Talk:Coconut sugar

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Inositol

Inositol is NOT a vitamin. It used to be classified as one, but isn't anymore.--75.80.43.80 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Palm sugar

Looks like this page should be merged with the Palm sugar page. Thoughts? 209.66.74.34 (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

209.66.74.34, I've put a merge template it the article. I think it's a good idea; there really isn't that much non-overlapping info. HLHJ (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Type of Sugar

What types of sugar (and in what proportion) are present in coconut sugar? Fructose? Glucose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.139.173 (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody concerned about the source of the GI rating for this product? Apparently it has come from the company selling coconut sugar and not from independent testing CompassKT (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table

Nutrient Listing states Chlorine. I think the person meant Choline. I dont have an account so hoping someone can correct this as it is a major difference obviously. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.167.119.252 (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not doneWhile the description of the table was "macro-nutrients", it was a trace element analysis, so chlorine (chloride from salts) was correct. In fact, I deleted the table because it was mislabeled and I could not verify the source. Several websites cite "Comparison of the elemental content of 3 sources of edible sugar - analyzed by PCA-TAL" but offer differing dates, 2000 and 2003, attributed to "Secretaria MI" which might be a government report. Nutritional claims in the article are poorly supported in general.Novangelis (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

effect on coconut industry

i have read that tapping the syrup stops trees from making coconuts and has created a shortage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no it doesn't this is false information from a coocnut oil company. The philippine coconut authority has proven greater yields using sequential nut and toddy (sap) production — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.60.9.26 (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Information Palm Sugar / Coconut Sugar: Wiki disagrees with itself

The articles on Palm Sugar Palm sugar and coconut sugar currently (May 2014) disagree with one another:

Coconut sugar : "In some areas, predominantly in Thailand, the terms "coconut sugar" and "palm sugar" are often used interchangeably. However, coconut sugar is different both in taste, texture and manufacture methods from palm sugar, which is made from the sap in the stems of the Palmyra palm, the date palm, the sugar date palm, the sago palm or the sugar palm."

versus

Palm sugar : "Often the distinction is made between coconut sugar and palm sugar, but this only reflects the different species from which the sugar is sourced, i.e. coconut sugar is produced in an identical way. Thailand is one place where the distinction is made and the difference is due to palm sugar being produced there from the tree trunk of the sugar palm, whilst coconut sugar is tapped from the inflorescences of the coconut palm. The differences are semantic, as all the sugars under their various names are still produced from the sucrose rich sap of a palm species." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randal Oulton (talk • contribs) 16:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, Randal Oulton. Of course sugar from the coconut palm is a palm sugar. HLHJ (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good evidence needed

The internet is making a lot of claims about coconut sugar, but there seems to be little evidence. Things we need good sources for:

an explanation of the discrepancy between the two glycemic index measurements
data on the composition of coconut sugar; sugars (glucose, fructose, sucrose), inulin, potassium, vitamin B1, iron, zinc, copper, phosphorus, and vitamin C have all had claims made about them
the evidence, including absence thereof, on health claims

HLHJ (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This pages has averaged 338 hits per day over the past year. It seems likely that many users are looking for medical information. We need better information, and for that we need WP:medrefs. HLHJ (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that people are looking for medical information. They're probably just trying to find out what it is.

The explanation for the differing GI measurements is simple: GI measurements vary significantly between people (and time of day, and what you ate earlier, and all kinds of things). These studies involved just 10 people, which is barely adequate at best. And in addition to using people from different countries and food cultures, they likely measured products made by different manufacturers, using sap from somewhat different palms grown in a different climate. Some of the difference might be real, and some of the difference might be random, and GI numbers should always be taken with a large grain of salt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, thank you, WhatamIdoing. When I search the term, I get mostly articles on health effects, but you're right, if you just saw it on an ingredients list you'd just want to know what it was. Currently we just say "Used as a sweetener in many countries, coconut sugar has no significant nutritional or health benefits over other sweeteners"; we don't have any MEDRS sources for health effects. I've seen one primary study; we'll see what comes out in future. HLHJ (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

texture of the finished product

it might not be of any remarkable significance but, i have on my table a product labeled coconut sugar that looks different from what can be seen in the article. it is a granular dust like those cacao or malt flavored drink powders that contain cacao or other flavorings combined with sugar ready to dissolve in cold milk. i do not want to create a confusion by mentioning cacao drink powder - it is just the closest thing i can relate to describe it. while the texture obviously does nothing to change the characterization of coconut sugar as it is in the article, this texture is the sole most important property that seems to make it different from other sugar types available - from my, that is a consumers viewpoint. now, since hungary where i live is not a huge market in itself i would wonder if it is probably not a local curiosity but rather a more widespread - perhaps globally available variant. so i would expect the article - perhaps in a brief side-glance - to mention that coconut sugar (in the european market)is also sold in a granulated form. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Would need a WP:RS source to verify. Zefr (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you can see for yourself: https://lifewinnersorganic.com/product/dr-gram-organic-coconut-flower-sugar/ in this picture. probably it is nothing else than the processing: unlike crystalline refined white sugar this one contains porous granules. probably not worth mentioning as an attribute of a sugar variety, because it is really dependent on the way and extent it is processed, refined, dried, crystallized.

92.221.117.18 (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

now that we talk of it, the article in its present form seems really nice to me. however the taste section has a "citation needed" tag at its end, that seems not justified imho. the sentence tagged this way says 'However, since coconut sugar is not highly processed, the color, sweetness and flavor can vary depending on the coconut species used, season when it was harvested, where it was harvested and/or the way the "sap" or "toddy" was reduced.' I dont think this kind of explanation needs citation. it really just describes in a well understandable way that there is a natural variation aka lack of standardization in the product. a citation would be needed if it said something that is not trivial from what already is discussed. variation to occour in nature is well known on the one hand, while on the other hand a particular arbitrary case of the existence of variation is really hard to source with a citation and would be counterproductive. so what is the best process to deal with the (imho silly) citation needed tag? do i just delete it, or does one have to call a committee upon it? 92.221.117.18 (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]