Talk:Lepidium meyenii

message: I've been taking Maca a little over a year and have been getting wonderful results. My body can definately tell when I am not taking this root tuber from Peru. 
From what I have noticed and read, Maca is a balancer that boost energy levels, reduces stress, provides mental clarity, stamina and then some. Maca is not limited to its libido enhancing effects as many companies have highlighted. However, information circulating the web have stated that it increases sperm count.
I have tried several brands of Maca. Even though they all come from either Peru or Bolivia the quality of the Maca from these companies vary. I have use several Maca products from companies such as Natures Way, Maca Magic etc. but I have noticed that "Earth Healers" brand of Maca is a bit more potent or atleast my body reacts very favorably to it. Their website is ealers.com www.earth healers.com
There are two types of Maca, Lepidium peruvianum meyenii and Lepidium peruvianum chacon. Most companies carry the meyenii but Earth Healers carry the "chacon." Perhaps Chacon is a bit potent than Meyenii but I don't have information to back it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.33.37.90 (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have information to include in the article?  This looks very much like spam and can not be put on the page.  WLU 12:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This guy runs earth healers.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marvin_the_mayan&oldid=129396941                  Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 20:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Entertainingly, he also doesn't know much about botanical nomenclature.  "Chacon" (using the standard form, "G.Chacón") is the authority for Lepidium peruvianum, meaning that all Lepidium peruvianum is "Lepidium peruvianum Chacon".  As for Lepidium peruvianum meyenii, it simply isn't the name of anything in botanical nomenclature. Paalexan (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maca is food 

message: I removed the following external link on the suggestion of Internetdominus, it's not referenced and hints towards spamminess.  I still think it could be useful as a generic, low-level reference on the growth and appearance of Maca but is not sufficiently high quality to be an external link.  
* Lepidium Meyenii Resource Center
WLU 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: Removed the following EL - better is integrating the texts as inline citations:
* Lepidium meyenii (Maca) studies indexed at the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health
WLU 01:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored this index to its original location.  This is a reputable index with currently 179 indexed peer-reviewed studies.  Certainly, there is no room to provide in-line citations for all of these studies and would, in any event be a redundant and dubious duplication of the work undertaken by the US government. Enquire 07:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be missing the point of wikipedia - it's meant to be a summary of information and is not an indiscriminate collection of information .  The page should contain information about Maca, not a list of where to find information about Maca.  It's possible that some of the references in that list are actually not helpful to readers, and could be better linked as in-line citations.  I may have a go at this at some point in the near future.  It is indeed reputable, each one of those studies is a reliable source of information to expand the page, but I've never seen a blatant list included as external links like that.  It's somewhat useful to have, but less useful than adding the information contained in the articles to the text itself as in-line citations.  Ask at WP:EL if you'd like, I could be wrong.  -- WLU (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, agreed. I guess you didn't have a go yet, so I have therefore incorporated the link to the NIH index of research into the section on Health effects as the closing comment, for readers who wish to explore beyond the few studies mentioned. Enquire (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  EL 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: Can we get a pronunciation key?  In simpler terms, is it MOCK-a, or muh-CAW, or something else? --Karuna8 (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: 'The growth habit, size, and proportions of maca are roughly similar to those of the radish and the turnip, to which it is related.'
Radishes vary from 2cm to probably 40cm so this statement is not very useful. 89.240.7.86 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: I am hoping someone else will put this section where it should properly be.  I came to the article looking for reliable information, but all the studies listed are on men, although I understand Maca is widely used by women.  I would like to see studies on women added to the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfoot (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The lit on women. Lee (2011) is a systemic review that includes Meissner and Brooks but not Dording or Stojanovska David notMD (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

text: your edit had too much emphasis on the primary sources and included unsourced content; what we do is just summarize the review, like this.  Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Studies on Women 

message: If anyone knows where this can be grown, what climates are suitable for the root, and where it is currently produced, those would all be great things to know.  
Koyae (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Native to Peru. As of 2016, being grown in China (and Canada?) as dietary supplement ingredient.David notMD (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical Occurence and Production 

message: The section 'Legality' erroneously stated that maca is illegal in Norway without a prescription. The paragraph cites the Norwegian law, which does list maca on the list of herbs, but it is denoted with an 'H', which means that it is not regulated in any form (an 'L' means it's classified as a over-the-counter drug, while 'LR' means a drug requiring prescription). Other herbs listed with an 'H' on the list include oat and Shiitake. Since this is (as of now) the only notable information in the Legality section, I'm removing it altogether. --VetleNM (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal status in Norway 

message: The article currently says, "The genome consists of 2n=8x=64 chromosomes."  What does "2n=8x=64" mean?  Why not just say the genome consists of 64 chromosomes?  Deli nk (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chromosones 

message: I've several times seen maca referred to as a good culinary emulsifier; i.e. it help blend oily and watery liquids, as in many salad dressings, though not without imparting a strong maca flavor, of course. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ  Contrib.  09:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emulsifier 

message: The following line needs corrected numbers (maybe meant 10,000 tiny seeds instead of 1,000?) "One plant is capable of forming up to 1000 tiny seeds, 1600 of which weigh...."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrLay (talk • contribs) 15:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically giving the weight of 1600 doesn't conflict with the fact that each plant has 1000. It's just a strange thing to say.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.206.153 (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  under Cultivation  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lepidium meyenii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304095159/http://inthenameofbeer.com/blog/2013/4/17/new-for-tap-ny-part-two-the-kuka-andean-brewing-company to http://inthenameofbeer.com/blog/2013/4/17/new-for-tap-ny-part-two-the-kuka-andean-brewing-company
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: http://www.selenohealth.com/2017/10/18/shouldnt-eat-raw-maca/?v=7516fd43adaa I see there is already something in the article about this: "Another common form is maca processed by gelatinization. This extrusion process separates and removes the tough fiber from the roots using gentle heat and pressure, as raw maca is difficult to digest due to its thick fibers and goitrogen content. Gelatinization was developed for maca specifically to mimic the activity of cooking, and to allow gentler digestion. Gelatinized maca is employed mainly for therapeutic and supplement purposes, but also can be used like maca flour, as a flavor in cooking. Available also is a freeze-dried maca juice, which is squeezed from the macerated fresh root, and subsequently freeze-dried high in the Andes."
But should there be more, or should it be more prominent? Bod (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's a spam source. --Zefr (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raw maca bad? 

message: Is this plant or is it not an aphrodisiac? It's in the category of 'aphrodisiac foods', but neither the word 'aphrodisiac' nor 'libido' is mentioned in the article itself. 
If it is an aphrodisiac, or even if there are reliable sources saying that a notable amount of people believe it to be an aphrodisiac, it should be mentioned in the article. If not, the article should be removed from the category. 50.229.69.147 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aphrodisiac? 

message: This revert was justified because the research is from lab studies, and therefore is conjecture insufficiently confirmed in a WP:MEDRS review; see WP:MEDANIMAL. Zefr (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lab research is insufficient for sourcing 

message: In the list there is no word coming from Spanish language. Maca and the other names are more likely from Quechua and Aymara languages 191.97.61.122 (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Its Spanish... name"