|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|Nutrition was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Nutrition has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|To-do list for Nutrition:|
|Threads older than 90 days may be archived by.|
I am removing this paragraph:
- There are different kinds of carbohydrates—simple or refined, and unrefined. A typical American consumes about 50% of their carbohydrates as simple sugars, which are added to foods as opposed to sugars that come naturally in fruits and vegetables. These simple sugars come in large amounts in sodas and fast food. Over the course of a year, the average American consumes 54 gallons of soft drinks, which contain the highest amount of added sugars. Even though carbohydrates are necessary for humans to function, they are not all equally healthful. When machinery has been used to remove bits of high fiber, the carbohydrates are refined. These are the carbohydrates found in white bread and fast food.
Reasons: US-centric statements; confuses simple sugar (glucose, fructose, which occur plenty in fruits), the difference between 'refined carbohydrates' and refined grains, which are not mentioned in the bbc reference, but rather after clicking food groups/starchy groups. There is so much wrong with this paragraph that the article is better off without it. Han-Kwang (t) 18:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The citation bot found errors (6/29/2013) as follows:
doi_inactivedate, pmid, pmc. Tweak: doi, pages, pmid, pmc
- The corrections have been made. Please correct any inaccuracy, specifically, as needed.Fconaway (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. May I please ask why the History of nutrition is at the end of this article? Almost every case I can think of on Wikipedia would place history first. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Beats me. Somebody who does science templates simply deprecates history, and has suggested that it be put last. I've fought this template-mania in articles about chemical elements, for example. And for some elements, history is more important than it is for others (look at a few examples, to see how we've handled it)
There is no right or wrong answer, here, I would suggest. In general, younger people are less interested in history than older people. Is anybody interested in the history of medicine, other than old doctors? Not in my experience. The same is true to some extent in physics, and (to lesser extents) in other sciences.
Now, the other side of the argument is that people come to an encyclopedia to find out about X or Y, and it's wrong to make somebody wade though all the bad ideas about (say) atoms, before you let them in on the real dope about what we think about atoms in 2013. And I think there's a point to be made here. There is an entire articles on the history of this stuff at atomic theory and atomism. Is ANY of it really important if you're trying to find out something about what atoms ARE? Perhaps not really. Or a synopsis can stay at the end. History is more important to some subjects that other subjects, even in the sciences. If the history explains a lot of otherwise incomprehensible stuff about why we call something this or that, or think about it this way rather than that way, then it's probably easier to put the history in, for the benefit if the reader. Always the axiom is "put in the information at just the point that the reader is likely to want to know it." That sometimes means that some diluted history can go up front, especially as regards etymology, while leaving more detail later, and (always) a lot of detail to a proper sub-article, per WP:SS. So this is an art.
In all my own opinion is that you introduce aspects of history when needed to explain "why." The remainder of history as a subject in and of itself, can be swept up later (at the end if it's really boring). And of course, there are dedicated history articles to turn to when length drives you to it.
In short, feel free to mount rescue operations for aspects of history in any science. But make sure that what you're rescuing would be something a really interested person would want to know, at the point in your discussion that you bring it in. Is it helpful just here? If not, it can wait. SBHarris 01:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I think in this field where so little is known, and so much was discovered so recently, that history has to come first. We don't know enough to dodge it. Meanwhile, I tagged the history section since 1900 as unreferenced. When all of its claims have page numbers or links to reliable sources that anybody with a computer can read, then I would be bolder about moving it. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the chart was incomplete. The conditions caused by excessive amounts of Vitamin B1, B2, and B12 have not been stated. Here is an article that describes what happens when excess B12 is in the body: B12 in excess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximusAlphus (talk • contribs) 06:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Order of sections
Hello. I plan to make the following change in order of the sections next week unless there are objections. To explain, "Sports nutrition" is not a subset of "Animal nutrition". Neither is "malnutrition". No plans yet to move the history section up (because it's not done yet).
- 1 Animal nutrition
- 2 Plant nutrition
- 3 Sports nutrition
- 4 Malnutrition
- 5 History
- Yes, the article is in quite a jumble. Note duplication with human nutrition. #1 & #2 belong here. The lede seems weak. Might I suggest:
- Helpers at this page are appreciated.Rgdboer (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- One could also put the scientific history (first nutritionists, discovery of the function of vitamins) into the article Nutritional science. --FoodieBerlin (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Today I reordered the "Nutrients" section according to some simple categories from Joel Fuhrman 2014. I don't understand why no other Wikipedia editor has tried to categorize nutrients. Corrections are most welcome. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- William D. McArdle, Frank I. Katch, Victor L. Katch (2006). Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
- "Nutrition — Healthy eating: Bread, cereals and other starchy foods". BBC. July 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-09.