Talk:Provitamin
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
A term with no good definition and no good use?
[edit]Most molecules with vitamin activity (vitamers) are "provitamins," in this definition, inasmuch as they aren't the active form used by the body. Beta-carotene is a provitamin, but also a vitamin (it is one form of vitamin A). Niacin and cyanocobalamin are likewise vitamins and it adds nothing to think of them as provitamins. In fact, the use of the word "provitamin" encourages a very narrow definition of "vitamin" which is not the one in general use. A vitamin has vitamin activity in the body, and that includes all provitamins. I propose "provitamin" be redirected to vitamer. SBHarris 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the redirect to "vitamer", because it is misleading. When Wikipedia uses the terms "provitamin" and "previtamin", it doesn't use them as synonyms for "vitamer". It uses them to distinguish an inactive form of a vitamin from an active form to which the inactive form is metabolized, even though both the inactive and active forms may in some cases be described as "vitamers". See the updated text for more details. [Doug Moen] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.136.7 (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- What in the world do you mean by "active form" vs. "inactive form" of a vitamin? Do you really think pantothenol is an "inactive" form of B5 but "pantothenic acid" is an "active form"? Do you think that niacin, folic acid, cyanocobalamin, thiamin, riboflavin and so on (reading off the label of a vitamin bottle) are vitamins or provitamins? I suppose it's a provitamin pill? So what, then, are the vitamins? Yes, you can find "provitamin" as a word in the dictionary, but you can find many conflicting and contradictory definitions of it also. "A provitamin is something converted by the body into a vitamin." Would that not BE a vitamin, then? What is then the use of the word "provitamin"?
Basically I don't agree that just because you can find a term in books, like "matter" or "healing energy", that it means it needs a wikipedia article and a definition (when it's a fuzzy concept without a good definition.) SBHarris 04:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- What in the world do you mean by "active form" vs. "inactive form" of a vitamin? Do you really think pantothenol is an "inactive" form of B5 but "pantothenic acid" is an "active form"? Do you think that niacin, folic acid, cyanocobalamin, thiamin, riboflavin and so on (reading off the label of a vitamin bottle) are vitamins or provitamins? I suppose it's a provitamin pill? So what, then, are the vitamins? Yes, you can find "provitamin" as a word in the dictionary, but you can find many conflicting and contradictory definitions of it also. "A provitamin is something converted by the body into a vitamin." Would that not BE a vitamin, then? What is then the use of the word "provitamin"?
- Wikipedia does have articles for "matter" and "healing energy" (the latter article is called "Energy_(esotericism)"). And it is correct and proper for Wikipedia to have these articles. I think maybe you are a bit out of sync with the goals of Wikipedia, if you think these articles shouldn't exist. Encyclopedia Britannica has an entry for provitamin. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia having such an entry. Maybe you have an ideological axe to grind, and want to abolish the term "provitamin"? That's no reason for deleting the entry or removing its contents. That's just you pushing a particular viewpoint.
The question "Do you think that niacin ... are vitamins or provitamins" is a malformed question. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. You think that if something is a provitamin, then it can't be a vitamin, and that's the source of your confusion. As I indicate in the article, beta-carotene can be correctly referred to as either provitamin-A or as vitamin-A, depending on the context, depending on what properties of beta-carotene you wish to emphasize. Again, depending on context, you can also correctly use the terms "organic chemical", "terpenoid" and "lipid" to refer to beta-carotene, depending on what properties you want to emphasize. The planet venus can be referred to as the morning star and the evening star, depending on what properties you want to emphasize, and we have entries for all three proper names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.136.7 (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does have articles for "matter" and "healing energy" (the latter article is called "Energy_(esotericism)"). And it is correct and proper for Wikipedia to have these articles. I think maybe you are a bit out of sync with the goals of Wikipedia, if you think these articles shouldn't exist. Encyclopedia Britannica has an entry for provitamin. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia having such an entry. Maybe you have an ideological axe to grind, and want to abolish the term "provitamin"? That's no reason for deleting the entry or removing its contents. That's just you pushing a particular viewpoint.
"Previtamin" is not widely used enough to be identified as a synonym?
[edit]According to Google Books Ngram viewer, "previtamin" is not and never was widely used compared to "provitamin."[1] The prefix "pro-" is used in prodrug to refer to a chemical metabolized into a drug, and "provitamin" is analogous; "pro-" means it is a chemical that is metabolized into a vitamin. I'm not aware specifically of its use in medical literature, but "predrug" doesn't seem to actually often be used as a synonym, so I believe it should be removed to prevent any confusion. Adamthedog (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Google Books Ngram Viewer". books.google.com.