Jump to content

Talk:Vitamin B6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.243.106.82 (talk) at 00:35, 21 February 2019 (→‎Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Comment

"may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts," This is silly - biology is just as complex as it needs to be for us to survive. Reminds me of the quote - "If our brain were simple enough for us to understand how they work - we would be to simple to understand that".

Please don't simplify - put in hyper-links to basic concepts but - biology is simply way more complex than what even most biologists realize. Most of what people think they 'know' is actually ungrounded narratives. Pretending that this page can explain vitamin B without understanding other bits would require "pulling the wool" or what I would call lying. It would also make it a useless web page - the Internet is already full of those.

Comment

Is this article still a stub? Dark Nexus 20:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving page Pyridoxine → Vitamin B6

  • The redirect Vitamin B6 was originally listed on WP:RFD, but I realize now I should have listed this move here. The reason for the move: The page Pyridoxine actually talks about the two major forms of Vitamin B6, pyridoxine and pyridoxamine. However, pyridoxine is just one of these forms. Originally the page pyridoxamine was an exact duplicate of pyridoxine except for the image, but I redirected pyridoxamine to pyridoxine and added the pyridoxamine image to pyridoxine. However, since pyridoxine actually talks about both forms of Vitamin B6 it should be moved to Vtamin B6. What follows is the original discussion on WP:RFD. Exabyte (talk)­ 05:07, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Pyridoxine is just one form of Vitamin B6, and the content of both this article and Pyridoxamine talks about both forms (in fact they are exactly duplicate except for the image). The Pyridoxine article, because it is actually about both forms, should be moved to Vitamin B6 and either the image from Pyridoxamine should be included in the article and Pyridoxamine be changed to a redirect or the resulting redirect from the move should be converted to an article and Pyridoxamine changed to be specifically about pyridoxamine. Exabyte (talk)­ 20:26, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Would anyone like to comment on the proposed move before it is done? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Go for it--makes sense. (seems like there may be similar issues with Tocopherol/Vitamin E). Niteowlneils 18:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After consensus was reached, page was moved from Pyrodoxine to Vitamin B6. COGDEN 18:59, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Citations Needed

There are a load of claims about the benefits of B6, but a dearth of citations where these assertions are made and supported. Turly-burly 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The information is in the pages to which the external links point. Turly-burly 00:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE Pyridoxine - Aargh! I found some articles linking (in some unknown way) pyridoxine to psoriasis etc, but PubMed only has it in Italian and Russian! And Archives of Dermatology is subscription only. Seeing crap on the Internets (and not much, there's lots of herbal hippie stuff out there but not much published research, and most of that is from the 70's), we need a dermatologist or nutritionist with access to get some of these sources. Otherwise, the claims need to either be removed or changed to reflect that this is a belief strongly held amongst the Herbal Essances crowd :( but I'll keep looking Gaviidae 14:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem is that for mutliple claims, there are multiple sources, yet wikipedia doens't care for excessive sourcing. Apparently, those researching vitamins are only doing very specific studies-- recently bereaved homosexual men; non-smoking women between 20-45 taking birth control (reduces B6); pyridoxine and PMS; pyridoxine and babies with a rare genetic seizure disorder; pyridoxine and tardive dyskinesia in schizophrenics... first, should all these sources, if used, be instead in the B6 page instead of the Pyridoxine page (which makes similar claims)? Also PMID: 10859691 and others I wouldn't want to cite if I couldn't read the results myself. Gaviidae 15:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a lot of the toxicity and overdose information is lifted directly from the Linus Pauling Institute web page. This needs to be properly cited to avoid plagiarism. 67.40.184.137 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the claims link to a howstuffworks.com page which seems to have been written by an N.D. (I guess that's a naturopathic doctor). The page cites no studies or actual research that I can find, and I think it should be removed and any claims that can only be found there or on similar pages gotten rid of. Not my area of knowledge, though. --Wintersweet (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a citation - or reference - that says that the P-5-P form of Vitamin B6 is bio-available as pyridoxine (darn - I was really hoping this would be the other way)...

Given that the bioavailability of pyridoxal 5’-phosphate requires hydrolysis of the phosphate group before absorption through the intestinal layer may occur, one can conclude that the bioavailability of vitamin B6 from pyridoxal 5’-phosphate will be lower than or at best similar to the bioavailability of pyridoxine.

from: The EFSA Journal (2008) 760, 1-13 -- Opinion on Pyridoxal 5’-phosphate as a source for vitamin B6 added for nutritional purposes in food supplements http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/afc_ej760_pyridoxal_op_en,0.pdf?ssbinary=true

Questions

- What's the symbol or chemical formula for vitamin B6?

- What is the half-life for vitamin B6 ?

It appears the chemical formula is C8H11NO3. SpazKitty 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Shouldn't we talk about how B6 deficiency can be one cause of sideroblastic anemia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.183.251 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


- We should know more about excess levels by blood test? My wife had high levels of B6 that resulted in chronic fatigue, reducing B6 eliminated the problem. Our neurologist recommended reduction of B6 which we will discuss with a dietician soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.176.140 (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rating

Upgraded it to start. TerriG149.155.96.5 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Set-up

Why, under history, does it only have one sentence about history, and then goes on to talk about chemical composition? But I worry about messing with this page too much. Gaviidae 15:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Shouldn't the name of this article be Vitamin B6? This article makes use of subscript with a template. Perhaps we can use this: 

{{downsize|title={{mp|Vitamin B|6}}}}

DanPMK 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaming

Carl Pfeiffer knew (by the mid-1970's, at the latest) that pyridoxine increased dream recall. He recommended that certain of his patients (those suspected of what he called histadelia) take increasing amounts of pyridoxine each day until the dreams became unpleasant, and then cut back a little. Perhaps orthomolecular.org may have a citation. Unfree (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Functions vs. Metabolic Functions

These sections should be combined due to numerous redundancies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.59.104 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FDA: pyradoxamine = drug, not dietary supplement?

Would someone knowledgeable add the appropriate info from here... http://aahf.nonprofitsoapbox.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=677&Itemid= 68.83.72.162 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the information to pyridoxamine, rather than here, since it is specific only to that compound, and not to any of the other forms of vitamin B6. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Future Experiment

Sections seems confused and useless, should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.8.99 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene expression section is confused and useless as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.255.245 (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bite Reduction

In the Army, we used Vitamin B6 to reduce bug bites (yes, it works). Has there ever been a study about this? 138.162.128.55 (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.223.194 (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference template

An unskilled editor in this subject so far as I'm concerned since I've never seen him editing nutritional articles, which is just hounding my edits, decided to template the article disputing the whole content as questionable and desperately requiring further reference (beyond it's currently 25). Please just tag the article section you see as most problematic so we can work on the article gradually instead of leaving this ugly template in the whole article.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take "skill" to see that half the article is completely and totally unreferenced, which is what the template signals. Also please refrain from further personal attacks against me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has 25 references! If the problem is with a specific section tag those sections! "Not everything need actually be attributed" but surely don't have any skills on the issue of Vitamin B6 to distinguish what's obvious, you're just trying to create problems here!--Nutriveg (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the person attacks and assumption of bad faith. I will move it to specific sections as per your request. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. More than half the references are in ONE section of the article, so the total number is a poor indication of how well referenced the article is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Not everything need actually be attributed" just for the sake of being referenced, if you're unskilled or unable to check the content just don't mess the article using unnecessary templates!--Nutriveg (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making assumptions about my skill and intentions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If something isn't obvious to an "unskilled" reader, than it should be attributed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could have stopped my assumptions about your skills (from your edit history in nutritional issues) if you had already presented your qualifications in the area.
I didn't make any new assumption about your intentions, stop repeating yourself! I said your indiscriminate use of templates mess the article, that's a fact!--Nutriveg (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About your PS: that's a complete false statement of yours: only "challenged or likely to be challenged (material need to) be attributed". Unskilled editors usually don't challenge what they don't know since they don't have scientific knowledge to contradict those statements. You made your point templating the article so now move on.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly capable of editing a wide variety of subjects (and have done so for a long time without incident). There is no requirement that someone be an expert in a given subject to edit Wikipedia, so please stop insisting there is. Also, if you are going to insist that the statements must be challenged before a source is required, consider them officially challenged. (As I already did implicitly by tagging the article as insufficiently sourced to begin with.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, as you're challenging it, do you support the removal of such sections if it remains unreferenced or do you have an alternative text, supported by sources, for such sections ?--Nutriveg (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms

The chart at Vitamin B6#Dietary reference intakes makes use of acronyms that are not used elsewhere on the page. Could someone knowledgeable in this topic please create a legend for the chart? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dietary Reference Intake no longer a chart, and all acronyms explained.David notMD (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding hypophosphatasia as a cause of elevated B6 levels.

Consider adding hypophosphatasia as a cause of elevated B6 levels.

http://www.oif.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Hypophosphatasia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherishhealth (talk • contribs) 04:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dietary Reference Intakes

I am creating the same format for DRIs for all B vitamins. That is a U.S.- based system that identifies Estimated Average Requirements (EARs), Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs), Adequate Intakes (AIs) if there is not enough information to establish EARs and RDAs, and Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs). Another major regulatory agency that has established ULs is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). ULs for both are provided, as they often differ. If there is a UL (for some vitamins none has been determined) then rationale is covered in a Toxicity section. In addition to DRIs, the U.S. also established Daily Value, using it on food and dietary supplement labels as % DV. DVs were based on older RDAs and as of 2016 have never been updated to reflect the newer DRIs. Thus, often a product that has 100% DV and greater than 100% RDA. Examples given for each vitamin. What I have written can be improved. It lacks EFSA or other major country RDAs. It lacks an estimate of what percentages of people are deficient - although that is often covered in a separate section on deficiency and consequences of deficiency. I am creating this Subject in all of the Talk pages of the vitamin entries I have edited. Comments and improvements are welcome. David notMD (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed section title to Dietary recommendations because Dietary Reference Intakes is used only in U.S. and Canada; added European information, with citations. David notMD (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate references

References 15, 20 and 41 are identical. But I do not know how to do a multiple-cited ref. (I try and mess it up).David notMD (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever fixed this, thanks. David notMD (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vitamin_B6&oldid=884338937"