Talk:Sweet corn

Untitled

I read some where a long time ago that corn actually has no nutritional value and it leaves your body in basically the same state that it went in, however digested, can anyone verify or disprove that? What is the nutritional value of corn? what vitamons does it have? --The_stuart 00:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Corn does have nutritional value but it also has limitations. Humans have difficulting digesting many kinds of plant fiber even though we ingest it every day. At http://whatscookingamerica.net/corn.htm you can find nutritional value of corn. An interesting article abstract reveals more info here about how cooking corn increases the electrolyte levels in corn. Corn contains a high amount of protien but humans can't use all of it. We require an amino acid called lysine to help break down protien and corn happens to be very low in lycine. See this article. -Liblamb

Corn in Mexico City dating back to 70,000 BC? Does human habitation of North America go back this far? -PK, NZ

No it doesn't. In fact, the whole first part of the Botanical History, dealing with the history of Maize itself was wrong, so I removed it to focus more on the origins of sweetcorn itself. -C

Myxtamalization

Is that necessary for this corn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

> no 69.107.118.10 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fix the corn - maize mess

The several articles on maize and corn are terribly confusing to readers in most in the world. This mess needs to be untangled and made reader friendly. Yes, there is an “Olde English” term for “corn” being any type of grain, but that is not what most people in the world use the term for. Various people have labeled corn/maize as fruit, grain, and vegetable. Lets not try botany but rather think of what people do with the end product. In actual usage, field corn is treated as a grain while sweet corn (fresh, frozen, canned, or corn on the cob) is clearly treated as a vegetable. There have been lively discussions on this in the archives but the issues are far from being resolved.

• the present article on corn only treats the Olde English “any grain” definition. A better title would be “corn (grain)”
• corn should redirect to either the corn disambiguation page or to the vegetable, sweet corn.
• OK, we can let the Europeans keep the maize article but dealing mostly with the grain, field corn.
• The corn disambiguation page should start with the most common world usage of the word “corn” and route readers to maize, field corn, sweet corn, or whatever type of this particular grain/vegetable they are interested in.

This will not satisfy all editors but it will make readers of Wikipedia much less confused. Grantmidnight (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: this has been cross-posted on various talk pages. To make the discussion easier, I suggest all comments be made at Talk:Corn#Fix the corn - maize mess. -kotra (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Trigger happy "Citation needed" removed!

Regaring the dumbed-down "" for proving that corn can be a pizza topping, you just have to go the pizza article instead of stupidly demanding an uttertly and most moronic uneeded quote. Likewise, if you want to "verify" that corn can also be used in salads, just look in Wikipedia for the entry salad! We are nearing 2012, so apparently the citation is only needed for the person who lazily demanded the citation that he himself hasn't bothered in filling in over three years and counting.

When somebody posts that "2+2=4" is already axiomatic, so adding to the article that "2+3 = 5" doesn't need any additional citations! Instead, first look up the Addition entry so you can look it up yourself instead of overfilling the whole article with crowding and pointless "citation needed" tags everywhere!

Sugars turn to starch

How long does it take before sugars in sweet corn turn to starch, and can the sugars be preserved by freezing the corn soon after picking? Pscollins60 (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Heath benefits of sweet corn

The cited source for the "anti cancer" properties of ferulic acid is actually just an article talking about the actual source, not to mention that the source only claims antioxidant properties, which does not equal anti-cancer properties. Here's the actual journal article: Processed Sweet Corn Has Higher Antioxidant Activity

Shouldn't the article use the actual journal article rather than a website post talking about it?

212.64.228.100 (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Consumption section

The following part seems a bit odd, especially the full sausage hot dogs part feels both quite a bit arbitrary and undefined (i mean what a sausage is made from and what makes it a "full sausage" can pretty much vary by producer and location and time...) what i mean that while it is a lively description of a diet but really far from being exact in the encyclopedical sense.

"In Brazil, sweet corn cut off from the cobs is generally eaten with peas (where this combination, given the practicality of steamed canned grains in an urban diet, is a frequent addition to diverse meals such as salads, stews, seasoned white rice, risottos, soups, pasta, and whole sausage hot dogs)." 89.134.199.32 (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC).

"Corn off the cob" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Corn off the cob. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 17#Corn off the cob until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)