedical information according to the guidelines's definition. By your logic, when we write "Politician XYZ choked on a hamburger", this has to be removed, because it's a n=1 thing. But as I see it, it isn't biomedical information according to our guidelines, so it can stay --Distelfinck (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think "risk of death from all causes, including cardiovascular diseases," is a substantial statement of health effect. Think of this example as a test of verifiability, WP:BURDEN: should anyone be confident in stating from this one small study that eating more high-linoleic margarine increases the risk of death? No, that's why reviews are emphasized in MEDASSESS. --Zefr (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "risk of death" in your quote refers to the risk of death of the participants, not humans generally. "Risk" doesn't imply causation --Distelfinck (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Research section

Does not read correctly. Please revise to state correctly safflower oil helps not causes heart problems. For if you read it, that is what it states currently. Incorrectly written. Should be a better example of why it is a better alternative. Jowiki34 (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Research section of the article is stated here. Quoting from the article abstract here: Intervention - "Replacement of dietary saturated fats (from animal fats, common margarines, and shortenings) with omega 6 linoleic acid (from safflower oil and safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine). Controls received no specific dietary instruction or study foods." Outcome measures: "All cause mortality (primary outcome), cardiovascular mortality, and mortality from coronary heart disease." Conclusions: "substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease." --Zefr (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greek

John Chadwick reports that the Greek name for safflower κάρθαμος (kārthamos) occurs many times in Linear B tablets [as] 'knākos leukā' [and] 'knākos eruthrā' Shouldn't that be κνῆκος instead of κάρθαμος? Wiktionary doesn't have κάρθαμος but the etymology of Carthamus seems unrelated (Semitic, not Proto-Indo-European).--2.204.230.229 (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]