Talk:Cinnamon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Nomenclature and taxonomy

An is that ugh!! explanation of the English word is good, but why is that followed by terms in other Indian and South Asian languages but NOT INCLUDING either Tamil or Sinhalese? It is a Sri Lankan spice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen G Graham (talk • contribs) 23:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

edible parts

Which parts of the plant are edible? The bark only? Leaves? Wood? ....

---

Is the "cinnamon" flavor in "red hot" candies derived from the traditional spice? [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 07:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes. The issue is that most Americans have actually never used true "cinnamon" in the whole or powdered spice form which indeed smells and tastes like red hot candies. Instead they are used to cassia which is much milder and more popularly sold in grocery stores under the cinnamon name. Joshuaschroeder 06:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not only the US - rogue traders everywhere do this (cassia is a lot cheaper). But the pic of cinnamon sticks is the real thing (compare Image:Cassia bark.jpg). - MPF 09:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

---

There are too many "it"s for my liking in the third paragraph. Does "Its flavour is due to an aromatic oil" refer to Sri Lanka cinnamon, or to all cinnamon? Isidore 18:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There really is only one cinnamon. The other "cinnamons" are more properly refered to as cassia. Joshuaschroeder 06:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

scurvy and Culpeper

The text of the Culpeper reference is "Of these, Captain Winter's Cinnamon, being taken as ordinary spice, or half a dram taken in the morning in any convenient liquor, is an excellent remedy for the scurvy; the powder of it being snuffed up in the nose, cleanses the head of rheum gallantly."

He was referring to Drimys winteri or Winter's Bark. The mistaken reference to cinnamon is now all over the net, thanks to sites that copy Wikipedia content. -- WormRunner | Talk 00:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! - MPF 09:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

the origin of cinnamon

"It was imported to Egypt from China as early as 2000 BC" does it mean that cinnamon is from china?

Possibly either poor knowledge of where the merchants were actually getting their sales products from, and/or confusion with other species of Cinnamomum such as Cassia - MPF 10:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I REALLY doubt the veracity of the above quote. 1. If cinnamon is native to India, why would a more distant Chinese source be the one that provided Egypt with its cinnamon? 2. China was non-existant at this time, and culturally "Chinese" people were not yet in Guangdong or other natural southerly oceanic trading zones, so how would you know it's from China? 3. The use of monsoon winds that allowed Indian ocean trade to exist as it did were not known at such an early period, so even an Indian or Sri Lankan source is dubious. So where's the beef? I don't see any reference to a source so much as claiming this occurrence. I suggest that this claim be removed until evidence is provided. D.E. Cottrell (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to D.E. Cottrell

I strongly agree with your criticism of the quote, it simply does not make sense in the context of cinnamon, which is native to Sri Lanka. But I am not sure how you are so confident in your below mentioned claim “The use of monsoon winds that allowed Indian ocean trade to exist as it did were not known at such an early period, so even an Indian or Sri Lankan source is dubious.”.

Contrary to what some people might think civilization in the subcontinent is much older. It was the location of old civilizations such as the vast Indus Valley civilization which dates back 5000 years and perhaps thousand(s) of years earlier as indicated by recent marine archeological finds.

It is known that this civilization traded (maritime trade included) with ancient Iraq and other centers in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea region since antiquity. Further it is also well known that there was more than one advanced maritime kingdom in the sub continent especially in the south. These kingdoms date back 2000/2700+ years or more, in terms of their sea faring exploratory ways and maritime trade activities.

Furthermore there is evidence that people from the sub continent reached as far as the Philippines in the early part of the 1st millennium BC and China by 700 BC (2700 years ago). Additionally there is linguistic evidence they reached even further to Korea (?and potentially Japan) at some point in antiquity.

It could be argued that these people were to some extent similar to the Vikings in terms of their maritime exploration (?and hence called the Vikings of the South/Asia). However they seem to have started their maritime activities 1000-2500 years before the real Vikings.

Considering all this it is inconceivable to me that they would not know about the seasonal (monsoon) wind patterns in their own back yard.

It is also interesting that the piece does not mention how the cinnamon got to Indonesia to be cultivated there and traded from there ~2000 years ago to Ethiopia, Egypt, Rome, Greece, etc.

stsraj 1/17/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.146.25 (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias

"The best cinnamon comes from Sri Lanka" should be removed.^{The prior comment was added by 12.149.102.66 on Aug 09, 2006 at 12:51}

Thanks. You prefer cinnamon from Sumatra?

It appears to be the consensus of cooks, bakers, and gourmands that the best cinnamon comes from Sri Lanka. That would indicate that it's not bias, but unsupported opinion. Neither of the two are allowed, but bias needs to be removed, while an unsupported consensus is useful information that needs to supported and kept.

Noting that "The best cinnamon, commanding a premium price¹, comes from Sri Lanka", with the footnote linking to a price comparison, would work. ClairSamoht 20:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Molida - Type of Cinnamon or Spanish Translation?

I have an 18oz Instituional Pack of McCormick Cinnamon - label says "Ground Cinnamon / Canela Molida" - what is Canela Molida? Is it just a Spanish translation for Gound Cinnamon, or is it a distinct type of Cinnamon? - Of interest, since if its really cassia, its the stuff used in the diabetes study - (see http://www.spiceplace.com/mccormick_ground_cinnamon_spice.php and http://www.mccormick.com/productdetail.cfm?ID=6422 which sort of implies that the large size is cassia, but doesn't say explicitly). Might be worth mentioning somewhere in the text. 24.218.200.121 15:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Frank

Canela Molida literally translates as "worn-out cinnamon", according to http://babelfish.altavista.com. I suspect it means "ground" as that's the label on McCormick ground cinnamon. In any case, it's cassia. I can't imagine consuming enough ground cinnamon as cinnamon rolls and cinnamon toast to make a difference, but a couple of companies offer 800mg and 1000 mg capsules of cinnamon/cassia. I think I'm currently taking Rexall. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 18:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Healing with Cinnamon

The section Healing with Cinnamon is not written in a NPOV and should be either re-written or deleted. All medical claims should be backed up by references.

health claim

I cut the following

"About a half a teaspoon a day of cinnamon protects against the onset of cardiovasular disease and lowers blood sugar.[1]"

because the citation doesn't say that, and the article already has links to the cassia/diabetes study--Mongreilf 12:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I added that. You may be partially correct. But the point is this. A new study has just come out, just a day or so ago, about the effects of cinnamon -- not the old study about cassia. Please find this recent study, its source is in the article I linked, and post it up in words that are better. The point of Wikipedia is to help people. A brand new study on cinnamon will help people. The half teaspoon claim is from a doctor who does regular stories on FoxNews TV who discussed this new study on the air. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

sure. put it all back with the citation the study itself, rather than the news article--Mongreilf 14:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Did they use real cinnamon in Khan's study or cassia? The term "cinnamon" appears to be used quite frequently for both plants, so how are we supposed to know if the article uses the term correctly or not? Eating teaspoons full of cassia each day could be unhealthy (because of the high coumarin level). And if they only cassia in their studies, eating spoonfuls of true cinnamon might be useless... --PsychoPiglet 18:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cinnamon is also known by the names Sweet Wood, Cassia and Gui Zhi. The parts of this plant used medicinally are the dried inner bark of the shoots, and the oil distilled from the bark and leaves. Cinnamon is an ancient herbal medicine mentioned in Chinese texts as long ago as 4,000 years. Cinnamon was used in ancient Egypt for embalming. In ancient times, it was added to food to prevent spoiling. During the Bubonic Plague, sponges were soaked in cinnamon & cloves, and placed in sick rooms. Cinnamon was the most sought after spice during explorations of the 15th and 16th centuries. It has also been burned as an incense. The smell of Cinnamon is pleasant, stimulates the senses, yet calms the nerves. Its smell is reputed to attract customers to a place of business. Most Americans consider Cinnamon a simple flavoring, but in traditional Chinese medicine, it's one of the oldest remedies, prescribed for everything from diarrhea and chills to influenza and parasitic worms. Cinnamon comes from the bark of a small Southeast Asian evergreen tree, and is available as an oil, extract, or dried powder. It's closely related to Cassia (Cassia tora), and contains many of the same components, but the bark and oils from Cinnamon have a better flavor. Cinnamon has a broad range of historical uses in different cultures, including the treatment of diarrhea, rheumatism, and certain menstrual disorders. Traditionally, the bark was believed best for the torso, the twigs for the fingers and toes. Research has highlighted hypoglycemic properties, useful in diabetes. Cinnamon brandy is made by soaking crushed Cinnamon bark a "fortnight" in brandy. Chinese herbalists tell of older people, in their 70s and 80s, developing a cough accompanied by frequent spitting of whitish phlegm. A helpful remedy, they suggest, is chewing and swallowing a very small pinch of powdered cinnamon. This remedy can also help people with cold feet and hands, especially at night. Germany's Commission E approves Cinnamon for appetite loss and indigestion. The primary chemical constituents of this herb include cinnamaldehyde, gum, tannin, mannitol, coumarins, and essential oils (aldehydes, eugenol, pinene). Cinnamon is predominantly used as a carminative addition to herbal prescriptions. It is used in flatulent dyspepsia, dyspepsia with nausea, intestinal colic and digestive atony associated with cold & debilitated conditions. It relieves nausea and vomiting, and, because of its mild astringency, it is particularly useful in infantile diarrhea. The cinnamaldehyde component is hypotensive and spasmolytic, and increases peripheral blood flow. The essential oil of this herb is a potent antibacterial, anti-fungal, and uterine stimulant. The various terpenoids found in the volatile oil are believed to account for Cinnamon’s medicinal effects. Test tube studies also show that Cinnamon can augment the action of insulin. However, use of Cinnamon to improve the action of insulin in people with diabetes has yet to be proven in clinical trials. Topical applications of Cinnamon include use as a hair rinse for dark hair, and as a toothpaste flavoring to freshen breath. As a wash, it prevents and cures fungal infections such as athletes foot. It is also used in massage oils. You can also place Cinnamon in sachets to repel moths. Its prolonged use is known to beautify the skin and promote a rosy complexion. The common name Cinnamon encompasses many varieties, including Cinnamomum cassia and Cinnamomum saigonicum, which are used interchangeably with Cinnamomum zeylanicum.
Recent News: Cinnamon Spice Produces Healthier Blood November 24th 2003 - Cinnamon significantly reduces blood sugar levels in diabetics, a new study has found. The discovery was initially made by accident, by Richard Anderson at the US Department of Agriculture's Human Nutrition Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland. "We were looking at the effects of common foods on blood sugar," he told New Scientist. One was the American favorite, apple pie, which is usually spiced with cinnamon. "We expected it to be bad. But it helped," he says.

Sugars and starches in food are broken down into glucose, which then circulates in the blood. The hormone insulin makes cells take in the glucose, to be used for energy or made into fat. But people with Type 1 diabetes do not produce enough insulin. Those with Type 2 diabetes produce it, but have lost sensitivity to it. Even apparently healthy people, especially if they are overweight, sedentary or over 25, lose sensitivity to insulin. Having too much glucose in the blood can cause serious long-term damage to eyes, kidneys, nerves and other organs.

Molecular Mimic - The active ingredient in cinnamon turned out to be a water-soluble polyphenol compound called MHCP. In test tube experiments, MHCP mimics insulin, activates its receptor, and works synergistically with insulin in cells. To see if it would work in people, Alam Khan, who was a postdoctoral fellow in Anderson's lab, organized a study in Pakistan. Volunteers with Type 2 diabetes were given one, three or six grams of cinnamon powder a day, in capsules after meals. All responded within weeks, with blood sugar levels that were on average 20 per cent lower than a control group. Some even achieved normal blood sugar levels. Tellingly, blood sugar started creeping up again after the diabetics stopped taking cinnamon. The cinnamon has additional benefits. In the volunteers, it lowered blood levels of fats and "bad" cholesterol, which are also partly controlled by insulin. And in test tube experiments it neutralized free radicals, damaging chemicals which are elevated in diabetics.

Cinnamon Helps Type 2 Diabetes - Also Helps Cholesterol December 5th, 2003 - A spicy tip: Cinnamon can improve glucose and cholesterol levels in the blood. For people with type 2 diabetes, and those fighting high cholesterol, it's important information. Researchers have long speculated that foods, especially spices, could help treat diabetes. In lab studies, cinnamon, cloves, bay leaves, and turmeric have all shown promise in enhancing insulin's action, writes researcher Alam Khan, PhD, with the NWFP Agricultural University in Peshawar, Pakistan. His study appears in the December issue of Diabetes Care.

Botanicals such as cinnamon can improve glucose metabolism and the overall condition of individuals with diabetes - improving cholesterol metabolism, removing artery-damaging free radicals from the blood, and improving function of small blood vessels, he explains. Onions, garlic, Korean ginseng, and flaxseed have the same effect. In fact, studies with rabbits and rats show that fenugreek, curry, mustard seeds, and coriander have cholesterol-improving effects. But this is the first study to actually pin down the effects of cinnamon, writes Kahn. Studies have shown that cinnamon extracts can increase glucose metabolism, triggering insulin release - which also affects cholesterol metabolism. Researchers speculated that cinnamon might improve both cholesterol and glucose. And it did!

The 60 men and women in Khan's study had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for an average of 6 1-2 years but were not yet taking insulin. The participants in his study had been on anti-diabetic drugs that cause an increase in the release of insulin. Each took either wheat-flour placebo capsules or 500 milligram cinnamon capsules.

   * Group 1 took 1 gram (two capsules equaling about one-quarter of a teaspoon) for 20 days.
   * Group 2 took 3 grams (six capsules, equaling a little less than one teaspoon) for 20 days.
   * Group 3 took 6 grams (twelve capsules, equaling about one and three-quarters teaspoons) for 20 days

Blood samples were taken at each level of the study.

Cinnamon made a difference! Twenty days after the cinnamon was stopped, there were significant reductions in blood glucose levels in all three groups that took cinnamon, ranging from 18 to 29%. But these was one peculiar finding that researchers don't understand at this point. Only the group that consumed the lowest level of cinnamon continued with significantly improved glucose levels - group 1. The placebo groups didn't get any significant differences.

Taking more cinnamon seems to improve the blood levels of fats called triglycerides. All the patients had better triglyceride levels in their 40-day tests - between 23% to 30% reductions. Those taking the most cinnamon had the best levels. In groups taking cinnamon pills, blood cholesterol levels also went down, ranging from 13% to 26%; LDL cholesterol also known as "bad" cholesterol went down by 10% to 24% in only the 3- and 6-gram groups after 40 days. Effects on HDL ("good cholesterol") were minor.

Smoking

Why does my comment about smoking gets deleted?

Some youngs do smoke Cinnamon, Contrary to popular belief Cinnamon is dangerous for your lungs just as much as Cigarettes. --88.212.103.120 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

if u did some research u would know smoking anything except for plain water vapor, is bad for your your lungs it doesn't matter what herb you smoke Markthemac (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Toxicity?

However unreliable, I overheard an IV drug user asserting that intravenous injection of cinnamon will cause blindness. Can this be corroborated? __meco 20:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

First, why would someone inject cinnamon into their arm, wow desperate for a high. Second, as I stated below with the tablespoon comment, soooo not encyclopedic, not even a medical phenomenon. More like a natural selection phenomenon.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Article on Tang references failure on an attempt by authorities to prevent methadone abuse by adulteration with Tang. Should we assume any logic in people who willingly inject non-prescription materials? Further, the relative toxicity of coumarin (both oral and injected, whether intramuscular or intravenous) is of interest here. Perhaps the CRC reference on relative toxicity of materials. See also section below entitled "Bad for you" 76.243.222.189 (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Judaism?

I'm curious to know why this entry is part of WikiProject Judaism. I'd appreciate your answer.

Dunno. I've removed it now. Only link I can think of is the spices that are smelled at the conclusion of the Shabbat. But any spice will do, not just cinnamon. JFW | T@lk 19:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably because of the Temple Incense which had cinnamon as an ingredient, or maybe because of the legend that cinnamon used to grow in the holyland so prevelantly that they fed it to goats, it is a spice forbidden to smell alone as the proper blessing is not known, and many say it is the smell of the world to come. Seaking of which, the article mentions the Hebrew is qinnâmôn. In fact qinnamon is Aramaic, not Hebrew. The modern Hebrew word for cinnamon is Kinnamon, but it is a loan from Rabbinical Aramaic and doesn't belong in the antiquities names section as the language was invented in the 19th century. 79.177.238.234 (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Inability to eat a teaspoon?

Shouldn't something be in here about its inability to eat as a powder? Here is proof.

http://www.hallpass.com/media/haveyoutakenthecinnamonchallenge.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.92.155 (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You can eat a teaspoon full of cinnamon, if you mix it with something else. I can recommend putting it in cereal, porridge and fruit salad, and there are many other uses that I haven't tried, yet. It's a pretty silly idea to eat a teaspoon of any dry powder by itself (especially powders that don't mix easily with water). I'm sure you wouldn't like putting a spoonful of cocoa into your mouth! --PsychoPiglet 17:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually used to eat a spoonful of cocoa plain when I made chocolate milk as a kid, it does not have the same effect at all. 174.68.77.17 (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Tons of videos on Youtube and Break.com etc. show people (often attractive young ladies) being convinced via peer pressure etc. to take the "Cinnamon Challenge". I guess due to its powdery state and the fact that it is a spice (i.e. reacts with/produces more saliva) it is "impossible"? Seems most people think they are succeeding, then they cough out a mouthful of dry powder, often complaining of some entering their lungs. Perhaps the wikipedia article should have a "do not try the Challenge" warning ;) 199.214.27.180 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We could also have a mention on the article for Drano stating not to drink a tablespoon of that either, but common sense states that this is unnecessary. Fools on Youtube.com downing teaspoons/tablespoons of cinnamon is not encyclopedic, it is just stupidity and has no place in an encyclopedia.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just watched a video of a young man trying to eat a teaspoon of cinnamon and I might say it is a disturbing experience. It shows that it is not "impossible", but surely, it isn't pleasant at all. Healthycare (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to mix cinnamon with, if you are taking it for ANY health reason, is honey. Honey is even safe for Diabetics if taken in small doses and has some wonderful health benefits all by itself itself. If you can not tolerate the paste it makes, mix it in a few ounces of water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoddessDi (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Replace NPR link

The NPR audio link for "Christmas cookies" is nice but not very specific and several layers removed from the original info. The following link is much closer to the source and includes more details. I'd recommend using it instead or additionally. It's from an official German Federal Government agency and should thus be o.k. for quoting. It is in English. If s.o. could please put it in??? Thanks. http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/245/consumers_who_eat_a_lot_of_cinnamon_currently_have_an_overly_high_exposure_to_coumarin.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.30.124 (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The linked article is only concerned about the toxicity of cassia cinnamon. --PsychoPiglet (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Cassia/Cinnamon in the US

I finally tracked down some true cinnamon at a hispanic grocer, and boy is it different... this is after 5 false starts with people (including hispanic grocers) who said thay had "canela" that was actually cassia.

Anyway, this page states that C. aromaticum (Cassia) is used universally as "cinnamon" in the US, and that Cassia is the only one that makes thick-barked quills (while true cinnamon is the only one that makes thin-barked quills). But then the C. Burmannii page states that it is the cheapest ground substitute for cinnammon, and used commonly in the US - while also stating that it will form quills. Based purely on wikipedia entries, I suspect someone is describing Cassia (aromaticum) in the Burmannii page, but I'm not an expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesqual (talk • contribs) 05:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I once put these links in but they got removed as commercial...well, one is still there on the C. Burmannii page... anyway the main name-brand retail spice company in the US claims they sell Cassia as "ground cinnamon", whereas Frontier, a leading supplier to co-ops and natural food stores, sells a variety of types but what they label as just plain ground cinnamon is listed as C. Burmannii, and they label Cassia as "Chinese cinnamon". If you want to try all of them and compare, Frontier seems like a good place to order from. One inconsistency on the Frontier page: They list Korintje as being Cassia on this side bar, but if you click on the individual product links, they list it as C. Burmannii. I assume the sidebar is a mistake--maybe I'll send them a note and see if they know which is right.

One other tidbit as far as figuring out what is most common in the US: Penzeys (a "gormet" spice supplier) lists Korintje (C. B.) as "the cinnamon we [Americans] all remember from our childhood". Perhaps suppliers such as McCormick have switched from C. B. to Cassia.Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

djlsflaNCX o;aih onlhwdlh o;ij;laiwdo 'p"{ qeA [;E;JASF ;IHAOSURFOUHSD LPDARPKO afhlkufohosuhdf lhelfhos HF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.104.202.86 (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

C. verum vs. C. zeylanicum

I changed C. zeylanicum to C. verum in the taxobox because that seems to be the standard/preferred name in this and linking articles. I don't assert that one is superior botanically, just that we need consistency. ENeville (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So where can you buy the bloody stuff?

I'm trying to find where in Australia you can buy Ceylon cinnamon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.17.33 (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Where to buy? is a good question, the markets are flooded with Cassia... Leave a message on my talk page if you want to know more about where you can get it.. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 06:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting Information

Both this page and the one detailing myrrh state that the Emperor Nero burned over a year's worth of (either) incense at the funeral of his wife. While very possible, the way the two sentences are worded (almost exactly the same, neither one mentioning the other incense) leads me to believe that only one of the substances was in fact used. This is purely conjecture but I thought it worth taking a look at. When I get time I'll locate some sources to clarify things. - TulliTZT 1:17pm 30 January 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TulliTZT (talk • contribs)

Bad for you?

The two instances of the phrase "bad for you" look like vandalism (by the anonymous gibberish nonsense adder above?) - but what about the reference to coumarin - injurious dosage is specified where? [Just noted here to flag possible uncaught vandalism on the article page] 76.243.222.189 (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC) - ClueBot auto-reverted "Bad for you" edits per probable cause, asking about false positive, on article page, but we still don't have numerical dosage limit for injury from coumarin... 76.243.222.189 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Coumarin (note: not Coumadin) cites a teaspoon of coumarin-containing cinnamon as around the tolerable daily ingestion dosage for small humans. Also, the National Cancer Institute, citing liver toxicity, led to a ban on coumarin-containg foodstuffs... so how is coumarin-containing cinnamon being imported? 76.243.222.189 (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

see also Toxicity, above. 76.243.222.189 (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving content around

I moved the stuff on names in different languages to the nomenclature section. It's actually kind of weird to have that in there at all--we don't have a section in each article listing names in other languages. But I guess it's kind of useful for trying to understand cuisine from different regions, so I didn't delete it.

Then I considered that lead vs. the rest of the article. The lead was mostly about the plant, and about the chemistry of the flavor. This didn't reflect the whole of the article so I moved the stuff about the plant to a new "the plant" section, and the stuff about the flavor to the uses section, and then re-wrote the lead to make something that I hope is more reflective of the whole.

--Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cassia Cinnamon versus Cassia

Cassia Cinnamon is a Cinnamon. Please see the genus name. Cassia usually means something other than Cassia Cinnamon. Please see [[Cassia_(legume)]. Aside from the Wikipedia entries, I have never seen "Cassia" standing alone to refer to Cassia Cinnamon. Eshouthe (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

American Diabetes Association

The study that is referenced for the claim "Cinnamon has been reported to have remarkable pharmacological effects in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus and insulin resistance [...]" is from a journal associated with the American Diabetes Association. The study was done in 2003. In 2007 the ADA claims that "Cinnamon Has No Benefit for People With Diabetes" (http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-research/summaries/baker-cinnamon-has-no-benefit-for-people-with-diabetes.jsp). Shouldn't the previous claim be removed or at least amended? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.63.76 (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That ADA reversing position link is gone. In a nutshell the oldest study, Khan 2003, had great results: fasting blood glucose down 24.1%. In nine subsequent human trials the results have been more modest: 5 to 17% decrease, sometimes statistically significant and sometimes not. A 2013 review by Allen et al concluded "The consumption of cinnamon is associated with a statistically significant decrease in levels of fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, LDL-C, and triglyceride levels, and an increase in HDL-C levels; however, no significant effect on hemoglobin A1c was found." Most of those trials with cassia. Some with the spice and some with an extract.

Allen RW, Schwartzman E, Baker WL, Coleman CI, Phung OJ. Cinnamon use in type 2 diabetes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Fam Med. 2013 Sep-Oct;11(5):452-459. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 01:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

I just deleted some material in some possibly bold edits; there were two sentences that seemed to have problems with weasel words and were sourced on websites that seemed to be promoting products and did not come close to meeting WP:RS. I also removed the link to the "cinnamon challenge" website...I'd rather find a reliable source discussing the issue of trying to eat cinnamon and having it dry your mouth...instead of linking to a site like that. Please discuss here if there is any issue with these edits! =) Cazort (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Toothache

I know that cinnamon has been used since times immemorial both as spice and a herbal remedy. While it contains a number of active ingredients to help relieve toothache, I had not a really great experience in treating my tooth ache. Maybe I've done it wrong, but everything was done according to instructions and well, I had a mixture of honey and cinnamon with little or no effect at all. Who knows, maybe my preparation instructions were wrong or something. Anyone has a better experience with this kind of cinnamon use? Healthycare (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinnamon vs Cassia section unorganised

I found the Cinnamon versus Cassia plus other types of Cinnamon section a bit unorganised and overwhelming.Im wishing to edit it to make it more streamlined.Does anyone have any objections with this?Severina123 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Split

The article should be split into one about the tree and one about the spice. The current article a mixture of both.Smallman12q (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that the information about cassia and similar spices should be split out. Perhaps we can have one article about Ceylon Cinnamon, which can cover both the spice and the plant, and one about Cinnamon, which can be more general and can cover uses of all spices commonly referred to as cinnamon. I think this is a better split considering the content. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I presume one of the articles would be called Cinnamomum verum not C. zeylanicum as indicated in the split suggestion template? 78.151.254.107 (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsure: I'm generally inclined to leave articles concerning a plant and its uses together, especially when splitting would create a stub. Here, though, there seems to be some confusion over what can actually be called cinnamon, with the article seemingly fending off several closely related species. If the name 'cinnamon' can actually be applied to any of these species, then I would agree with a split. I'd second the IP user above, however, that it should be to C. verum rather than C. zeylanicum. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What species are cinnamon?

The article at present goes to some pains to define cinnamon as only Cinnamomum verum, although it acknowledges that other species of Cinnamomum are often sold as cinnamon. The narrow definition would therefore seem to go against common usage (according to WP:COMMONNAME, "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms"). The US FDA accepts three species as cinnamon [2]. In the UK, I can't find regulations, but the Spices and Seasonings Association (a trade body) lists four species under cinnamon [3]. I believe that we should make this article (cinnamon) reflect this broader sense, while splitting content on C. verum out to its own page, where it could be described as "true cinnamon, Ceylon cinnamon, or Sri-lanka cinnamon". Thomas Kluyver (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your observation that the definition of cinnamon should be more inclusive. It would be most appropriate to associate it with the genus rather than species or all members of the genus which are used in ways typical for 'cinnamon'. Typical uses of cinnamon would be culinarily or aromatically (as scent). Describing C. verum as "the true cinnamon" would still be misleading because it would exclude other cinnamons from being validly called cinnamon. Suitable adjectives for it may be "prototypical" or "canonical" cinnamon to indicate that from the perspective of those who chose the name "C. verum" it is the reference or baseline.

Wikipedia indicates culinary or aroma use for following species.

• Cinnamomum camphora
• Cinnamomum burmannii
• C. tamala (Malabathrum)
• Cinnamomum parthenoxylon
• Cinnamomum oliveri
• Cinnamomum loureiroi

I advocate associating "Cinnamon" with the genus. Maybe after we would determine a species as being unsuitable for all uses associated with "cinnamon" we would then reduce scope of the included species by employing a white list or black list. A black list would be more maintainable and we could be more confident of its accuracy. There is no species indicated in Wikipedia as being unsuitable for both culinary and aroma use.

Likewise, we also need to fix articles which refer to cassia cinnamon as "cassia". Interpreting "cassia" independently without qualification, as in "cassia cinnamon" is an atypical interpretation of "cassia". Eshouthe (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this should be split. I think C. verum, C. burmannii and C. aromaticum should all get their own articles, which should detail growth, cultivation, and botanical history, as well as any uses which are specific to that plant. Cinnamomum can remain associated with the genus, and Cinnamon should be reserved for the spice, including all of the above. This way we'll be able to discuss cinnamon from a culinary and aromatic perspective there, plus an overview of the cinnamon trade and its history, which will include historical differences between the plants.

Eshouthe, I don't think Cinnamon should redirect to the genus, because there's a lot of overlapping content in the various Cinnamomum articles that should be collected in an article about the spice, and the genus contains a lot of plants which aren't used as a spice. I agree that the use of "cinnamon" and "cassia" is confusing; "cassia" should probably be restricted to the C. cassia article. I'm not sure if cassia should point to the DAB or the plant.

is there is consensus that C. verum should get its own article?~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 16:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cassia should definitely remain pointing to it's current disambiguation page, IMHO. Give consensus a couple of days--I've notified a handful of users who've commented above on the definition of cinnamon. Obviously (from the article) someone was quite convinced that cinnamon should only refer to C. verum, so I wouldn't want to start re-organising things too hastily, only to trigger a row. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I rescind my statement about interpretation of "cassia". I found a few old texts at Project Guterberg which list definitions of "cassia" where 1 of the definitions is Cinnamomum Cassia. It would be stronger evidence to additionally find some old recipes where "cassia" was used unqualified but clear from context.

1 text (Encyclopaedia Brittanica 11th edition, 1911, I think) stated that C. verum was prefered in England but C. Cassia in southern nations. Some text with short references exhibited 'cinnamon snobbery' about the superiority of C. verum aka C. zeylanicum . I have tried the 2 side by side and prefer C. Cassia. C. zeylanicum tastes more like saw dust to me (I exagerate, but still...).  ;-) Eshouthe (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the split into a main article about all the spices, under this title (Cinnamon), and a separate article C. verum. But what would we call the C. verum article? Cimnnamon (Cinnamomum verum)? or just Cinnamomum verum? I'm inclined towards (Cinnamomum verum). Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with just Cinnamomum verum. On Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), it says: "Note that it is often possible to distinguish between plant taxon and plant product... When a decision is made to treat them separately, the taxon article should use the scientific name.". WP:PLANTS also favours the use of scientific names. For a roughly analogous case, see Coffea arabica. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have prepared a stub as a basis for the cinnamon article. It is structured to use quotes for verifiability and discussion. Eshouthe (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need a new article for cinnamon--the existing article is largely about the spice (history, cultivation, species, uses...), so we'll just split out the C. verum bits onto a separate page, tweak the bits about other species to fit the broader definition, and we've got a (non-stub) article already. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would not say that a new basis for the article is necessary. I anticipate that it will be more reliable to maintain high quality and verifiability by managing what content enters a new article than to audit and prune the existing article. Better oversight of the new article may mean less overhead work due to better overview. Practically, I have doubt that the necessary work will be done to have thoroughly high verifiability without a new article basis. Eshouthe (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better to start with a rich article that's not fully verified, and verify/prune it, than to wipe the slate clean and try to build a verified article from scratch. If either task weren't completed, I'd rather have an article with more content, even if it's not all rock solid. Removing a whole lot of relevant content without attempting to verify it is a bad idea, especially since the existing article has quite a few references. Also, don't forget that you shouldn't manage an article too closely; even if you started it, it's not yours. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

But it is mine and yours and everybody's who contributes to it. It is a collective work. Where you got the idea to phrase this as personal to me, I have no idea, but it is unsuitable. Eshouthe (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I misread your intentions—the idea of "managing what content enters a new article" sounded a bit protective. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be consensus that cinnamon should be more broadly defined than just C. verum, I've been bold and made the split. We can, I hope, work from here. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

alzheimers research

CEppt, an extract of cinnamon bark, seems treat a mouse model of Alzheimers disease says Orally Administrated Cinnamon Extract Reduces β-Amyloid Oligomerization and Corrects Cognitive Impairment in Alzheimer's Disease Animal Models. Added ref under Research - Rod57 (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Unknown to europeans?

I'd highly like to see a citation for the statement 'its origin was a mystery to Europeans until the sixteenth century'. I was unable to find anything supporting this via a cursory google search. It would surprise me that, with all of the other imports from east asia, that such a relatively common commodity as cinnamon wouldn't have its origins known. I'm deleting this part for now, at least until its author can come back with a citation supporting the claim. 131.107.0.81 (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of medieval cooking uses cinnamon. The only citations I can find just by opening a book are 'Middelaldermad - Kulturhistorie, kilder og 99 opskrifter' by Bi Skaarup, 2000, ISBN-13 978-87-00-48716-1 and 'Mad og øl i Danmarks middelalder', 1978, Erik Kjersgaard, ISBN 87-480-0082-5. Both are in Danish but clearly describe how spice such as cinnamon is used, at least in the 13th century. However, I'm sure "Adamson, Melitta Weiss" (2004) Food in Medieval Times ISBN 0-313-32147-7 also has a lot of details about spices 90.185.194.71 (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the ancient Romans had samples of silk cloth but didnt know the exact origins of silk other than it came from traders from Rome's eastern borders. Could this be the case for cinnamon? Henry123ifa (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Canella map

The FAO statistics] shown in the map at right are called Cinnamon (Canella]) output in 2005. It is very unclear whether this is wild cinnamon, Canella, or a different spelling of cannella, so it is not clear whether it belongs on this page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Drat, I just added production data from a 1993, then I saw your link. Your map isn't shown (and I don't see how to get stable links to anything in FAOSTAT), but I was able to do a Countries by Commodity search. My 1993 source is badly out of date (production is up ~5 fold), but the rankings haven't changed much. Indonesia, China, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Madagascar are top producers. According to [4], FAO does not distinguish between cinnamon and cassia. I'd guess "canella" is a misspelling intended to be recognizable to people speaking Romance languages.

The Cinnamomum burmannii article has an unreferenced claim that it is the most common cinnamon species. If C. burmannii is indeed the main cinnamon produced in Indonesia, this may be true. I'm going to see if I can track down a copy of [5], which may address production by species.Plantdrew (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that expedition into the spice lands. If you have trouble finding the book, let me know; apparently I do have access to it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Cinnamon oil as an acne treatment

Back in the late 1960s, when my neighbor was a teenager, he had a prescription for cinnamon oil in a tiny little flask. By dipping his toothpick into the oil in the flask, he put it on his tongue. Since the oil was very piquant (having a hot flavor), it would cause his face to be flushed, and the salts of his perspiration sweated out. That way the salts (and other kinds of dirt that otherwise collected on the sebum) could be washed off that much more easily. This was a standard treatment for acne in the 1960s, subsequently made obsolete from the increasingly widespread use of retin-A. I don't believe minors were allowed to buy cinnamon oil on their own, but had to have a doctor prescribe it for them. The main page of this article would be improved with a paragraph or two on the medical uses that cinnamon oil was put to. 216.99.201.246 (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You could try adding that (with sources, of course), but there's a sub-species of wikipedia editor who cite WP:MEDRS and stalk pages, removing any material that resembles medical information and cites anything other than recent review articles in high-priced journals that state that the treatment is the current, clinically proven, treatment of choice. Just a warning that frustration may result from efforts to include historical information ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

This article has a history of using British/international spelling that goes back to the first version of the page, and by WP:ENGVAR since there are no strong national ties to US English, that tradition should be maintained. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Cultivation and species

The use of synonyms like Vietnamese cinnamon and Chinese cinnamon without the scientific name (to indicate that the species is meant) could mislead a casual reader. Use of the term Cassia on it's own is ambiguous.

• Chinese cinnamon can come from China, Vietnam, India, Indonesia; Ceylon or Sri Lanka cinnamon comes mainly from Sri Lanka but also from the Seychelles and Madagascar.
• Cinnamon from Indonesia isn't always Indonesian Cinnamon and cinnamon from Vietnam isn't necessarily Vietnamese cinnamon.
• True cinnamon is contrasted with ""cassia", the latter containing much more coumarin, but C. Cassia is called Chinese Cinnamon, Vietnamese cinnamon is sometimes called Vietnamese Cassia and Indonesian cinnamon which contains much less coumarin (according to the article) is also called Padang Cassia.
• The text claims "European health agencies have recently warned against consuming large amounts of cassia.", but the provided source only talks about cinnamon, cassia isn't mentioned at all.
  

It's unclear if the section cultivation (apart from "Global production of the other species averages 20,000-25,000 tons, of which Indonesia produces around two-thirds of the total, with significant production in China. India and Vietnam are also minor producers.[1]") relates to Cinnamom verum only. Ssscienccce (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I also noticed that no mention is made of safrole, a group 2B (potential) carcinogen present in cinnamon. Ssscienccce (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Attribution

The section on cinnamon flavored liquors was lifted in large part from Fireball Cinnamon Whisky‎. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"Use as an alcohol flavorant"

This whole section reads to me like advertising and brand-promoting more than useful encyclopedic content. I propose it is significantly pared down and integrated back into the parent "Uses" section. Cromas (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Support - Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support - CorinneSD (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Etymology" section

I was asked to check the "Etymology" section for potentially irrelevant or misleading material, and I've come to rewrite it completely, based on the OED, the standard source for English etymologies (and rename the section to "names"). There were several problems here:

1. It was full of irrelevant material about translations in random south Asian languages. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so unless those variants are relevant to the history of the concept in English, they are irrelevant here.
2. I couldn't verify the claim that Sinhala kurundu was once borrowed into English as korunda (this would be relevant if sourced properly though).
3. The section cited a source [6], by Shimshon Ben Yehoshua et al. (2012), "Francincense, Myrrh and Balm of Gilead: Ancient spices of Southern Arabia and Judea", Horticultural Reviews 39:9, which makes the claim that the Phoenician model of Greek kinnamomon may in turn have been borrowed from Malay kayu manis. Ben Yehoshua et al. are in turn citing this claim to a book by James I. Miller (1998), The spice trade of the Roman Empire. However, as far as I can see (from Google snippets), Miller isn't in fact making any such claim. It also sounds like a highly naive amateur pseudo-etymology (has anybody checked what the form would have been in whatever proto-form of Malay was spoken two and a half millennia ago, when Phoenician would have borrowed it?). Likewise, Ben Yehoshua speculates that cassia would have derived from Chinese kwei-shi (桂枝), which is implausible for much the same reasons (cassia has a well-accepted, totally independent etymology in Hebrew, and it was used in this form in Latin since antiquity, at a time when the pronounciation of the Chinese word would most likely have been unrecognizably different). Since Ben Yehoshua et al. are apparently mis-quoting their own sources here while roundly ignoring and contradicting the standard linguistic reference works, and since they are apparently horticulturalists, not linguists or historians, I have to conclude they are not a reliable source for us.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: Looking further, I found that at least one reliable linguistic reference work does take the kinnamomon < kayu-manis etymology seriously: G. Kluge's Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, citing an article by [Gerhard] Kahlo in Muttersprache (1961), p.31 (see online mirror [7]). Gerhard Kahlo was apparently an expert on Malay, so this would be a decent source. Unfortunately I haven't been able to locate the exact ref in the 1961 journal yet; once I do, I'll probably add that back into the article. Fut.Perf. ☼

Update 2: Oh dear. This is getting more and more messy. Just when I thought Kluge was a reliable reference... the article by Kahlo is the following: Kahlo, Gerhard (1960), "Malayo-polynesische Wörter im Deutschen", Muttersprache 70: 31–32. But Kahlo not only isn't confirming that proposed link between kinnamomon and kayu-manis, he is explicitly contradicting it. Apparently the etymology had previously been proposed by Hans Goetsch (1957), "Fremdlinge mit Heimatrecht in der deutschen Sprache", Muttersprache 67, p.129ff. Now we'll have to hunt down that one... Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

History

There is a note to editors (visible only in Edit Mode) at the end of the twelfth paragraph in the History section. The note reads:

"Before the foundation of Cairo, Alexandria was the Mediterranean shipping port of cinnamon. Europeans who knew the Latin writers who were quoting Herodotus knew cinnamon came up the Red Sea to the trading ports of Egypt, but whether from Ethiopia or not was less than clear. the preceding sentence could use some work".

However, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with the content of the twelfth paragraph. It would have more to do with the second or eighth paragraph. Perhaps in the process of editing, it got inadvertently moved. Since it is not known for sure which paragraph was in need of "some work", maybe the note could be deleted. CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That comment was changed with this edit, and an editor had reverted it but was in turn reverted. Previously the coding said "Before the foundation of [[Cairo]], [[Alexandria]] was the [[Mediterranean]] shipping port of cinnamon. Europeans who knew the Latin writers who were quoting Herodotus knew cinnamon came up the [[Red Sea]] to the trading ports of Egypt, but whether from [[Ethiopia]] or not was less than clear.<!-- the preceding sentence could use some work -->" I don't know what the problem with that version is, perhaps the complaint is about sentence structure? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that sleuthing. The editor may have been objecting to "Europeans who knew the Latin writers who were quoting Herodotus". In "Europeans who knew the Latin writers", it sounds like the Europeans knew these writers personally, which is silly because I believe the Latin writers were from antiquity (Roman times). So it probably really means "Europeans who had read the works of Latin writers who were quoting Herodotus", but is all that really necessary? Perhaps if the information is worth keeping the sentence could be re-worded:

"From reading Latin writers who quoted Herodotus, Europeans had learned that cinnamon came up the Red Sea,..." CorinneSD (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd support that change. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The change has been made. CorinneSD (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess I had not yet made the change, because I can't find it, but will do so. CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

edits today

David notMD about these 2 edits - it is really unwise to mix together "traditional medicine" and actual medicine in a single section. The content is different, and the sourcing is different. For traditional medicine, we can make historical or anthropological statements about how traditional societies used or use some thing, but we don't make claims about safety and efficacy of those practices. So plain old WP:RS applies to that stuff. With regard to actual medical use, or as is more common, research about possible medical use, we do make claims about safety or efficacy, and WP:MEDRS applies, not WP:RS. So it doesn't make sense to blend them, as the subject matter is not the same.

More generally, please do not add any content to Wikipedia that is not cited to a reliable source per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS - those two diffs added a bunch of unsourced content. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog - I concur with not combining traditional medicine with modern medicine. However, the change you (or Peter?) made here deleted the entire description of the science that was based on the Allen meta-analysis, and the reference. What is the best way to use that information?David notMD (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi David thanks for your nice answer. I think a research section at the bottom would be useful. I just did the pubmed search for reviews and boy there is a lot of literature on health effects... a bunch of it really junky. If I were you (interested in building content on this) I would try to find the three most recent reviews (picking articles from the highest-quality journals as you can) and see what they have to say, and creating appopriately weighted content... A lot of work! But it would be a good addition. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The topic is complicated (and perhaps one I am too close to, as provider of expert science analysis to supplement companies). The situation here is that there are contradictory reviews (Medagama, Allen, Leach, Akilen), individual trials of varying quality, and then the questions of cassia or ceylon, cinnamon or extract. If I come back to this topic I will try to present a balanced summary based on the more recent reviews.David notMD (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Health claims

Looking at the section about health, there appears to be a mixture of reliably sourced information and more questionable claims (e.g. using henriettesherbal.com as a source). I'd like to go through and rework it, which will probably involve removing some of the material without citations, or with unreliable sources, as well as rewording some of the more jargon-packed sentences. I'll give it a few days in case anyone wants to discuss it, or feels that they're better qualified to undertake the task. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the Allen 2013 meta-analysis as a reasonable perspective on where the research stands. The linked site provides free access to the complete article as a PDF. This felt more useful than citing individual human trials, especially Khan 2003, which was the first trial (and with the best results). The net effect on fasting glucose appears to be on the order of a 10% decrease. A problem to be resolved are differences in what is being tested (cassia versus other; spice versus extract; dose; duration; etc.).David notMD (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@David notMD: the last bit you added (starting "One problem here ...") wasn't sourced and appeared therefore to be editorial comment, so I removed it. A source compliant with WP:MEDRS is needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It was based on my own opinion of the published literature. Per my note to J, I will try to readdress the topic with appropriate referencing.David notMD (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Toxicity

Is this toxicity information correct and up to date as of May 2016? I have read other information disputing the harmful/toxic effects of cinnamon. I do not know where I read it (other than being online on a medical site) but before I started taking cinnamon as a daily supplement I came across an article that stated something to the effect of - Cinnamon naturally contains the ingredients that counter the toxic ingredients, therefor effectively neutralizing any toxicity. It would be good to have this confirmed or have more on this subject. The way this is written people can misunderstand that cinnamon is toxic and should always be avoided, when doctors are recommending people use it as a health supplement for medical conditions (example: such as high blood pressure) or it is used in herbal practices such as Traditional Chinese Medicine as well as others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshallkelleye (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

it's accurate. if doctors are recommending it, and i doubt they are, that is what it is. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced

The following is unsourced. Moving it here per WP:PRESERVE:

In classical times, four types of cinnamon were distinguished (and often confused):

• True cinnamon , the bark of C. verum (also called C. zeylanicum) from Sri Lanka
• Malabathrum or malobathrum (from Sanskrit तमालपत्रम्, tamālapattram, literally "dark-tree leaves"), several species including C. tamala from the north of India
• Serichatum, C. cassia from Seres, that is, China
• Cassia (Hebrew קציעה qəṣi`â), the bark of Cinnamomum iners from Arabia and Ethiopia, literally "the peel of the plant" which is scraped from the tree

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

toxicity - coumarin variations

• Saigon cinnamon contains the highest amount of coumarin of all the four Cinnamomum species sold as cinnamon, with one study detecting 6.97 g/kg in an authenticated sample. (ref) Cassia Cinnamon as a Source of Coumarin in Cinnamon-Flavored Food and Food Supplements in the United States J. Agric. Food Chem., 61 (18), 4470–4476 (/ref)

Please add coumarin and other toxicity info for all of the varieties, not just cassia and verum. What about C. loureiroi (Saigon cinnamon)?-71.174.190.122 (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Of all varieties, it is only Verum that is low in coumarin. RhinoMind (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

In relation to your request, I believe it would be best to include this information on the individual pages of cinnamon varieties. Cassia is by far the most commonly available type of cinnamon so it makes sense to include it in this general article. Also most commercial cinnamon is a cassia variety or related to cassia. I know that in some areas, like Vietnam for example, a local type of cinnamon is primarily used, but these local customs should not cloud the general description in this article. RhinoMind (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

History section: Bible

I noticed that the history section does not have anything on the biblical mention of cinnamon yet, so I added something. I am having a bit of trouble with the references though - can't find any guidelines on how to cite biblical sources. Maybe someone can help with the formatting.

The biblical sources are all to be found online: Exodus 30:23, Song of Solomon 4:14, Revelation 18:13, Proverbs 7:17, Job 42:14.

Thanks. --93.212.232.58 (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"Biblical times" is a difficult construct and not something to go into in this article. I have adjusted. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

O.k., I can live with that, though I don't quite see the necessity for avoiding the word "bible" altogether.

Why did you delete the additional information though? The sheer mention is one thing, but isn't the context and the purpose what makes it interesting for an encyclopedia?

If you thought it wasn't well sourced, you might have said so. Though I can hardly imagine that this was a serious issue in this case. The aphrodisiac thing is obvious at one glance, and Keziah even has an article of her own. --93.212.232.58 (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"Bibie" is also a difficult construct that this page is not for getting into. Jews have no NT, for instance, but they call it Bible too. Added back the link to Keziah but the etymology is not certain. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems quite doubtful for this kind of topic whether the fact that the Bible mentions it is worth remarking on: it would be so if this was at all surprising (say, everybody thought the spice wasn't used until 1600 or something), but that isn't the case here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting meta-analyses on glucose

Currently, the article references only a NIH review that there is no lowering of fasting glucose or A1C. That in turn rests on the Leach 2012 (Cochrane) meta-analysis of ten trials. There are other published meta-analyses. Davis 2011 concluded FBG lower. Allen 2013 reported fasting blood glucose (FBG) lower, but no significant change to A1C; concerns expressed about heterogeneity of the data. Costello 2016 was a narrative review without meta-analysis; 11 of 11 trials reported lower fasting glucose. There should be some way of presenting the status of reviews of the literature other than a over-simplified statement of no benefit. David notMD (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@David notMD: please use your sources to correct the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

C - Text about FBG lowering, supported by the Allen 2013 meta-analysis, was in the article last spring, since removed. It could be restored, but there may be Wiki-editors who prefer the NIH position statement, which rests on the Cochrane meta-analysis. An important point here is that even the reviews concluding FBG was lowered caution that more research is needed because of the small size of the individual trials and the product, dose and subject variability, and potential that there has been publication bias (non-publication of negative results). David notMD (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing the nutrition section

The previous version here was revised to a more complete table here. It's not clear what the IP users are hoping to achieve with their reverting. --Zefr (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

disruption and edit warring

Please discuss proposed changes here.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting meta-analyses on glucose

Currently, the article references only a NIH review that there is no lowering of fasting glucose or A1C. That in turn rests on the Leach 2012 (Cochrane) meta-analysis of ten trials. There are other published meta-analyses. Davis 2011 concluded FBG lower. Allen 2013 reported fasting blood glucose (FBG) lower, but no significant change to A1C; concerns expressed about heterogeneity of the data. Costello 2016 was a narrative review without meta-analysis; 11 of 11 trials reported lower fasting glucose. There should be some way of presenting the status of reviews of the literature other than a over-simplified statement of no benefit. David notMD (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@David notMD: please use your sources to correct the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

C - Text about FBG lowering, supported by the Allen 2013 meta-analysis, was in the article last spring, since removed. It could be restored, but there may be Wiki-editors who prefer the NIH position statement, which rests on the Cochrane meta-analysis. An important point here is that even the reviews concluding FBG was lowered caution that more research is needed because of the small size of the individual trials and the product, dose and subject variability, and potential that there has been publication bias (non-publication of negative results). David notMD (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I've copied the above from archive-1 as I think we do need to also mention (for balance) some of the many studies and meta-analyses that suggest there may be some benefit re blood glucose levels. David notMD mentions some above. - Rod57 (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Allen 2013 = ( Allen, Robert W.; Schwartzman, Emmanuelle; Baker, William L.; Coleman, Craig I.; Phung, Olivia J. (2013-09-01). "Cinnamon Use in Type 2 Diabetes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". The Annals of Family Medicine. 11 (5): 452–459. doi:10.1370/afm.1517. ISSN 1544-1709. PMID 24019277. ) Anyone say that's not MEDRS ? Can we agree on something to put in a Research section ? - Rod57 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Allen report has significant holes in it, mainly due to the poor quality of studies reviewed. In the Results section, one can see the deficiencies, including inconsistencies of daily doses, format and frequency of intake, with or without food, and followup measures. It boils down to whether a meta-analysis of numerous weak trials is worth including in the article. It doesn't meet MEDRS and shouldn't be used, in my opinion. --Zefr (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The upshot of the Allen paper is that there is no clinical significance and the research is dodgy: however this is dressed-up in some flashes of over-excitable language. Essentially it doesn't contradict the Cochrane paper, which should be front and centre here. Alexbrn (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible removal from list

An entry in List of colors: A–F contained a link to this page.

The entry is :

• Cinnamon

I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Health claims section

Firstly, I am declaring a COI, as by profession I am a science consultant to dietary supplement companies that sell, among many products, cinnamon dietary supplements. None of my clients have ever asked me to edit a Wikipedia article, and to the best of my knowledge, none are aware that I am a Wikipedia editor.

The content I added on health claims leads with a clinical trial = primary research. This is not offered as evidence. Rather, it is identified as the historical starting point for cinnamon research into glucose and lipids management. I have attempted to maintain a neutral point of view by describing the results of five reviews, some of which incorporated meta-analysis. The conclusions conflict. The official U.S. National Institutes of Health evaluation, resting on the Cochrane review, is: No benefit. It appears that the European Food Safety Authority has not been asked to review a cinnamon and diabetes health claim, hence no published review. My personal opinion on this is that there are many drug options to managing plasma glucose and HbA1c, so cinnamon should not be presented as an attractive non-drug alternative. Ditto for lipid management. David notMD (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems appropriate as a summary of limited clinical research, leading me to change the subhead. Thanks for the work. --Zefr (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

England spelling

flavour and colour consistent throughout article, so do not use US spelling. David notMD (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The box at the top of this page already reflects that the article uses British English. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ksoheil.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)