Talk:Coconut water

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Commercialization[edit]

"However, the contents of primary electrolytes sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium per 100 millilitres (3.5 imp fl oz; 3.4 US fl oz) serving of unprocessed coconut water are insignificant (2–7% of the DV) and not balanced." This is a little unrealistic. Firstly, compared with the amounts present in similar electrolyte drinks (Gatorade), coconut water is about an order of magnitude higher. Secondly, who drinks 100ml of coconut water? The smallest sizes are 200ml, and the most common seem to be the 0.5L cans. Such a can would indeed provide over 1000mg of potassium and over 100mg of magnesium and calcium each. As far as "balance", it's a bit much to expect from a natural product, but these numbers seem pretty close to the mark, coincidentally, and certainly sufficient to replenish immediate electrolyte losses incurred through exercise. Drsruli (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsruli: You're correct. The statement has no citation anyway, so I removed it. I'm always wary of any sentence in a Wikipedia article that starts out with "However". It's almost always someone's original research, written for the purpose of arguing with the topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed tag[edit]

I added the disputed tag because this article does not seem to reflect WP:NPOV.

Just to be clear, Classicfilms, did you want to include discussion about a) nutrient contents and b) health effects, as the sources you provided claim? Regarding nutrient content, we have a USDA analysis in the table showing low micronutrient levels in actual, unmanufactured coconut water.
If a commercial product has appreciable levels of electrolytes (e.g., sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium), as claimed in the WebMD and Cleveland Clinic sources, then these minerals would have been intentionally added as fortification ingredients during manufacturing. The 3 references you used do not cite any WP:RS sources for how nutrient contents were analyzed.
It is likely the authors were just reading off a retail product label, which would vary in nutrient levels according to manufacturer. The health claims from the 3 articles really are off the wall - there are no sources in the medical literature to support any of them, which is doubly disappointing for the Cleveland Clinic, a world-class hospital.
To have actual balance and NPOV in an article, we can have opposing views if both are supported by reliable sources, which in this case, would mean WP:MEDRS reviews, for which none exists about health benefits of coconut water. Zefr (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks the kind of balance found in simple google searches from spaces such as:

  • WebMD:

https://www.webmd.com/diet/health-benefits-coconut-water https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-1261/coconut-water

  • Prevention

https://www.prevention.com/food-nutrition/healthy-eating/a44590870/coconut-water-benefits/

  • Cleveland Clinic

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/the-health-benefits-of-coconut-water

The article needs a re-write. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article can be tagged as "disputed" because one editor relies on low-quality sources to suggest drinking coconut water leads to measurable health effects. None of the listed sources comes close to meeting WP:MEDASSESS - left pyramid for the quality of evidence scale.
Specifically, you should state change x to y, and provide a WP:MEDRS review or clinical guideline recommending use of coconut water to enhance human health. (hint: doesn't exist).
When reviewing marketing language for dietary supplements and "miracle" products, take a dose of skepticism. Zefr (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's observe Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It is normal to address WP:NPOV in articles that depend on just a few references to critique an entire topic which this one does. I saw nothing in the disputed tag that indicates it cannot be applied to this article. That being said, I'm not interested in edit wars. So, I'll let my point stand.-Classicfilms (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]