Talk:Garlic

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

Previous section on cardiovascular effects was not actually supported by the citations given[edit]

There were four studies on blood pressure, their conclusions were:

  • This meta-analysis suggests that garlic supplements are superior to controls (placebo in most trials) in reducing BP, especially in hypertensive patients.
  • Although... garlic preparations may lower BP in hypertensive individuals, the evidence is not strong.
  • The present review suggests that garlic is an effective and safe approach for hypertension. However, more rigorously designed randomized controlled trials focusing on primary endpoints with long-term follow-up are still warranted before garlic can be recommended to treat hypertensive patients.
  • Based on data from two randomized controlled trials that compared garlic to placebo in patients with hypertension it appears that garlic may have some blood pressure lowering effect, as compared to placebo but the evidence currently available is insufficient to determine whether garlic provides a therapeutic advantage versus placebo in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Data on the safety of garlic, as a therapeutic entity, in this population is also lacking. More (and large enough) trials comparing several doses of garlic with placebo are needed to detect possible differences in mortality, serious adverse events, and cardiovascular morbidity.

There were two meta-analyses on lipids, one found a clinically relevant effect:

  • An 8% reduction in total serum cholesterol is of clinical relevance and is associated with a 38% reduction in risk of coronary events at 50 years of age. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels improved only slightly, and triglycerides were not influenced significantly. Garlic preparations were highly tolerable in all trials and were associated with minimal side effects. They might be considered as an alternative option with a higher safety profile than conventional cholesterol-lowering medications in patients with slightly elevated cholesterol.

One found no effect:

  • The present meta-analysis did not suggest a significant effect of garlic supplementation on the reduction of Lp(a) levels.

The previous text said simply that the results of the studies were contradictory, which is not really the case, especially when considering only the blood pressure meta-analyses. I've therefore modified the text to more accurately reflect the citation conclusions, and mentioned blood pressure separately from lipids. Merlinme (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my change has been reverted. Would anybody care to make the case for the text: "but as of 2015, the results were contradictory and it was not known if there are any effects", based on the study conclusions I've given above? Merlinme (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad case of WP:OVERCITE, including Chinese papers on garlic (suspect) and ones too old. Have trimmed and re-summarised to be more nuanced. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I still think it's worth noting that both remaining citations suggest there may be an effect on blood pressure, even if the effect on overall mortality is currently unknown. Merlinme (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah "may have an effect" wording is just journal-speak straining for significance. It lay terms it's better to be clear this essentially means "unknown", or "unproven". Alexbrn (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, possibly, but when two separate high quality meta analyses (the only citations given, in fact) find some evidence of an effect I think it's at least worth mentioning. Merlinme (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've now been reverted with "Simpler is better". Is that necessarily the case? Which edit gives a more accurate representation of the citations given? The one which mentions that they both find a possible effect in the same direction, or the one which says there's no evidence? Merlinme (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the words "no evidence". What are you referring to? Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let's look at what the two remaining, high quality citations actually say. The first study, American Journal of Hypertension, says:
  • Although evidence from this review suggests that garlic preparations may lower BP in hypertensive individuals, the evidence is not strong. A well-conducted and powered trial of longer duration is needed to confirm these findings.
The second study, Cochrane Database, says:
  • Based on 2 trials in 87 hypertensive patients, it appears that garlic reduces mean supine systolic and diastolic blood pressure by approximately 10-12 mmHg and 6-9 mmHg, respectively, over and above the effect of placebo but the confidence intervals for these effect estimates are not precise and this difference in blood pressure reduction falls within the known variability in blood pressure measurements. This makes it difficult to determine the true impact of garlic on lowering blood pressure.
This is currently summarised in the article as: "clinical research to determine the possible effects of consuming garlic on cardiovascular diseases and various cardiovascular biomarkers has shown no clear evidence of effect." Now I personally think that completing failing to mention that both of the high quality citations find a possible effect on blood pressure, even if they think the evidence is "not strong", even if they draw no conclusions on any effect on mortality or therapeutic outcomes, is misrepresenting the citations. In this, case if "simpler" means "completely ignoring their tentative findings and calls for more research" then I don't think simpler is better.
That is why I thought "while there is limited evidence of a reduction in blood pressure versus placebo the overall effect on mortality is currently unknown" was a better summary of those two citations. I'm happy to consider alternative forms of wording, but I'd consider any wording which does not mention that both studies find a possible effect on blood pressure to be misrepresenting the current state of research. Merlinme (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cochrane reports that there are problems with the completeness, applicability and quality of the evidence so a fairer summary would not just be "a possible effect", but a possible non-effect. Or we could just simplify it and say it is unclear, which is neater. For practice, Cochrane concludes "This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine the true impact of garlic on reducing blood pressure" so we are well aligned. I can't currently access the AJH source - what does it say about caveats applying to the evidence? Alexbrn (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Merlinme and have adjusted the wording of the section to reflect that there is evidence of an effect on blood pressure but not on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We have three recent meta-analyses all saying that there is a statistically significant effect. Yes, the Cochrane source hedges its bets, but they only looked at 2 trials, as that study was mainly interested in the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The two meta-analyses that were specifically looking at the effects on blood pressure had fewer caveats about the results. Kaldari (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of eating garlic on blood pressure is barely worth mentioning, 4 mmHg. I rewrote the sentence, but this is marginally encyclopedic (WP:UNDUE), even with the reviews supporting the statement.--Zefr (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan of plant[edit]

Is this plant a biennial, cultivated by humans as an annual? The encyclopedia article should definately contain such info. Many thanks, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew Ferguson 57: no, it's a perennial bulb. You plant a small single bulb ("clove"), it grows and usually divides into a number of small bulbs ("cloves"), which can then be harvested. But if they were left in the ground, in the right climate, each would be expected to repeat the process. It's true that those bulbs that flower ("bolt") often exhaust themselves, but not necessarily so. Right now, I can't find this expressed clearly in a reliable source. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, thanks for response. So does the term perennial bulb imply that the above ground parts of the plant die down and only the bulb continues to survive through the winter, i.e. a herbaceous perennial? I have this source stating "Garlic (Allium sativum) can be treated as a perennial bulb or as a replant perennial", and later "If bulbs are not harvested, then in time plants will get overcrowded and bulbs will reduce in size. So try to harvest and replant frequently".[1] This source also states garlic is a perennial.[2]
Yes, I think you have described it correctly, at least in temperate climates, where the foliage does die down. I've not seen the exact phrase "replant perennial" before, but it's a very good description. (Potatoes would seem to be another example of a "replant perennial", in that where frosts are absent or mild, the tubers survive the winter after the foliage has died down, but the idea is to dig them up and eat them!)
I suggest you add to the article, using these two sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Not convinced the above 2 sources provide enough info after what you said about tropical climates. This source discusses cultivation in Africa.[3] However it seems to suggest that it is grown as an annual in much the same way as in cooler climates, although some cultivars are more suited to tropical climates. I suggest the following text as a starting point, however not everything is supported by the sources, but this might be a "sky is blue" scenario where no source is needed? Also, am I using the term vegitative propagation in the correct way? Regards, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A. sativum is a perennial bulb,[2][1] but it is usually cultivated as an annual.[3] If the bulbs are not harvested, new plants grow again in the next growing season, however plants become overcrowded and buld size dimishes over time.[1] Some describe the plant as a "replant perennial",[1] because new genetically identical plants can be reliably propagated vegetatively, by planting a clove each year, and acquiring new stock is unnecessary.


References

  1. ^ a b c d Crawford, M (2012). How to grow perennial vegetables. Green Books. ISBN 9781900322843.
  2. ^ a b Seymour, M (2014). The New Self-Sufficient Gardener: The complete illustrated guide to planning, growing, storing and preserving your own garden produce. Dorling Kindersley. ISBN 9781409346784.
  3. ^ a b Grubben, G. J. H. (2004). Vegetables. PROTA. ISBN 9789057821479.

mention honey?[edit]

the Adverse effects and toxicology section mentions milk to reduce bad breath if consumed mixed with the garlic.

perhaps the article could mention that mixing garlic with honey reduces or eliminates the hotness of its flavor when consumed together. one more reason for including a mention of honey and garlic combined as there are some "folk medicine" style mixtures (a jar of honey filled with bulbs of onion) available in the market.

at least i think, i have seen that some years ago. i got no sources for this, its just that it might be a point worth to look after. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Animal consumption?[edit]

Garlic is distasteful to some creatures but do any apart from humans eat it? — O'Dea (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

The leaves of garlic and the other leeks are identical except for size, and they don't look as much like spears as the leaves of gladiolus do -- which isn't much.

However, all I have to back up this assertion is the plants themselves, which is about as primary as research can get.

71.222.189.233 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replace “AllAllergies” source[edit]

The author was properly not cited, for a start - allergy researcher Dr Harry Steinman, which can be found on the website’s “CEO & Editor” page when the website was active in the early 2000s.

The information cited on the Wikipedia page is unsourced background information from a non-expert. Fluff, to accompany a list of allergy research publications, that stopped updating a couple of decades ago. The stated purpose was to collate medical articles, not about the biology or chemical properties of plants.

All of the claims cited to AllAllergy should either be removed or backed up by a reliable source. 2A02:C7E:193C:6E00:4D1B:C1FF:C3BB:3DF2 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

medicinal use[edit]

There's a string of studies and editors discrediting the medical use of garlic and this it's immediately obvious to even a causal reader.

Are we really expected to believe that something used for thousands of years doesn't have a single medicinal use?

Does Wikipedia not credit s single traditional source as a reliable one? I've got no idea what garlic is good for- but I'm quiet sure Wikipedia has been bought out by big pharma. 1.152.108.196 (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodletting has been used for thousands of years, too. Sometimes people are just wrong for a long time. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems studies on garlic currently range from "maybe it's not really the hot shit the memes make it out to be" to "it might have that one use in preventing stomach cancer but i'm not exactly sure yet". Not anything particularly conclusive, but it leans a bit towards the "it does not do those specific things" side.
Whatever the case is right now, it doesn't really warrant a conspiracy theory. cogsan (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer section[edit]

This source is clearly full of misinformation and is not usable.

Examples from the abstract: "incredible plant is endowed with various pharmacological attributes" (not incredible and attributes are only from primary research); "consumption of garlic provides strong protection against cancer risk" (false - there is no MEDRS evidence for such a statement); "contains several bioactive molecules with anticancer actions" (only in vitro, and disputable).

Removing the source and its content from the section. Zefr (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is justified because the sources are 10-13 years out of date and the authors stated weaknesses in the design of the assessed research and in their own analyses. The sources remaining in the section are also out-of-date (8-10 years) and with less-than-ideal designs.
A common problem with performing a meta-analysis on garlic or any food consumption studies is that the underlying trial designs are impossible to fully control (compare to the rigor of drug development). WP:MEDASSESS (left pyramid) shows that case-control and cohort clinical trials, as used in studying possible effects of consuming garlic or other foods/extracts, are "observational", and are therefore inconclusive primary research unusable for an encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Garlic&oldid=1196885860"