Talk:Essential nutrient

why ignore phytochemicals, iso-flavons etc ?

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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? Crazilla^{talk|contribs} 23:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There also needs citations for why excessive intake of Vitamin D would be harmful for the body, and recent studies cannot confirm that but rather find benefits from high intakes of vitamin D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.117.112 (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

ΦΒΣ

Tungsten

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

All I am seeing for biological role of tungsten is for microorganisms. (prokaryotes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.29.111 (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Folks, our bodies cannot use chlorine in its elemental form. We can only use chloride. There is a major difference between the two. Chloride is an ion. It has an extra electron, making it negatively charged. It is that negative electrical charge that makes it useful to the body. It ONLY functions as an ion, not in its elemental form. Chlorine, in its elemental form, can not be broken apart into chloride ions by the body, and it must be eliminated. That is why chloride is a nutrient and chlorine is not.

We get chloride from salts other than sodium chloride. MSG is one fun example. KCl is another source. Sodium requirements are indeed separate from chloride requirements. Sodium chloride is just the most abundant source of both, at least in the Western diet.

WP is not a place for people to get medical advice, nor advice on what their optimal diet should be. (Not even nutritionists know that, and any truly educated nutritionist should tell you so.) It is for reference, not advice. All these opinions on what is better for people to eat belong somewhere other than WP.

Trace elements such as iron and magnesium and such can be absorbed in their elemental form, though not always efficiently. There is a saying in nutrition: "The dose makes the poison." A trace amount of metallic iron is a nutrient, but too much turns it into a toxin. Nutrients are almost all both nutrients and toxins, depending on the amount absorbed into the body. Dcs002 (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

Vitamin C has never caused kidney stones. This is a myth. To the contrary, it helps dilute them. Doctors who have administered megadose of vitamin C to thousands of patients, for example Dr A. Hoffer, have verified this over and over again. You should look for other things in you diet that may cause kidney stones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.195.216 (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean Dr Abram Hoffer who had many discredited theories, had to start his own magazine to publish his ideas, and worked with Linus Pauling at the point where he was convinced vitamin C cured cancer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Hoffer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linus_Pauling#Vitamin_C_controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.29.111 (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion earlier on this page. The point is NOT that no vitamins are toxic; that would be, as you have observed, patently untrue. The point IS that there is a very wide gap between the minimum quantity that will prevent scurvy and the minimum quantity reported to produce toxic effects. Megavitamin therapy does typically prescribe toxic doses of vitamins, so I do not challenge your assertions that a huge quantity of ascorbic acid caused you illness, but I will maintain that you could take quite a great deal of the stuff without harm, even if not quite as much as you have taken. Please see previous discussions of the matter on the talk page before removing material from the article; I have not re-added the statement, as it's been gone a good deal of time and admittedly doesn't actually contribute anything to the article. As far as Dr. Hoffer goes, while he's made a number of errors, his work shouldn't be entirely discounted; borderline toxic doses of niacin remain a useful and widely used serum cholesterol regulation drug, for example. 216.82.142.147 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What's a "borderline toxic dose" of niacin? 3000mg/day. Oh sheet, I must be dead already then...but at least with no pellagra after suffering for 10 years of that disease while no shitty doctor knew it!! Crap education they have, pharmacy-sponsered only. Now I can see at least 1 person with pellagra everyday on the street..."it's the skin, stupid". --178.197.236.9 (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Megadoses of vitamin C cause a very highly oxidative state in the blood. Vitamin C mobilizes iron transport in the blood (as well as increasing dietary absorption), and not the kind of heme iron that is safely contained in red blood cells. Iron catalyzes the "Haber Weiss" reaction, resulting in the proliferation of highly reactive and damaging (extremely pro-oxidant) free radicals. The point at which this pro-oxidant effect outweighs vitamin C's antioxidant effect is approximately 2,400 mg per day. (Many people take more than that, and they are more likely to suffer from heart disease and stroke by damaging their arteries in this way.) However, at large doses far below that level, the antioxidant benefits of vitamin C are eroded as the vitamin becomes saturated with the radicals freed by the added iron in the blood. Megadoses of vitamin C are not antioxidant doses. Megadoses of anything are rarely without risk. (I got my PhD in nutrition in 2002, and at that point the only nutrient for which toxicity had never been reported was vitamin E. I haven't kept score since then.)

Some of you might not trust physicians and scientists, and I can understand that, but that is no reason to trust others who would take advantage of your distrust in physicians and scientists by selling you books, dietary supplements, megadose "cures," or anything else. Such people often make much more money than the scientists. Be critical, but be critical of the cons as well as the pros. Dcs002 (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Elements_with_speculated_role_in_human_health ?

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)

Chromium

A 2011 study has found chromium to be nonessential to mammals.

K. R. Di Bona, S. Love, N. R. Rhodes, D. McAdory, S. H. Sinha, N. Kern, J. Kent, J. Strickland, A. Wilson, J. Beaird, J. Ramage, J. F. Rasco, J. B. Vincent "Chromium is not an essential trace element for mammals: effects of a "low-chromium" diet." Journal Biological Inorganic Chemistry, 2011, volume 16, p. 381-90. doi:10.1007/s00775-010-0734-y

Lumingz (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a primary source, and only an abstract of a single study. Such sources are weak, though permitted. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and removing something from the list of known nutrients is an extraordinary proposal, which is not at all justified by the data given in this abstract. Even this abstract has at least five serious problems, each of which I consider fatal to their conclusions. First, it does not give the age of the rats used. Therefore there is no way of knowing how much chromium was already stored in their bones at the beginning of the study. (The proper way to do this kind of study would be to completely deprive the pups from birth, including a chromium-free alternative to nursing. Then the rats should be monitored throughout life, not just a 6 month period. Nutrient requirements vary by age, and all these authors looked at was a small portion of the rats life cycle.) These rats were likely young because the AIN93G diet is for growth (that's what the G means), and impaired insulin sensitivity (the primary expected sign of chromium deficiency) is more likely with increased age.

Second, the chromium content of their diet before the study began is not given. This relates to the first point in that we have no way of knowing how much chromium the rats had stored in their bodies before being restricted for 6 months. Related to this is the fact that we don't know how much chromium rats are capable of storing, or how long their stores will last.

Third, lean Zucker rats are a very specific inbred strain of rat with specific genetic and metabolic profiles, typically used as controls for leptin-impaired fatty Zucker rats. (I have never seen them used in any other way.) Therefore results cannot automatically generalize to other strains of rats, let alone all mammals, as the authors claim. This makes me suspect these rats were being used for some other experiment and the authors looked back at their data and found this marginal bit of information to publish. Lean Zucker rats are very expensive, and not the go-to strain for this type of work. (I would use an outbred strain with a more typical chronic disease profile, like Sprague-Dawleys.)

Fourth, their own data, as given in the abstract, refutes their own conclusions. They conclude:

The studies reveal that a diet with as little chromium as reasonably possible had no effect on body composition, glucose metabolism, or insulin sensitivity compared with a chromium-“sufficient” diet.

(Emphasis added)

However, they showed that rats fed the low-chromium diet released significantly more insulin (described as area under the curve) in response to a glucose challenge, which is a direct measurement of impaired insulin sensitivity. Perhaps this would have been caught during peer review had this article been published in a reputable nutrition journal, but it was not. (That leaves open the possibility that the article had previously been rejected by the major nutrition journals.) Instead it was published in the Journal of Biological Inorganic Chemistry. This article is an argument to declassify a nutrient. That is a function of the field of nutrition, not biological inorganic chemistry. (Nutritionists would also immediately question the use of lean Zucker rats for this type of study, though biological inorganic chemists might not realize how strange their choice of rat was.)

Fifth, none of the diets were chromium-free. Chromium is present in trace amounts in other ingredients in the AIN93G diet (notably the cellulose fiber), and very likely in the cage bedding used. It is virtually impossible to eliminate chromium completely, and a tiny trace is likely all that is needed. (No one really knows how much a rat needs, but chromium is referred to as an ultra-trace element in the rat diet.) If this work had truly been done in a competent biological inorganic chemistry lab, surely they had the wherewithal to analyze the diet fed to these rats for inorganic chemicals, such as chromium, but they don't seem to have done that. They only reported chromium added or not added to the diet.

Primary research sources really need to be reviewed and evaluated by scientists in the field in order to understand what they really have to say. They are written by authors who are biased, like everyone is. Marginal and poor quality work gets published all the time. Dcs002 (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Essential Nutrient" is redundant

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)

Vitamin D

I see that Vitamin D is on the list of essential nutrients. However, essential nutrients are defined as things that:

either cannot be synthesized by the body at all by the body at all, or cannot be synthesized in amounts adequate for good health (e.g. niacin, choline), and thus must be obtained from a dietary source

Under this definition, Vitamin D doesn't belong on this list. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there any expert sources that refer to "essential nutrient"

There are at the present time no sources cited in the article that actually refer to "essential nutrient". It therefore appears that the article itself constitutes WP:OR. It needs either the addition of expert secondary sources, as per WP:MEDRS, that cover the term in detail, or it should be deleted/merged. I have tagged the article accordingly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Biology, third ed (Brooker, Widmaier, et al) 2014 — table 37.1 on page 757 is titled "Plant essential nutrients" — J D (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Should the article redirect or merge with Nutrient?

Expert sources:

• Institute of Medicine [2]
• NHANES [3]
• Nutrition.gov and Food and Nutrition Information Center

--Zefr (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, only one of the links above[4] mentions "essential nutrient". If I erred and missed something, please quote the relevant material here. There is currently only one source cited in the WP article that defines the term,[5] and it is both superficial and comes from a source that's not WP:MEDRS -- pretty shaky to pin the entire article on that one source. I only saw "essential nutrient" appear in the Institute of Medicine page cited above, but in all instances it was buried in a block of text not as a definable term per se but rather with "essential" apparently used adjectivally; e.g., as "important" or "critical" might be. Obviously, even though "important nutrient" or "critical nutrient" might appear in text, those are not recognized/definable scientific terms and would not warrant a WP article. To justify this WP article's existence, what is needed are multiple WP:MEDRS that provide a specific definition of "essential nutrient" as a common scientific term, and a list of what is/is not an essential nutrient (as it stands, the WP article does not address even this fundamental detail). The terms "essential fatty acid" and "essential amino acid" have concrete definitions that specify which compounds qualify as members of the classes. Both of these types of compounds are "essential" and both may be classified broadly as "nutrients", but those terms can't be extrapolated to synthesize de novo the term "essential nutrient" as the basis for a WP article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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)

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)