Talk:Essential nutrient

message: Are they not essential ? see Fuhrman diet on youtube.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.107.140 (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: why ignore phytochemicals, iso-flavons etc ?

message: 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)
replies: text: As of 2007 the National Research Council considers fluorine an essential mineral (Earth Minerals and Health), as currently reflected on the dietary mineral page, and DRI tables (cited in the article intro) do include fluoride. Does that resolve the question, or is there more to consider? Crazillatalk|contribs 23:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Top

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quotation convention 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Putting B vitamins in order of number; and making a table of daily amounts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question about statements on page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: List

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sulfur 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I can understand your point. The problem for this point of view is that our liver can also build carbos out of fats. So therefore saying that any fats are essential is probably as wrong as saying that carbos are not essential. Think about it...I even think that overweighted people have the problem that they produce too much fat out of the carbos, meaning that some liver enzymes are overexpressed, while lean persons eating a lot of carbos have a defect fat metabolism. --178.197.236.241 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Our livers cannot produce enough carbs to maintain normal function. (Ketosis is not normal function.) To maintain normal function, we need dietary carbohydrates. Any carbohydrate will do as long as it is alpha-linked and can be converted to glucose in the body. Without dietary carbs, we go into ketosis, which is not a normal metabolic state but a response to starvation - a means of keeping the brain alive. This is why carbohydrate is a nutrient. (ALL nutrients are essential for normal function - the point of this article is embarrassingly redundant and it should be merged with the Nutrient article.) Fat is a nutrient because it is in part made of essential fatty acids, and protein is a nutrient because it is in part made of essential amino acids. Fat and protein are the only sources of those EFAs and EAAs. The only reason the word "essential" is used is to denote the specific macronutrient components we need, but they don't come neatly separated in nature. (Yes, there are high quality fats and proteins that are rich in EFAs and EAAs, and there are poor quality fats and proteins, but we need fats and proteins. They are large molecules, portions of which our bodies will cut away and put to special use.) We don't call something a non-essential nutrient if we don't need it. To a penguin, vitamin C is not a non-essential nutrient. It is simply not a nutrient. To a human, crude oil is not a non-essential nutrient. It is simply not a nutrient. Dcs002 (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the proteins/carbohydrates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  bot adding incorrect link to [[Essential_nutrient]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: LOL! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Na, you eat the chlorine with the choline! Only animals next to sea salt sources and humans eat sodium chloride. I can only suggest you to eat the first one, otherwise you'll become cold sooner than you think. --178.197.236.9 (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Eat lecithine, it contains choline chloride which is much healthier than sodium chloride. We anyway need much more potassium than sodium, at least if you wanna get old without any cancer stuff. --178.197.236.9 (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chlorine 

message: The only reference is dead, and there isn't a lot of evidence or recent evidence to support any of these "suspects".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.29.111 (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Elements_with_speculated_role_in_human_health ? 

message: The title of this article is redundant. Nutrients are all by definition essential. Terms such as "essential fatty acids" (EFAs) and "essential amino acids" (EAAs) simply differentiate which among those classes of compounds are essential (or nutrients), as opposed to others that are not. (Eicosopentanoic acid is an essential fatty acid, though palmitic acid is not, therefore EPA is a nutrient. Fat itself is a (macro)nutrient only to the extent that it contains essential fatty acids.) EFAs and EAAs are the specific components of the macronutrients fat and protein that are required for normal function.
A nutrient is a substance that is by definition essential to normal function but cannot be synthesized by the body in sufficient quantity to perform that function, and therefore must be ingested or assimilated from the environment. Any nutrition textbook will say that. Dcs002 (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Essential Nutrient" is redundant 

message: I see that Vitamin D is on the list of essential nutrients. However, essential nutrients are defined as things that:
Under this definition, Vitamin D doesn't belong on this list. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vitamin D]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Essential nutrient. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140705140516/http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/dietary-guidance/dietary-reference-intakes/dri-reports to http://fnic.nal.usda.gov/dietary-guidance/dietary-reference-intakes/dri-reports
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think that this page should be merged with Nutrient, as has been suggested before on this talk page. "Essential nutrients" is clearly a sub-concept of "Nutrients", and Nutrient already has a sub-section for this. Also, Nutrient is quite poorly structured at the moment, and would benefit from the more structured material in this article. If this were done, it would be a clear case of WP:OVERLAP.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle MoJo (talk • contribs) 16:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. I suggested the same thing a while back. "Essential nutrient" isn't really a thing anyway. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal