Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a222121a095db179

Jump to content

Talk:Inulin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 2605:B100:1130:28C:ECF5:35F9:1DFB:31F5 in topic Bad cite in lede?

Proprietary?

[edit]

In what sense are yoghurt and milk "proprietary formulations"? I must be misunderstanding this sentence.

Pekinensis 17:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hope the rephrasing has fixed this.
Velela 19:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, now I understand. Thanks!

Pekinensis 19:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Inulin content of various foods

[edit]

[merged data from several sources]

FOOD                        g/100g
====================================
Artichoke Hearts (leaves)   2-10
Asparagus Root              1-30 
Banana                      0.3-0.7
Barley                      0.5-1.5
Burdock Root                3.5-4
Camas Bulb                  12-22
Chicory Root                15-20
Dandelion Leaves            12-15
Garlic                      9-16
Jerusalem Artichoke (tuber) 16-20
Leeks                       3-16
Murnong Root                8-13
Onion                       2-10
Rye                         0.5-1
Salsify Root                4-11
Wheat                       1-6
Yacon Root                  3-19
   sources for above table: 
   http://www.tpclabs.com/file.aspx?FileID=108
   http://members.shaw.ca/duncancrow/inulin_prebiotic_probiotic.html

Bad cite in lede?

[edit]

[4] is given as support of the claim that use of inulin to measure kidney function is a "gold standard" approach (which is a term lifted directly from the source). However, the general thrust of that paper and its eventual conclusion are, in fact, that reassessment of such standards (and more directly relevant to the paper are indirect calculations of GFR, totally unrelated to the "gold standard" approach) are required. Thus the source does not really seem to support the claim viz. "gold standard" in lede and should be removed (removed along with the claim in question, I fail to see why this "gold standard" is so noteworthy as to appear in the lede). It is effectively an attack on the current state of GFR diagnostics as they stand... 2605:B100:1130:28C:ECF5:35F9:1DFB:31F5 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply