Talk:Essential nutrient

Top

In responce to User:86.143.2.251|86.143.2.251 - Water must be added to the list. The definition is indeed wrong. What it should say is that an essential nutrient is a nutrient required for normal body functioning that cannot be synthesized in required quantities by the body. Obviously, water consumption is essential and therefore for the accuracy of the article I insist its addition. If you stay so strict to a definition that someone just made up, then indeed you are a fool. I will add water and change the definition.

I do not think vitamin D belongs on here as the body can synthesize it from cholesterol with sufficient UV radiation. 71.131.15.243 12:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Alex[reply]

While obviously humans have to drink water to survive, water can be produced in small quantities by the body by dehydrating carbohydrates - so if you go by the definition "An essential nutrient is a nutrient required for normal body functioning that cannot be synthesized by the body.", water would not be one, would it? Also, if we're talking about all animals and not just humans, the desert kangaroo rat can survive without drinking water, and relies completely on metabolic water. I'll remove water from the list for now.

86.143.2.251 16:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phytochemicals page says these are non-essential. Resolution, anyone? Joestynes 05:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone has to bring this up - might as well be me: Flourine is not an essential nutrient. "See Item 1) in annotated article re flouridation" Dus7 04:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I could not track down the above reference to findings by the Institute of Medicine, National Academies (National Academy of Science). Perhaps it's in one of the for-purchase reports. However, Northwestern University states, "The evidence that fluorine is an essential nutrient has been obtained only from data in animals. The question of whether fluorine is essential to humans has not been resolved." "Factsheet, Northwestern University" They do, however, subscribe to the common belief that dietary flouride is beneficial for human teeth and bones. This is still open to discussion IMO. Dus7 06:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what do they think, can be the substitute for flouride in my teeth? When it is not essential, my teeth should exists without it.

Read tooth. Hydroxylapatite is. Basically calcium phosphate. Really its the other way round. F is not natural part of a human tooth (but probably a useful addition) --84.159.178.32 (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed arsenic, because as far as I can tell, it is not used by the human body, nor is it any longer administered as a supplement. I've also removed phytochemicals, because in the broad sense of the term, it includes other vitamins which are already listed seperately. In the narrower sense of the word (see article for clarification) it refers to compounds such as the flavonoids, which are right now only used as supplements by adherents of alternative medicine (i.e., homeopathy). Fuzzform 01:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Arsenic is one of the 'youngest' essential minerals. It is found in everyone and experiments in growing animaly without it, resulted in dead animals. So it is essential. Never forget, that the doses makes the poison.

Phytonutrients are broadly defined as "nutrients that are present in plants." Therefore a great number of essential vitamins are also phytonutrients. Fuzzform 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Phytonutrients? What a bull-shit...Is it, what plants eat or what plants gives us to eat?

(Coppertwig) Suggested changes to the Essential Nutrients page:

It would be useful to add a table with columns showing amounts of each nutrient recommended by various authors; also amounts present in a typical diet and amounts that tend to cause toxicity. It would also be useful to list, for each nutrient, symptoms of deficiency and symptoms of overdose.

For whom? Children, pregnant women, fat persons, old men, small women, old women? There are no numbers for everyone!

For this purpose, it may be a good idea to have a page for each nutrient, for example a page titled "zinc as an essential nutrient," containing information analogous to information on similar pages for the other nutrients. Currently it links to a page titled "zinc" which is analogous to pages about other elements which may or may not be nutrients; that is, it contains information irrelevant to someone searching for nutritional information. Or, perhaps a table of deficiency symptoms etc. could be added to the essential nutrients page, with information for each nutrient. I might be able to help find the information if this is desired.

I suggest adding "water (H2O)" to the list of essential nutrients.

Thats the most importent nutrient of all. Thats right! But if you start with water, you should explain the C and the N, too.

I suggest after "Pantothenic acid" insert "(vitamin B5)" and after "Niacin" insert "(vitamin B3)".

Under "see also" I think it would be helpful to have a link to the page on International Units. Oct. 31, 2006

(Coppertwig) Isn't Chlorine (or the Chloride ion) an essential nutrient? I don't see it in the list. For example I think the stomach produces HCl (hydrochloric acid) as stomach acid to help digest proteins. Cl is a component of ordinary salt NaCl. Coppertwig 20:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation convention

I inserted the word "sometimes" in square brackets inside the quote by Linus Pauling; this word does not appear in the original. Should I put after thw quote, "(word in square brackets added)" or something to make this clear, or is it enough that square brackets are conventionally used to mean that? Thanks to everyone collaborating on this page! --Coppertwig 13:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting B vitamins in order of number; and making a table of daily amounts

I'm thinking of rearranging the B vitamins by naming them as primarily B1, B2, B3, B5, B6 and B12, with other names such as Riboflavin in parentheses, and putting them in order of their numbers. I'm also starting to put together a table of estimates by various authors of minimum, typical, optimum, therapeutic and toxic daily amounts of the various nutrients; you can see the beginnings of a draft at User:Coppertwig/Sandbox2. Discuss here please. --Coppertwig 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about statements on page

The page says: "Vitamin B12 (cobalamin, not essential, only Cobalt is)", but from the Vitamin B12 page it links to, it appears that B12 is extremely important. So, why does this say "not essential"? Also, although B12 contains Cobalt atoms, it appears that it isn't a source of Cobalt. So, if B12 is only a source of B12, why is the criticism/comment "only Cobalt is" there? Is this some vegan "we don't need B12 to survive" falsehood or rhetoric? That line should simply say:

"Vitamin B12 (cobalamin)"

Carl Pfeiffer's 1978 book "Zinc and other Micro-Nutrients" says "Cobalt is essential for life as a vital part of the vitamin B-12 molecule. No other function of cobalt in animal or man is known." I think vitamin B-12 is an essential nutrient; It's listed in the U.S. Dietary Reference Intake. As you suggested, I reverted the bit about B-12 not being essential. Such statements should be supported by a citation. --Coppertwig 03:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is essential. Also for vegans. But bacteria can provide it, too.

Citations needed

I can find citations for many of the nutrients (though I haven't put the citations in yet). But for many of the ones marked "suspect" and perhaps even a few of the others, I have not found any citation -- not even sources establishing that the substance "might" be essential. Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough yet. However, I'm thinking of deleting a bunch of "suspect" nutrients and may go ahead and do so if no one objects. --Coppertwig 03:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linus Pauling quote

MastCell deleted the Linus Pauling quote, stating in the edit summary that it was off-topic and POV. I contend that it is on-topic, (it's talking about essential nutrients and making a point which applies to many essential nutrients), and that the basic message -- that there is a very wide range of doses from the amount that prevents deficiency disease to the amount that produces toxicity, for many vitamins and some other essential nutrients -- is generally accepted in the scientific community. I reverted the edit.

I had intended to say something in the edit summary directing discussion here, but made a mistake with the way I used Popups, for which I apologize. --Coppertwig 13:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest replacing the following sentence:

A similar statement can be made about vitamin C and some other vitamins.

with:

Vitamin C, for example, when consumed by adults in the quantity of 2000 mg per day is likely to pose no risk of adverse effects, while only 75-90 mg per day is required to meet the needs of almost all non-lactating adults according to the US RDI and UL. [1])

I was going to suggest adding another sentence along the lines of "for some nutrients, however, the range of acceptable intakes is narrower (examples, details, quote, reference to be found)" but I see that the beginning of the paragraph already expresses a similar idea. --Coppertwig 16:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the Linus Pauling sentence is out of place and a clear POV-push. It makes no sense in context. It seems to be implying that all essential nutrients are harmless in megadoses, which is just not true. Include it at the vitamin B3 page if you like, since that's what Pauling was actually talking about. ~~Also, you really shouldn't be reverting anything except vandalism using popups.~~ Sorry, I see you already addressed this in your comment above. MastCell 16:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not implying, in context, that all essential nutrients are harmless in megadoses, because the beginning of the paragraph clearly states the opposite, and this quote does not contradict it. Pauling is not just talking about vitamin B3 if you look at the context of the quote in his book -- he's saying something that applies to a greater or lesser extent to many essential nutrients, and to all if you include the concept of having at least one dosage level which has significant benefit with zero adverse effects (something that is not true of drugs in most cases.) In the first part of the paragraph, iron is given as an example to illustrate a principle that applies to many essential nutrients; in this part, vitamin B3 is being given as an example to illustrate a countering principle which also applies to many essential nutrients. It makes sense to me.

I think it's OK to revert non-vandalism using Popups provided one also adds additional information to the edit summary along the lines of "see talk page" etc., which was what I had intended to do; perhaps I haven't succeeded in turning on the option that allows one to do this. Popups can also be used to revert with the "edit this revision" option which requires the user to write the entire edit summary. If you see anything wrong with doing either of those things (i.e. what I intended, not what I actually did) please let me know, as I wouldn't want to unnecessarily inconvenience others. --Coppertwig 16:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's OK provided there's an edit summary; sorry, I had written my comment before seeing yours explaining. It's not that big of a deal so long as there's an informative edit summary. MastCell 18:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ΦΒΣ

Tungsten

Are humans one of the organisms for which tungsten is essential? -- Beland 05:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List

Question: Is the list of nutrients presented here truly an established list or is this just a list provided by one source? As I poke around I find lots of different lists provided by different sources that don't seem to entirely agree.

My impression is that the definition of an essential nutrient is universally agreed to but that the actual nutrients which meet the definition are a matter of debate. If so this should be stated.

If there is an "official" list it is probably worth stating up front who is providing this list (the FDA? the Department of Health and Human Services? ???).

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deal is that many the nutrition-related articles are written by marketing groups (see chromium deficiency), "health enthusiasts" who know little biochemistry, or just nut-cases (especially in the trace nutrient themes). So it would be good to upgrade these articles by citing good sources. When you refer to the "FDA" etc, you are referring to something in the US? --Smokefoot (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FDA was a reference to the US institution. My point is that an article only has meaning if it describes something of widespread significance which is widely agreed to. I'm not sure where I fall in your categories but I have no formal knowledge of nutrition. My understanding is that "essential nutrient" is considered a technical term but from what I gather there is no widely accepted list. So perhaps a list is inappropriate in this article.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the list include nutrients that meet the criteria described by the definition presented in the first sentence of this article? Biotin, for example, can be synthesized by the human body (by way of intestinal bacteria), and therefore would not be considered an essential nutrient according to the definition. So which is correct -- the list or the definition? Visumancer (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfur

Should sulfur really be listed as a separate essential element? The essential amino acid methionine (and the non-essential amino acid cysteine) contain sulfur, so non-methionine, non-cysteine sulfur is probably not necessary. There are proteins requiring iron-sulfur clusters, but I think these can be biosynthesized from the degradation products of the sulfur-containing amino acids. Icek (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought and thanks for sharing your perspective. A related comment arose for Co, whether people really require cobalt or b12. My thinking is that the spirit of the article is that the elements that are required for human life make the list. If methionine is sufficient for the biosynthesis of all thio-biomolecules in humans, that fact is worth explaining.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the proteins/carbohydrates

Carbohydrates (complex sugars found in rice, noodles, other grains), and protein (found in meat, soy, ...) are not included yet are far more essential than eg vitamins. When compared, the body needs thousands of times more these first nutrients than vitamins (which are only supplemental, and not really required; atleast not on a short term)

See the macronutrients section

81.246.183.234 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protein and carbohydrates are not essential nutrients! The essential amino acids are essential; the body can make protein from them. The body needs energy but it doesn't have to come from carbohydrates; it could come from protein and oil. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bot adding incorrect link to Essential_nutrient

Hi. Could you please prevent the bot from trying to put an interwikilink from Essential_nutrient to de:Vitalstoff. --84.159.165.116 (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Essential_nutrient has several interwiki link, to other languages. All of those languages have links to de:Vitalstoff. Are they all wrong? TaBaZzz (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. As far as i can tell, yes - the german article covering the same topic is de:Essentielle Stoffe --84.159.157.48 (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bringing it up only now, but I see that de:Essentielle Stoffe links to some languages, that link back to English as en:Essential amino acid. Please fix whatever you understand and know, and tell me when you're finished. Afterwards I will run the bot again on those english articles, and we'll see how it comes. Thank you. PS, what does de:Vitalstoff is all about? TaBaZzz (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is really weird; I fixed it for de. In short, Vitalstoff is a fuzzy and promotional term, that includes all essential nutrients but adds more, usually enzymes, secondary metabolites and such, like flavonoids. Its not the first time i noticed that the usual procedure of some people is "if i dont find smth matching in other WPs, i will pick smth that i feel has somehow to do with the article". There are basically no rules about this in de WP, but i prefer a narrow selection. E.g. the english and german articles match, but the links to romanic languages except the french one only refer to chemical elements that are essential. The end result is that the es article with its very specific topic links to de Vitalstoff which sorta covers "all that is healthy" ;) --84.159.176.90 (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chlorine

Re this edit: it's just a matter of how it's worded. Chlorine as in Cl₂ may be poisonous, but Chlorine Cl the element may be an essential nutrient: OK, maybe calling it Chloride would make more sense. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you eat the chlorine simultaneously with the sodium (also essential) you'll be okay, and you'll stay warm.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The element is chlorine and is essential for the human body. Other elements on that list are "poisonous" depending on what form they are taken in. For example calcium is a reactive metal. Too much phosphorous results in phossy jaw. --94.194.237.87 (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, assuming for the moment that chlorine is an essential nutrient, but only when it's in the form of a chloride ion (e.g. component of table salt, right?), then for the purposes of the list, I'm thinking the item should be labeled Chloride instead of Chlorine (because Chlorine is misleading). Or perhaps it should be listed as Sodium Chloride. Maybe Sodium for short. Oh, darn -- Sodium is already on the list. So maybe we don't need Chlorine on the list at all then.

Let me point out that someone has included oxygen, water, and sunlight, and appropriately (in my view) suggested that these are "not generally considered nutrients." Someone else may want to argue the definition of "nutrient."

So, to what level of microscopic detail will the list in this article go? Will the prospective reader of this article freak out when he learns of all the atoms or electrons or quarks he must consume to remain healthy?

"Honey! Don't forget to take your 30 milligram Chlorine tablets like the doctor said..."

"Excuse me Miss. Where are the H2O gel tabs?" I gotta have my H2O or I'm just lethargic all day..."

"I know, my golf game is off. Must have a C2H5OH deficiency today..."

I think the context here is nutrition. My point is, although we recognize that a number of chemicals are considered "essential," and that a "nutrient" will typically be a compound of some sort, a reader of this article should be able to ascertain a list of all known practicably ingestible substances to construct a diet strategy based on the currently available scientific research.

IMHO, a typical reader of this article has not arrived here because he's doing chemistry research.

--Visumancer (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danger of Vitamin C overdose

Causes kidney stones. I've had them when in my ignorance I thought taking large doses of Vit C would be good for me. They do hurt. I am therefore deleting the sentance: "A similar statement can be made about vitamin C and some other vitamins". No evidence is given to support this assertion. 89.243.72.122 (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]