Talk:Nutrition/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

External links

The following external links were moved her from the main page:

If you feel these are suitable according to Wikipedia:External links please discuss it here prior to re-inserting.
Please add a link to: *For the Nutrition for Optimal Health Association (NOHA). Many informative articles on nutrition and staying healthy through preventative medicine are avaliable here on the "Newsletter" page. They are indexed by subject, name, and chronologically brenneman(t)(c) 08:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Lead section

I am restoring an earlier version of the lead section in order to better conform with Wikipedia consensus on good article style (see Wikipedia:Lead section and other guidelines on style and layout). Specifically, the guidelines suggest "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Of course, I am biased because I wrote the section that I am restoring. I am very happy for other users to change and improve this section, but reducing it to a 3 sentence intro is not consistent with Wikipedia's goal of producing a large number of featured article quality articles. ike9898 20:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

--- The current "summary" is not a good example of a "concise version of the article", it provides select examples. I suggest we go back to the 3 sentence core, and add to that. Unless we delete most of the current comments, we will never be able to improve the intro. SND

--- How about this for an opening sentence? I'm a bit confused about Wikipedia's guidelines for definitions and citations, but off the top of my head, I'd define nutrition as "the phenomenon common to living organisms of taking in substances needed to grow, to sustain life, and to propagate. D021317c (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Section titles

The "Nutrition and Health" section begins by discussing the main nutrient classes; carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals, and water. However, the titles for the sections that follow use different names. The section that discusses protein is named, "amino acids", the one on carbohydrates is named, "sugars", and the section on fats is called, "fatty acids". If there are no objections, I'll change the section titles to match. Darana 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Six months, without objection -- done. Plus wrote intros for some of the sections, moved pyramid to govt guideline section and put a more comprehensive image at the top, removed Spirulina stuff, rearranged paragraphs and sections, other misc. changes. Probably needs a good copy edit. --Darana 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

PCB's?

In the first paragraph, PCB links to a disambiguation page. It may be intended to link to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl" but im not sure. --..micky 08:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed parts

I am somewhat new to contributing to Wilkipedia, but I am finding that anything I add is deleted in a haphazard manner. I am not sure if my way of writing is incorrect, but my contributions have been referred to as 'sweeping statements' and 'unfounded' even do I am doing a PhD in nutrition and health. What is the best way of countering this? User:FredSand

First of all, thanks for the part on essential amino-acids, Fred.
Are you refering to these removed sentences diff? I believe JFW removed this part because it had a lot of 'may' and 'should' in the text. For example, in an encyclopedic text, if we came to the conclusion that health needs to be defined in this article (we have a separate article on Health to do that, so I am not sure we need to define health here) we would simply make a statement that defines it, it would have to be a widely accepted definition among nutritionists and supported by one clear inline citation.

This sentence: Nutrition may improve the ability of an animal to mount an immune response through either providing more substrates for making immune proteins or through nutrition affecting for example hormonal systems, or allowing immune cells to produce more key products. That hormones are affected was said in the paragraph just above that one. The immune-response part, I think should be in the text, it should be more explicit (which key products?) and then supported by an inline citation.

The genotype of an animal may, or may not, be fully expressed depending on the presence of environmental stressors (such as group size, ambient temperature or disease)and the ability with which the animal can withstand these stressors. does not directly relate to nutrition.

The concept of Nutrition and 'Health' needs to define the particular relationships that are considered to allow scientific and public progress to be made. That is more like a part of a research proposal than an encyclopedic text.

These sentences were not removed because they are wrong but because they don't fit into this encyclopedic text. It's probably best to just stick to the widely accepted basics, considering you are an expert.--Fenice 19:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Fenice - Thank you for the extensive and clear comments, I know what to do in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.215.235.69 (talk • contribs) .

It was meant as a basis for discussion not for you to 'know what to do'.--Fenice 14:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

history section

I suggest that substantial coverage in the history of nutrition section be given to what some argue is a shift from promotion of adequate nutrition (that is, nutrition adequate to maintain functional health in the average human) to promotion of optimal nutrition (nutrition optimized to promote well-being and longevity, sometimes individualized). Some of this attitude shift may be due to decreasing food scarcity in the Western world; as access to food has slowly democratized, concerns have moved from starvation and failure to thrive to chronic diseases caused by nutrition adequate to support daily living but not optimized for longevity; diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc.

It may be argued that this coverage is Western-centric, as approximately as many people in the world still suffer from lack of food as from overweight and obesity.

A translated table from the Swedish article

I've translated the section about historical scientific observations from the Swedish version of this article, in case it's of any use. Unfortunately, it didn't come with references, and is also possibly Western-centric (not that covering Western culture in specific is wrong IMHO; it just means it may be seen as incomplete):

Nutrient 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
Fatty acids Be careful with your fat intake. Keep the fat intake to a minimum. Do not eat too little fat, and consider the fat quality. Fat is essential for a good health, and it's especially important to use proper sources of fat.
Sugar Sugar is dangerous and the body stores it as fat. Sugar is dangerous, but not necessarily causing fat. Sugar in reasonable amounts may not be more dangerous than other carbohydrates. Sugar has a glycemic index of 90, making it a relatively "quick" carbohydrate. Otherwise, not more dangerous than other carbohydrates.
Amino acids Amino acids can cause heart diseases, kidney diseases, and cancer. One do not need more amino acids when training. Amino acid quality is important. Amino acids may not be dangerous. Excercise may increase the need of amino acids. Amino acids can improve the health and one should not eat too sparingly of it. The amount is more important than the quality. Amino acids is good for your shape and excercise results.
Salts Salts are dangerous and may cause a high blood pressure. Salts are still considered dangerous. Salts may not be dangerous. Natrium in salts is even important for the health. Salts generally don't cause high a blood pressure, but rather lack of magnesium and potassium.
Alcohol Alcohol is toxic and should be avoided. Limited amounts of alcohol may not be bad for the health. Limited amounts of alcohol may be healthy. Alcohol, especially red wine, can be healthy in small amounts.
Carbohydrates One do not need to care about the carbohydrates from a health perspective. Eat as many carbohydrates as possible, especially if exercising. Too many carbohydrates may cause weight gain and an increased risk of diseases. Too many carbohydrates is unhealthy. Make yourself aware of the glycemic index.
Body weight Maintain your ideal weight. Maintain an adequate body mass index. Maintain your desired weight and feel free to build some muscles. The body composition is more important than the weight.
Vitamins and minerals as food additives May be useful, but the nutritiens in the food are enough. Large overdoses can be worth considering for some, such as people exercising. May be interesting, but avoid overdoses, and especially consider additives in the form of antioxidants. A daily need in the form of additives isn't unhealthy, but the antioxidants are most important.
Milk Only children should drink milk. Milk gives strong bones. Drink a lot of milk. Milk is dangerous and may cause weak bones among elderly. Milk gives strong children. Drink more milk. Scientists have misinterpreted results and realized milk actually prevents osteoporosis. Calcium in milk doesn't cause atherosclerosis, and this is a common misconception. Findings actually show the opposite. High cholesterol levels is much more dangerous in this regard.

-- Jugalator 22:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless the table is based on solid sources, it is original research. That is not to say that it doesn't give a nice overview! JFW | T@lk 22:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


To the "Future Problem Solvers" (70.252.0.218)

Please do not use Wikipedia as advertising space to advertise yourselves or anyone else. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.

Ziiv 21:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Article suggestions

Hello. Good choice for a re-write. I'm interested in seeing it reflect the the life span. Prenatal to advanced age. I'll look at prenatl articles to see what's there already. Plus, needs a brief section on special nutritional needs related to metabolic disorders with links to the metabolic disorder and specific disorders. FloNight talk 14:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If these comments are off track let me know FloNight talk 14:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of links section

Took out the following links:

(mostly a GoogleAds farm)

(Ditto and does not add significantly to Wikipedia, mostly duplicating content that is present in WP in much greater detail; not interlinked internally)

Will cross out cleanup job on todo list. - Samsara contrib talk 12:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

I think we want something like this.

- Samsara contrib talk 13:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved links here for discussion.

These links seem too fadish and don't belong under databases. I removed them. Second opinion welcome. FloNight talk 15:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think they need to be included

Faddish isn't exactly the right word for pre-biotics. It is certainly taken seriously, if skeptically (pending better research), by the scientific/medical community. A number of reputable nutritionists seem to accept it. Some of the sites touting it smack of snake-oil sales, but just because some adherents are hucksters and/or health loonies doesn't disprove the concepts. (Actually, in one of the great ironies of medicine, Stanley's "snake oil" -- a total fraud made of oil, camphor and red pepper -- turned out to be a safe and fairly effective liniment. Real snake oil provides EPA by absorption through the skin!) Even a blind pig roots an acorn occasionally.

Anyway, it's taken seriously enough that scientists are doing research. Results with rats have been positive for colon cancer, I think. Some mention of it should be made. It could turn out to be the next Vitamin-C-for-colds (zinc-lozenges-for-colds, etc.), but my hunch from all the literature is that there's some basis to it. Better theoretical basis and more widespread interest from serious microbiologists, for instance.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonbarge (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Science field

The article says "Nutrition is a science...". And then where is its place in the chart of sciences? Is it a part of medicine or biology or something else or science on its own? Koryakov Yuri 08:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Both. Please add it to both in Science#Natural_sciences --James S. 11:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it would be correct to list it twice, wouldn't it? Koryakov Yuri 17:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Fields aren't trees. A schemata of categories is likely to have some nodes with two parents. --James S. 10:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Vegan

I would like to address The China Study findings, as well as the Nov. 05 National Geographic cover article, and finally the 34,000 Seventh-Day Adventist study on nutrition and health. The findings in each suggest health benefits to avoiding animal protein. Could someone point me to prior discussions on the topic of animal protein and longevity?TipPt 00:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I read the China Study from front to back. It said nothing about avoiding "animal protein". It said that Americans eat to much FAT, most of which comes from animal based foods such as the triple bacon cheeseburger. People in China eat less meat, and therefore consume less fat. This means that they incur a lower chance of attaining diseases that come with, or are augmented by, obesity, which includes heart attack, stroke, and some cancers. Americans that have diets consisting of 80% meat products are at higher risk than Chinese people who's diets are only 15-20% meat not because of protein, but fat. The key is to eat less fat. This does not mean cutting meat out of one's diet, but reducing meat intake to a reasonable amount is a necessity. Also, getting meat items low in fat, such as fish, as opposed to high fat meats, such as beef, would make a big difference in the health of the average American. In short: A cheeseburger once a month: good. A cheeseburger at every meal: bad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.38.70 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

DOUBTS (WORLD VIEW)

First of all I don't understand, If nutrition is the science that studies the human diet then we need an article showing the real HUMAN DIET!! THE REAL DIET of humans can be resembled more it what the body actually consumes; including burguers, cigarettes, sodas, candies. Please see taboo food and you'll see what I'm talking about. Something that includes humanity in general.

Second, I don't know if the USDA functions as the worldwide voice for nutrition! is it different in any other countries? and who determines or regulates these thesis? In China or South America and within countries the diet is totally different and regulation defers that I know! including studies and policies!

My recommendation is to start an article on what humans actually consume and have consumed through out history. Including cannibalism.. and unusual animals, minerals and plants. organic and inorganic forms of nourishing the human body. unnecessary intake of things such as cigarettes, or certain drugs.

--Don Quijote's Sancho 08:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nutrition vs. human nutrition

The nutrition article is too focused on human nutrition. We need two articles. // Internet Esquire 22:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dieticians

"Dieticians are Health professionals who are specialized in this area of expertise. They are also the only highly trained health professionals able to provide safe, evidence-based and accurate dietary advice and interventions."

Are we advertising for dieticians now?

They surely provide a good service, but isn't this a little strong? A little slanted?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.2.117 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Soy Controversy

I have a suggestion for a new heading. Some food are healthy and some foods are risky.

Nutritional Disadavantages <or> call it Soy controversy

The increase in soy consumption has been popularized by natural food companies and the soy industry's aggressive marketing campaign in various magazines, tv ads, and in the health food markets. Research has been done with consuming an increased diet with soy due to the fact that soybeans contain phytoestrogens that mimick human estrogen hormonal activity.

P.S. Hello Frank

Hi. It's perfectly fine to indicate that there is a controversy, but remember you must provide appropriate citations for it. Frankg 00:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of nutritional information in hamburger articles - liberal bias?

An editor from an IP address 209.94.161.136 (talk · contribs) removed the nutritional information from several hamburger articles with the edit summary: Deleted nutrition information, which shows a liberal bias. I don't think the edits are in line with wikipedia policies and it is my opinion that if the editor thinks that the inclusion of verifiable information which has been reliably sourced does not meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, he needs to explore this on the discussion pages and explore how to resolve the issue. However, are there any other opinions on the issue of including this information in articles such as Big Mac?--Golden Wattle talk 23:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The China Study ... Whole plant foods diet

The article relies heavily on that one work, but the author is a respected scientist and Cornell University professor, who has supervised or performed 75 man-years of peer reviewed and often-published nutrition research studies.

The work specifically conducted in China is "the most comprehensive, large-scale human study ever done of the connections between diet, lifestyle, and disease." (NYT)

Please see this website for verification: [1]

Those quotes (you deleted) are long, but highly relevant. The source is clearly stated. They are based on good science and data ... Oxford and Cornell and a small army of researchers. The China Study's Campbell usually writes thick scientific stuff ... he's going from the research and is precise in his word choice. My writing is loose, but it is not presented as propaganda. I'll take out the toxic animal protein line if you want.

Please research these new works, plus I suggest The Okinanwa Program, Willcox B..., and Becomming Vegan, Davis B...both cite numerous recent studies linking plant consumption and health.TipPt 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

PS ... please leave the article alone while you look into the citations. I'll shorten it and take out non-encyclopedic text ... might be a couple days.TipPt 00:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I addressed your concerns on my talk page, but in short, the section as written sounds like it is trying to advocate the China Study position, rather than report the facts as generally agreed upon. I am changing it back to the shorter version, and I ask other interested parties to provide a few more sets of eyes on this to determine how best to include the material on the page in an unbiased and encyclopedic fashion. Frankg 01:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, while reading about Dr. Campbell, I came across the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. It's involvement with PETA may indicate a propensity for controversy, to say the least. Frankg 02:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
You write well, thanks. I encourage "generally agreed" properly cited opossing research.
Campbell seems only indirectly or weakly associated with PETA. I think in his book he says he sometimes eats meat (eating away from home). Bottom line, can anyone find fault with his data and statistical review?TipPt 20:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is possible to incorporate the topics in the china study article in a non-biased way, since if you read the article at the link previously provided (http://nutrition.cornell.edu/ChinaProject/) you will find that it is not as biased as PETA would have you think. It does not say in that article that you should stop eating meat all together. What it does say is that meat tends to be high in fat and cholesterol, and that excess fat and cholesterol in one's diet lead to an increased risk of degenerative diseases when consumed in high quantities. The average American's diet, according to the study, is composed of 60-80% animal derived foods. It simply states that this is too much. It does not say to stop eating animal derived foods. In fact, the study puts people who's diets are composed of 20% animal derived food in the low risk for degenerative diseases category. This is not news. Most adults already know that they need to cut the fat and cholesterol out of their diets. This study did a good job showing what we risk by not reducing fat and cholesterol. The study also shows the importance of eating lots of plant based foods. It does not say that your diet should be composed solely of plant based foods. It shows that the average American, who eats mostly meat, does not get adequate nutrition. This is not news either. Most Americans will say they do not eat right. Dietary fibers, which come from plant based foods, are known to help clean out the digestive trek. They reduce the amount of carcinogens in the trek by reducing the amount of time that any given carcinogen will stay in the trek. This reduces the amount of cancer causing agents that make it into the blood stream. The study shows that those of us who do not get enough dietary fiber are at higher risk of contracting several types of cancer. (I also noticed that the study linked alcohol and tobacco consumption to increased cancer risk.) Again, this does not say we should stop eating meat. It says we need more fiber (and less alcohol/tobacco). The article also points out that Americans tend to be deficient in antioxidants, and says we need to get more beta carotene and vitamin c. Granted, this is done by eating more plant based foods, but again it does not mean we need to stop eating meat. In the case of dairy products, the results of the study would indicate that it is good to use low fat dairy products. Although the study said that eating dairy does not reduce the likelihood of getting osteoporosis, the study does show that dairy increases bone density, which reduces the likelihood of bone fractures. In short, have a large salad and fruit cup with every meal, eat lots of whole grains, switch to non-fat milk, and buy low fat meats like fish and skinless roasted chicken (not fried). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.13.153 (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikicook book

I would like to ask if any of you think there should be a Wikicook book. I'm sure people would look at it. Contact me if you have anything to say on the matter. Asteroidz R not planetz 19:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else think there should be one of these? Speak your mind! Asteroidz R not planetz 19:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Asteroidz, please don't put comments like this both at the top and the bottom of Talk pages (I have moved them together). Also, please don't include the same comments on multiple pages (Talk:Food, etc.). Finally, as I mentioned on the other pages, there already is a Wikibooks Cookbook. --Macrakis 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

re-wording a sentence in second paragraph

Mancini reworded the 2nd paragraph, saying "Starvation and optimal health are not extremes , starvation extremes with overeating , with optimal health being in the middle". I've reworded it again according to what I see as the probably original intent of the sentence. On the scale of amount of food, starvation and overeating are the extremes. But I think that is not what this sentence should be trying to get at. This is in the introduction and needs to be about nutrition in general, not necessarily getting into details such as mentioning specific nutrition problems such as overeating. There is another scale, the scale from bad health to good health, along which death by starvation and optimal health are indeed the extremes. This is what I think this sentence was originally intended to talk about and what sounds to me appropriate in the context. I've removed the word "extremes" so that any argument about what is or is not an extreme becomes unnecessary. Feel free to discuss. --Coppertwig 13:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok , well i also induced refferences to conditions like anorexia and bulimia that are closely related to nutrition and should be linked in this article , maybe in another section , i for one wound up reading it while searching for anorexia on wich i had a lapsus.--Mancini 14:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it would be a good idea to mention those things somewhere in the article: possibly as a second sentence in the second paragraph, or somewhere else. Maybe a better place is in the malnutrition article. I tried thinking of a 2nd sentence but it was just a repeat of what was already being said in the malnutrition article. You're welcome to try if you like -- I might or might not agree depending on how it fits together with the flow of the article. --Coppertwig 00:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Anorexia and bulimia are eating disorders connected with human malnutrition, a medical topic. I'd prefer to see this article examine the metabolic and cytological aspects of nutrition across the spectrum of living things -- but accompanied by a separate article, "Human nutrition", on subjects within the science which are strictly unique to humans. D021317c (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy re revert

In the edit summary, 70.243.74.151 said: " (Policy violation. Reverts are for vandalism, not for disagreeing with the facts made. Next time - take it to TALK or EDIT." Actually, it's more complicated than that. I don't think there was a policy violation here. Which policy did you think was violated? The fact that you're doing a revert yourself suggests you think they're sometimes acceptable. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --Coppertwig 03:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This has now been resolved I hope? Irongood 02:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues section

I have concerns this section is more of a list of sensationalized newspaper headlines rather than a reflection of the issues that are considered primary by experts in the field. It could use some good references. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I couldn't agree more. A citation has been added to the issue that I recently added, however, I must admit that its inclusion was propmted by a fat lady using food stamps in front of me in the grocery store. (I added it without reference and the citation research actually came later.) The section should be rewritten, but I wouldn't know how to approach it. Each issue could be an article in itself. Darana 05:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Typo?

Who the hell keeps reverting "includes" into "includeds"? Since when is there something like "includeds" in the English language?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.20.86.47 (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Learning section

The 'nutrition and learning' section needs further cleanup - I did some work on it, and tried to remove some more opinion-based statements. There are some references already listed that could be easily merged into a narrative structure - right now there continues to be a bulleted list in the second half of the section.--Murmur74 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


Agreed. At very least, it needs cleanup and wikification. The copy itself is a little questionable (and fairly POV) as well, frequently equating correlation with causation. It is unlikely that the primary research that this section is based upon assumed causation; there are many other variables, not the least of which is the strong correlation between nutrition and socioeconomic status (and between socioeconomic status and academic performance.) Better sourcing, re-phrasing, and qualification could fix this to some extent. --Kajerm 21:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The TOC structure sucks

Why are some of the nutrients not under "Nutrients"? Where is the heading for minerals? Why are "Nutrition and ______" sections at different header levels? TY33 21:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the article is right in the middle of being cleaned up. It was even worse before. Healthwise 09:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues for possible inclusion as subtopics

(Moved from article:)

"Artificial" interventions in food production and supply:

Sociological issues:

  • Is it possible to eat correctly on a low income? Is proper nutrition economically skewed? How do we increase access to whole foods in impoverished neighborhoods?
  • How do we minimise the current disparity in food availability between first and third world populations (see famine and poverty)?
  • How can public advice agencies, policy making and food supply companies be coordinated to promote healthy eating and make wholesome foods more convenient and available?
  • Should food stamps be distributed to obese families? [1]
  • Do we need nutritional supplements in the form of pills, powders, liquids, etc.?
  • Does the developed world promote good worldwide nutrition by minimizing import tariffs and export subsidies on food transfers?

Research Issues:

  • How do different nutrients affect appetite and metabolism, and what are the molecular mechanisms?
  • Can a whole plant food diet, replete with diversity and colors, be instituted and implemented to improve health and reduce medical costs?
  • What yet to be discovered important roles do vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients play in metabolism and health?
  • Are the current recommendations for intake of vitamins and minerals appropriate?
  • How and why do different cell types respond differently to chronically elevated circulating levels of insulin, leptin, and other hormones?
  • What does it take for insulin resistance to develop?
  • What other molecular mechanisms may explain the link between nutrition and lifestyle-related diseases?
  • What role does the intestinal bacterial flora play in digestion and health?
  • How essential to proper digestion are the enzymes contained in food itself, which are usually destroyed in cooking (see Living foods diet)?
  • What more can we discover through what has been called the phytochemical revolution?

Practising Nutrition The roles and qualifications of practitioners in the area of nutrition is an area frequently up for discussion. In both the USA and UK the term dietitian is protected by law and may only be used by persons attaining specific criteria. The term nutritionist however is not protected and as such may be used by anyone offering food and dietary advice. This is being addressed by a register of nutritionists held by the Nutrition Society in order to protect the public. http://www.nutritionsociety.org/index.asp?nsm=2&page=33

I'm all for protecting the public, but not at the expense of the English language. I'm going to continue using the term "dietitian" as much as I like, having attained the status of presumptive English speaker, and work to protect the public instead from creeping newspeak. D021317c (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture of food instead of USDA guide

I replaced the image of the USDA food pyramid with a picture of food because:

  1. The picture is much more aesthetic. (One of the best food pics I've ever seen.)
  2. A picture of food is representative of the general topic.
  3. The pyramid represented only the "Government policies" section of this article.
  4. The pyramid represented one specific guide to nutrition.
  5. The food picture is more in the spirit of NPOV.

--71.181.46.151 04:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The new picture only shows vegan food, that's far from being NPOV. --213.39.205.161 05:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The picture should represent nutrition, not just food. ←BenB4 06:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
CMU has a great graphic on nutrition which is more general than the pyramid. I got permission from them to use it. --Darana 00:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC) (aka 71.181.46.151)
I'm sorry, but it looks like a Powerpoint slide, and it has as much information as a bulleted list with a heading. I liked the USDA graphic better. ←BenB4 09:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing subheads

Some subheads were changed during the past few weeks which significantly change the meaning of the sections. The changes were made without comment here. I've changed them back. The section "Advice and guidance on nutrition" had been changed to "education" which is probably why BenB4 deleted the image. I put the image back in because is shows a hearing about gov't nutrition policy. --Darana 16:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Senate-hearing-school-nutrition.jpg

That image has survived 400+ edits.

It's related to the text it is next to -- exactly.

It violates no style or guideline.

It was assembled and uploaded specifically to accompany the text.

and

Removing the image lowers the quality of the article.

--Darana 04:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the editor who removed it. On the whole it's an overly large image and it communicates no real information. How does a picture of four heads really inform most readers of anything significant? What are we supposed to take away from having seen it? It's not exactly worth a thousand words (or even twenty). I don't see it making the article better - it's more of a distraction. -- SiobhanHansa 14:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mangled metaphors

"...nutrition science is additionally developing into the study of metabolism, which seeks to disconnect diet and health through the lens of biochemical processes."

Disconnect through a lens? That's certainly a mixed metaphor. I find something about the word "additionally" disturbing, too. Moreover, the article's emphasis on human nutrition dismisses much of the science, the indiscriminate use of the term "the body" is unscientific, and the fact that nutrition occurs on a cellular level is ignored, at least in the opening. D021317c 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Elements

PCBs and dioxin are not elements. Also, elements do not have to be unnecessary for nutrition to present hazards. Copper and chromium are essential nutrients, but excesses of them are dangerous. D021317c 23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC) As PCBs and dioxins are toxind that contaminate food, not nutrients, I've removed them from the lede to avoid confusion. . DGG (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

focus

This article is very narrow in its scope, and the name should be changed to 'Human Nutrition' it does not cover other organisms in any detail. Hardyplants (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

on a daily basis

"On a daily basis" is simply a round-about way of saying "daily". But I doubt the accuracy of the statement that eating all seven categories of nutrients "daily" is "important" to human health. For one thing, it neglects the significance of achieving balance in each meal, and of eating frequently and regularly. It also implies that fasting, even for a day, is detrimental to human health. It is not the "daily basis" of good nutrition which makes it good, it's the fullfilment of whatever needs arise when they arise, including the needs to rest, occasionally to meet extraordinary demands, to avoid overeating, to cope with inborn errors of metabolism, to correct damage to tissues, to regulate the appetite, to deprive pathological processes of fuel, to prepare for exceptional efforts, and so on. The stories of long-lived people are full enough of quirky diets, crazy attitudes, and broken rules to dissuade us of the idea that one diet always fits all. D021317c (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

and what really needs to be consumed each day, besides H2O and NaCl? And what evidence is there really that each meal need or even should be balanced? DGG (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed wikilinks to popular diets

While we're at it, why not include a paleolithic style diet, or other diets advocated based on their health benefits. The list would be too long. All such diets can be found under the wikilink List of diets. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

good work--let nobody reverse it. Keeping them here was spam. DGG (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Plant-based diet

We need an article on plant-based diets that would redirect from the longevity section. Right now, if you type "Plant-based diet" in the search field, you're brought to the article "vegetarianism", yet a plant-based diet isn't necessarily vegetarian. I don't know that much about plant-based diets, but judging from the longevity section, this is an important nutritional concept that ought to be expanded in a separate article, which could link to "vegetarianism", "veganism", etc. Anyone with me? --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. A plant based diet does not have to be a vegetarian diet. Most American's diets, according to a study previously mentioned in this talk section, are comprised of 60-80% animal derived foods. With that in mind, I would say that a diet that is only 20% animal derived foods could be considered a plant based diet. It would benefit from being low in fat and cholesterol, but since the person following that diet would still eat some meat they would get the benefit of large amounts of, and more importantly a wide variety of, necessary amino acids. Yes, I know someone is probably about to get on and say you can get all of your necessary amino acids on a vegetarian diet, but the bottom line is that you are more likely to get them all by eating small amounts of meat than by eating large amounts of plant based foods. This is especially important in small children who need lots of amino acids, but don't have large appetites. Ever try to feed a 4-year old? Five bites and they think dinner is done. You have to make sure there is as much nutrition packed into those five bites as there most possibly can be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.13.153 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Link of Nutrigenomics

to this article, which is important for readers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.59.12 (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

two questions on protiens

1. Why aren't proteins listed under the Sports Nutrition section?

2. Do we have information here about the economic and nutritional costs (relative to current guidelines) of vegetable versus animal proteins? Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems

This article has a lack of references in many sections. There are also some concerns with NPOV. In the antioxidant section for example it does not discuss the use of oxidants by WBCs to kill foreign cells / cancer. And the increased rates of lung cancer in smokers who takes Vitamin E.

At this point I do not think it is a GA.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Nutrition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Delisted

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. Although many inline citations are present, there are several sections that lack citations and there are many "citation needed" tags throughout the article (some date back to February 2007). In addition, the lead would benefit from expansion (see WP:LEAD for guidelines). Add additional sources from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. Although it has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you need assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Human nutrition

I'm Starting a human specific version of this article at User:User name one/Human Nutrition meanwhile trimming out human specific parts of this article. In the future Plant nutrition and Animal Nutrition could also be created. username 1 (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello - I've reverted this and deleted your userspace page. Your cut-and-paste move of the "Human nutrition" content to your userspace without attribution of authorship was in violation of the Creative Commons Attribution licence. There is also already a subarticle for Human nutrition, to which you have also contributed, and this is even less reason to cut the content wholly out of this article and paste it into another userspace version. Please refer to WP:SS and work on Human nutrition rather than in your userspace.  Sandstein  22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Plant nutrition

I'm going to re-merge the split. I think covering plant nutrition too is a great idea, I just want to make sure that the format conforms to the Manual of Style. Often it is a good idea to get the split articles just the way you want them before you put the split into effect in the main article. In the mean time, I recommend dealing with the larger merge. Dual Use (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Database/Search Link suggestion

There is currently a Search by Nutrient and Search by Food features on this page. I suggested a Search by Health Condition (and offered a link https://www.personalremedies.com/PS.asp which is a free site) but someone removed it. Frankly Search by Health Condition is more important than the other two because more people are concerned about following an appropriate diet for their chronic condition(s) than they are just interested in learning about nutrients or nutrient contents of a food item.

I am new to editing this site and perhaps I am missing something. Can someone explain to me why my suggestion was ignored? Thanks. Spainbeach (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Carnivore and Herbivore comparison

The carnivore and herbivore diet is contrasting and important for correlation. The basic nitrogen and carbon proportions being at varying levels in particular foods. Carnivore nutrition has more nitrogen than carbon, with herbivore nutrition containing less nitrogen than carbon, when an equal quantity is measured. Nitrogen is the predominant source of energy for organisms, through the nitrogen cycle, with various minerals and vitamins being equally vital. Nitrogen is also the primary energy for regular metabolic rates, this necessitates greater sums of plants for herbivore digestion, to absorb significant energy for sustenance and stamina.

I have added this paragraph and comparison of energy, placing it in the Overview (section) near the paragraph of chemical compounds. — RW Marloe (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


I am not sure how to do this but this looks like the way. If I have offended anybody (with the exception of the person who thinks the that the Nitrogen cycle is the Major source of energy for animals) then I am sorry. Perhaps this student should look up the KREBS CYCLE and see what actually happens to all those useless little carbon atoms and then ask himself if he was to eat a diet devoid of carbon how long he would last.Hogwash eliminator (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fraught with ERRORS

I am new here and do not quite know all the rules. But I do know that this article was written by someone who was either ignorant or not paying attention to his cuts and pastes.

I have tried twice to alert the readers to flaws within just the first few paragraphs but have been slapped down and have my SECOND WARNING from one of the patrolmen. A second “editor” was nice enough to step in and actually FIX one o the major errors in which the author had written that WATER was SOLUABLE. I almost fell off my chair when I read that. This article has cut and pasted data which end up as gibberish when being read after the authors final paste.

DOES NO ONE ACTUALLY READ OR EDIT this type of article?? Is anyone allowed to post their misconceptions of the real world within this website?

Animals get most of their energy through the Nitrogen cycle—HOGWASH Carnivores use more nitrogen than carbon – they would have to suck on Ammonium nitrate crystals for that to happen unless of course they were able to cut out every gram of fat from the meat they were eating and even then they would consume more Carbon than Nitrogen.

How about this gibberish “Most foods contain a mix of some or all of the nutrient classes, together with other substances such as toxins or various sorts” What did he say?? Or how about this garbage “The increased effort and decreased availability reduces the available energy from starchy foods substantially and can be seen experimentally in rats and anecdotally in humans.” Did he leave something out of his cut and paste??

I use to edit a medical magazine and I would have sent this article right back to the author 5 minutes after it arrived.

Be very careful how much of this misinformation you take with you when you are done. Hogwash eliminator (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogwash eliminator (talk • contribs) 18:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you note the article has been cut and paste. If that is the case, then the text is a copyright violation, and thus must be immediately removed. However, to prove that it is a copyright violation, please provide the source text that you think it was taken from.
Secondly, if you expect anyone to listen to you, I would suggest you stop speaking in an insulting manner. People have put their time into this article, the least you could do, if you spot an inaccuracy, is bring it up here nicely. Continued insults and incivility will get you nowhere but a block.
Thirdly, if that is truly the case, then you should not have trouble finding reliable sources to back up your claims, otherwise, we cannot use any material you give us, as that is original research, and therefore not allowed.
Lastly, again, try being short and to the point. Do not be insulting, and do not be uncivil. Provide sources for your claims, and do not insert your opinion into the article about the article text. Your claim that no one reads talk pages could not be further from the truth.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well first of all about your Firstly

Cutting and pasting is only a copyright violation when the material cut and pasted is copyrighted to begin with.

Second of all to your Secondly. I was reprimanded quite abruptly by whomever telling me that I was not following some code of honor in the editing department. Of course I snapped back. This article is riddled with error. And all I get from your side is a call for protocol. I now find that others have been allowed to compound the problem within this article when they followed your rules and were given the go ahead to edit-in ludicrous information. For example THE NITOGEN CYCLE is the major source of energy in animals. – when I commented that this was HOGWASH my comment was removed and the content allowed to remain. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

Third to your thirdly – I do not really need to cite my sources when commenting on some obvious foolishness such as the SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH or the EARTH IS FLAT. I made comments on the articles contention that WATER WAS SOLUABLE. (that alone should have been enough to delete the entire article). Someone has said that Nitrogen through the nitrogen cycle is the major source of energy. Next they will be saying 2 + 2 = 5 and I will have to find a citation which says it is not 5.


And lastly to your lastly. 2 + 2 = 4 and it is not my CLAIM. It is fact. Water is a universal solvent and therefore cannot be dissolved by fiber as this article maintained. Someone with the authority, such as it is, was bright enough to repair the error without me having to waste my time foraging for days looking for a 2 + 2 citation.

Thanks for the cookies and invitations to stick around but it appears to be too much trouble. In parting you editor types need to learn that when something is WRONG it is wrong and that is that. Look it up yourself with the same time you use lambasting someone who cared enough to show any interest. What you have to ask yourself is – How long has this article been uploaded into this website and why has no one corrected the numerous errors during that time. Putting it on some kind of self regulated B list does not really help the naïve. If you exercise your final threat of a BLOCK I will just have to go on a hunger strike or something. The depression will kill me. In the meantime listen to some of your readers who bring out an issue and check them out for yourself. But then you could be right, since I have not been around the world nor can quote any citations at the moment, it may just be flat after all. Hogwash eliminator (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


Continue to call people fools, and treat us like idiots, and you will not be here very longer. I politely told you what you need to do to fix the article, if you don't want to, and if you don't like our rules, the door is over there.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


As to things being wrong, you could have FIXED the article instead of WRITING YOUR OPINION ABOUT IT in the article text. I personally don't like YELLING, and neither does anyone else here. Cut it out.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Misc comments

Article is wrong. Nitrogen is definitely NOT the major source of energy for living organisms, carbon is (in the form of carbohydrates). This needs to be ammended.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgwooster (talk • contribs) 02:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a paragraph on the Atkins Diet in the Sports Nutrition section that seems completely out of context. Anyone care to take it out (and perhaps place it somewhere more appropriate, though it seems that the policy is no links to specific diets)? 89.181.61.71 (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph makes sense and might well be useful, but I agree that it is in the wrong place. It discusses weight loss, not sports nutrition per se. I'll put it here for the time being. Sakkura (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The most recent evidence appears to support the beneficial nature of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet. A large randomized study at Stanford University found that women following such a diet "lost more weight and experienced more favorable overall metabolic effects at 12 months" than in other diets. The study followed 311 pre-menopausal, non-diabetic women, age 25-50. The women lost significantly more weight (mean 4.7 kg) on the [[Atkins diet]] than on 3 higher-carbohydrate diets (LEARN 2.6 kg, Ornish 2.2 kg, and Zone 1.6 kg), without appearing to increase cardiovascular risks within the 12-month study period. Changes in HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and mean blood pressure significantly favored Atkins over the other three diets. The authors concluded that "concerns about adverse metabolic effects of the Atkins diet were not substantiated within the 12-month study period."<ref>[http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/9/969] Christopher D. Gardner, et al., Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women: The A TO Z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2007;297:969-977. March 7, 2007.</ref>

The reference to Genesis 1:29 should be reconsidered. There are numerous references to "livestock" in Genesis 1 as well. I presume livestock refers to animals we keep to eat? I don't see how this is any indication that the first meals were vegetarian...

Where in the text would the link to cooking go? --mike dill

Living in hotter environments doesn't increase lifespan =/ who said that? Swedes have some of the longest lives, and Sweden is friggin cold. --r3tex

You're ignoring the effects of separating variables. Sure, Sweden is cold, but it also has a much very higher standard of living than most countries. 89.181.61.71 (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Recently I've been hearing in the news that the food pyramid is not all that great idea afterall. I've also heard that drinking your 8 cups (or whatever it is) a day of water is not necessary anymore. Should this page be updated to include such information maybe? -- Ram-Man

The "8 cups of water a day" thing was never a recommendation of any legitimate medical group; it's more of an urban legend that people keep repeating because it's simple and convenient. Likewise the "pyramid" is a political result, not a medical one, though most doctors saw it as reasonable at the time. The anti-fat mania of the 80s and 90s is starting to fade a little now that more long-term studies have come in to show that fats aren't really as bad as we thought, and carbs are worse than we thought. But like all science, it changes as we learn more. --LDC

A suggestion for inclusion into the article: why is it so important for humans to eat a diverse diet of fruits and veggies and whatnot, but animals like the koala bear survive eating just one kind of plant. Do koala bears not need all the same nutrients humans do, or do they get some of them some other way? Tokerboy

First of all, the name is Koala not Koala bear. While it is true that Koalas eat only Eucalyptus leaves, they still have a varied diet, as they eat the leaves of various species of Eucalyptus trees. However, not all species of Eucalyptus tree are suitable as Koala food trees. Figaro 08:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, it is true that meats are not inherently unhealthy. However, modern meat tends to contain large concentrations of chemicals such as pesticides and semisynthetic molecules that are not easily broken down. Higher concentrations of heavy metals are even more worrying as they tend to accumulate and cause long-term brain damage. The vegetarian diet is touted as healthier for this reason and because it encourages greater variety in the diet, spiritual or perceptual differences aside (quoth the vegetarian).

Why not to add nutrition information to plants,fruits,etc? Maybe in another table, like the taxonomy. There is a free nutrition db at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/

Or maybe this belongs to the http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook?

First, I want to say 'Good job, contributors!'. However, there are always things to improve. As mentioned in the to-do list, the Nutrition and Health section could use some reorganizing. In the introduction to the section, six categories of nutrients are listed: carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals, and water. I suggest using these six categories as subtopics. In particular, I notice that while there is a section on sugar, there is no discussion of carbohydrates in general in this section. Also, it would be more correct to discuss vitamins and minerals under separate headings, rather than lumping them together under the vitamin heading. Finally, a listing of the micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) would be a useful addition to the site.

70.64.56.190 06:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked over the whole page, but the suggested rate of protein consumption in the sports nutrition section does not specify a time period. I believe the suggestion implies 1g protein/kg body mass/day for sedentary people.

The section on processed foods does not cite sources. It is asserted there that various processing technologies such as drying affect the nutritional value of food. I would like to know how, but can't trace the claims. --Anotherak —Preceding comment was added at 06:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look over to DOMS, the section Carbohydrates in Sports nutrition seems a bit inaccurate, or even wrong. The true cause of muscle soreness isn't scientifically proven, but it is generally believed that lactic acid is not the key factor (or may not even be involved at all). --Onitake (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any, or would it be good to add information about the affect of busy lifestyles on nutrition?Ddecadee (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

NITROGEN HOGWASH

At the very beginning of this article under OVERVIEW the sanctioned text claims without citation that “Nitrogen is the predominant source of energy for organisms, through the nitrogen cycle,”

Notice that just above and to the right is an insert of a “NUTRITION FACTS” guide.

Please take a moment of your time to further notice that the PREDOMINANT SOURCE OF ENERGY is not even mentioned at all with-in the nutrition facts lable. Again notice that sodium, calcium and iorn are included but no nitrogen. WHAT HAPPENED?? Did the government neglect to require disclosure of the most important element to your nutrition in the facts. Or could it possibly be that the approved information contained in this article is total HOGWASH.

Hogwash eliminator (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Continue being insulting and I will push for your block. You want to improve the article, or do you want to insult all those who have worked on it. Choose one, but I can promise that if you continue to be insulting, you will not be editing any longer. You obviously care quite a bit about editing here, as, instead of leaving, you continue to edit.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


Well I didn’t really understand that “talking” on the TALK or discussion page was considered editing. So far I have edited NOTHING I was led to believe in the last 24 hours that if I wanted to comment on anything that I should use the talk/discussion page. SO I have used the this page. Are you really going to block my right to comment on the talk/discussion page by pushing for a block. How juvenile. Or is all of this blustering because you were using your Mac when you read my comments. I have come to understand that when using the Mac sometimes you are confused and very sorry afterwards. As far as insulting all those who have worked on this article…… I am surprised to hear that there have been more than one. How embarrassing to have so many authoritarians work so hard on any article with so many errors and not have noticed the errors. Please edify yourself on the Nitrogen Cycle and get back Thanks

Hogwash eliminator (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How old are you? Certainly, if you are an adult, you can act like one, and speak in a civil manner. Cut out the 'all caps' as well, there is no need for them here. It is rather funny, how you speak of childish behavior, then begin by sniping me in regards to the computer I use. Quite funny indeed.
Act your age, and stop with the inferences that those who edited this article are stupid. Ad hominem attacks are not allowed here, so really, stop.
If you comment here again, prove you can act your age, and do so in a civil manner.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Lastly, do you see that link you clicked to edit this section? Every page on wikipedia is edited. You can only add any amount of text to any page by editing it, hence why all page changes are referred to as edits.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

D! You have accused me of being insulting, several times. What may be considered an insult by the person on the wrong end of the skewer may actually be the truth. When you asked my age you were trying to be insulting and as RUDE as others in here have pointed you out to be. Do you think being an old bag brings any knowledge or wisdom to the table?? (that was a question not an accusation but then you could try slipping your foot into the shoe). I notice, from your last comment, that you think that just because who ever programmed this software and used a button at the top right of each post and entitled the button “EDIT,” that anyone who clicks this button becomes an EDITOR. I know that you certainly must feel that your qualifications as an editor stem there from. Perhaps you should contact the software department and "EDIT" the EDIT button or request a second button for COMMENTS, perhaps a third for OPINIONS, and possibly a 4th for “unnecessary jabber from a self proclaimed editor.” You know D! I woke up last night in a sweat and it dawned on me that you yourself after having preformed all the “editing” that you are doing on this “article” have never ever actually read the article itself. And about the Mac comment – I had read on your page that you had mistaken someone’s name as too long and too big and too everything annoying to you so that you reported the guy. Then later, but only after you were corrected as being wrong, you apologized saying that you were confused since you were looking at one of your many computers which happened to be a Mac at the time of your error. It made me wonder if you were using the same Mac when commenting on my comments. Just for fun I took the time this morning to take a look at your archives and found that you have been slapped down numerous times for being out of line. There must be more to being an editor than just tossing your weight around (hope you don’t perceive that to be an insult). Learning all the abbreviations, jargon, and spending endless hours wandering around inside a website must have some spell over you. I came to this site to correct an error laden article so far I have been met by patrolmen, and self-righteous old timers. I will say however, that there are a few in here who actually “GET IT” and they have been kind enough to say so. You on the other hand need to look into a mirror. So there we are D. I read the article and made comments while trying to make myself feel better by helping to clarify the errors, you did not read the article and only made yourself feel better by reprimanding. Some one with what ever authority it takes should review your page and its archives. Once that is done maybe that will be the end to it all.

Hogwash eliminator (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts and requests

Hogwash eliminator -- please try to understand, we're mostly not professionals here. We accept contributions from everybody, so in a topic like "nutrition" where everyone thinks they have some experience, there are always dumb errors being introduced. We just fix the errors (when we can) and get on with editing. Your help in that area is much appreciated. But don't expect most contributions to this article to meet the standards of a medical journal. Treat such contributions as more like an 8th-grader's biology homework with yourself as an instructor, fix errors that you see if you're up for it, and briefly explain the issues in the edit summary or on the talk page. Most contributors are trying to be helpful and are eager to learn. (You might like our Krebs cycle article better than the nutrition article, since that topic is probably only edited by people with more specialized knowledge and is less likely to have silly errors.)

Also, people do read the talk page. Most people who have edited the article much have it watchlisted, which means they get notified any time the talk page is updated, and so they come and look at the update. The other issues being raised about your interaction style are valid too. So please try to get used to the way we do things, if you want to keep contributing here. That you're off to a rough start is no big deal--it's a standard newbie error, so just dial it back and things will be ok. I'm sure you can contribute helpfully if you stay around--just try to understand, we're your colleagues, we deal with all the same problems all the time, and nobody likes being yelled at. There is a matter-of-fact, neutral style that anyone who writes scientific articles has to develop. If you're in a disagreement with your fellow editors, it's still best to discuss it in the same matter-of-fact, neutral way, rather than calling them names (even when they deserve to be called names).

Daedalus, the same goes for you: please try to stay composed even if provoked. We have a strict policy of civility here (WP:CIVIL) which is indispensible because of the crazy, drawn-out disputes that we sometimes get in with each other. There are other venues like internet discussion boards where it's culturally normal to handle disagreements with confrontation, so sometimes people used to those places arrive here and we have a bit of temporary culture clash. Treat it as don't bite the newbies and don't worry about it too much, as long as it doesn't persist. In any case, don't respond in kind.

66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 66. I will keep all that in mind. As for the name calling if you will review my comments you see that I have never actually called anyone a name even in cases where they may have deserved it. The ability or inability of some in here to actually interpret what is said is as it is. Just a thought 66….. Medical journal or 8th grade biology book….. Misinformation is misinformation. In a medical journal it is ousted as garbage immediately but in an 8th grade textbook it is burned in as fact. Riding in on your white horse with guns blazing before investigating only compounds the problems and does not remedy the situation, something D and S need to resolve with themselves.. Further I would like to point out that personally I must be representative of some portion of the readership on this site, no matter if it represents 2 standard deviations from the mean or only a third skewed deviation to the right or left. While I have been using this site for definitions, and answers to questions frequently over the many years I have NEVER ever consulted the discussion page. In fact until yesterday, when I signed on, I had never even thought to look around to see if there was such a forum, page or thread. So while it may be that SOME review the discussion page each time they seek edification most probably just read the body of the text and move on. In discussing the events of the past 48 hours with others outside this site I have found that the perception by the majority that I spoke with to be, shall we say, hesitance to accept most of the information herein as legitimate. That thought has to be scary when viewed from the pulpit of an informational and educational program. In that light perhaps more should be done to insure correctness than politeness. In parting I was wondering if anything will be done to correct just this one article? I don’t want to take the time to learn all the rules, regulation, abbreviations, covenants, codes, and restrictions when it comes to “editing” Wikopedia. Hopefully someone with the resources to clean up at least this one article of millions will see to it. I think I have only lasted this long stumbling around in here because of that <personal attack redacted>. Thank you and the few others for your support.

Hogwash eliminator (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"...wondering if anything will be done to correct just this one article?" => go ahead, the article is all yours. Really. Be bold (click this link) and make it better. And try to avoid calling anyone "that X character". Cheers, DVdm (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hogwash eliminator, you're right that the discussion pages aren't widely read by non-editors, but they are heavily used by people who edit the article. I hope you'll stay around. Don't worry too much about the rules and regulations, especially for a relatively uncontroversial topic like this. You'll get in a lot of arguments about rules if you try to edit articles relating to (most notoriously) nationalistic political conflict in Eastern Europe, but it's less of an issue in science-related articles like this. WP:Five pillars might be of some help. Yes, there are templates one can put into the article to flag it as needing attention. I'll see if I can figure out which ones to add, and will try to answer your other questions later (I'm in the middle of some other things right now). If you don't want to deal with editing the article directly, you can still advise us here on the talk page of what changes to make, and I'm sure the help will be invaluable. For example, I mostly edit math and computer articles and I don't know anything about biology. I would have no idea what changes to make to this article. (Of course, we like it best when you just go ahead and edit the article). Just be nice, we're all volunteers wanting to do a good job, even though we don't always know how. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Healthy Diet rewrite

I'm not sure why the "healthy diet" section currently cites an insurance company, but I suggest changing the pre-Nat'l Geographic part to:

The U.S. government's Food Pyramid[2] advises adult Americans to eat from the following food groups:

--Grains: 6 to 8 ounces per day for men; 5 to 6 ounces for women.

--Vegetables: 2.5 to 3 cups per day for men; 2 to 2.5 cups for women.

--Fruits: 2 cups per day for men; 1.5 to 2 cups for women.

--Dairy: 3 cups daily for men and women.

--Protein foods: 5.5 to 6.5 ounces daily for men; 5 to 5.5 ounces for women.

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines[3], released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in January 2011, emphasized that Americans should limit their consumption of trans fatty acids, saturated fat, and sodium.

Any thoughts?

Organo435 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Archival

This page is about 82k bytes long. It's rather large, and some of the threads are three years old. I would like to set up an archival bot, and if not an archival bot, then instead of just some archives of the old stuff. No move archives please. The only thing that will do is make searching for things in the history really, really hard.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation Verification

--Jason.somarelli (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"The diet of an organism is what it eats, which is largely determined by the perceived palatability of foods."

  • I could not find a citation for this statement "determined by the perceived palatability of foods".

"A poor diet can have an injurious impact on health, causing deficiency diseases such as scurvy"

Animal Nutrition

"...while herbivores consume nutrition contains less nitrogen than carbon, when an equal quantity is measured"

"Nitrogen is the predominant source of energy for organisms, through the nitrogen cycle, with various minerals and vitamins being equally vital."

  • Nitrogen is not the primary source of energy for any organisms save for a few types of bacteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.140.65 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Equally vital to what? Please clarify this point.

"Nitrogen is also the primary energy for regular metabolic rates, this necessitates greater sums of plants for herbivore digestion, to absorb significant energy for sustenance and stamina."

  • This is unclear as is. I would consider changing to "...the primary energy source necessary to maintain normal metabolic rates. This necessitates greater sums of plants for herbivore digestion."

I would replace the citation: http://thehealthylifestyleconsultant.com/MakingtheTransitiontoWholeFoods.aspx with http://www.realage.com/eat-smart/food-and-nutrition/how-to-eat-healthy
"...resulting in better management of cell growth, maintenance, and mitosis (cell division), as well as better regulation of appetite and blood sugar"

I added two citations for "Regularly scheduled meals (every few hours) have also proven more wholesome than infrequent or haphazard ones,[2] although a recent study has also linked more frequent meals with a higher risk of colon cancer in men.[3]"

Nutrients

"...just as ordinary glucose in a process known as gluconeogenesis" "...By breaking down existing protein, some glucose can be produced internally; the remaining amino acids are discarded, primarily as urea in urine. "This occurs normally only during prolonged starvation."

"Other micronutrients include antioxidants and phytochemicals, which are said to influence (or protect) some body systems."

"Poor health can be caused by a lack of required nutrients or, in extreme cases, too much of a required nutrient. For example, both salt..."

"...and water..."

Carbohydrates

"...deficient in essential minerals and vitamins, largely because of removal of both germ and bran during processing) food source. "

"...because they are typically long, multiple branched chains of sugar units."

"The difference is that complex carbohydrates take slightly longer to digest and absorb because their sugar units must be separated from the chain before absorption."

  • I could not find evidence that complex carbs take longer to digest because their sugar units must be separated before absorption.

"...have become more frequent in recent times."

  • I could not find a citation for this

"Simple sugars form a greater part of modern diets than formerly, perhaps leading to more cardiovascular disease."

  • I could not find a citation for this statement.

"Gelatinized starch (starch heated for a few minutes in the presence of water) is far more digestible than plain starch."

"In addition, starch that has been divided into fine particles is also absorbed more readily during digestion."

"...availability reduces the available energy from starchy foods substantially and can be seen experimentally in rats"

  • Possible citation: Holm et al. 1988. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 47, 1010-1016. This is a primary source, but the only one I could find.

"Additionally, up to a third of dietary starch may be unavailable due to mechanical or chemical difficulty."

  • Difficulty in what? Difficulty in digestion, processing, absorption? In fact, I found the opposite in one study in rats. Almost all starch was digested (>99%). Consider removing this sentence.

"Carbohydrates are not essential to the human diet, as they are relatively low in vitamins and minerals, and energy can be provided from excess fats and proteins in the diet."

I am not sure why this section has not had more editing than it has, but the information on carbs was incorrect and unsourced. I have removed some of the text that seemed iffy and added a more accurate picture of carbs, but lots more detail could be added.Michaplot (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fiber

"Like all carbohydrates, when it is metabolized it can produce four Calories (kilocalories) of energy per gram."

"But in most circumstances it accounts for less than that because of its limited absorption and digestibility."

"...a large carbohydrate polymer that is indigestible because humans do not have the required enzymes to disassemble it."

"Dietary fiber helps reduce the chance of gastrointestinal problems such as constipation and diarrhea."

"Insoluble fiber, found in whole-wheat flour, nuts and vegetables, especially stimulates peristalsis..."

Fat

"...they are typically created in an industrial process called (partial) hydrogenation."

"There are eight kilocalories in each gram of fat."

"Saturated fats (typically from animal sources) have been a staple in many world cultures for millennia."

"Unsaturated fats (e. g., vegetable oil) are considered healthier, while trans fats are to be avoided."

"...detrimental to human health, but have properties useful in the food processing industry, such as rancidity resistance."

Essential Fatty Acids

"However, in humans, at least two fatty acids are essential and must be included in the diet."

"...seems also important for health,..."

"... which have roles throughout the human body."

"...from the omega-3 essential fatty acid alpha-linolenic acid (LNA), or taken in through marine food sources..."

"...serves as a building block for series 2 prostaglandins (e.g. pro-inflammatory PGE 2)."

"Both DGLA and AA can be made from the omega-6 linoleic acid (LA) in the human body, or can be taken in directly through food."

  • I could not find a citation for this sentence.

"...a balance between omega-3 and omega-6 is believed important for cardiovascular health."

"...have reduced amounts of the essential fatty acids along with too much of omega-6 fatty acids relative to omega-3 fatty acids."

"...away from pro-inflammatory PGE2 (made from AA) toward anti-inflammatory PGE1 (made from DGLA)."

"Moreover, the conversion (desaturation) of DGLA to AA is controlled by the enzyme delta-5-desaturase..."

"...which in turn is controlled by hormones such as insulin (up-regulation) and glucagon (down-regulation)."

"...effects on immune function and inflammation, and mitosis (i.e. cell division)."

Protein

"...(these components are responsible for the distinctive smell of burning protein, such as the keratin in hair)."

  • Is this necessary in the nutrition page? The page is very long as it is, so removal of any unnecessary components may help facilitate reading.

"A diet that contains adequate amounts of amino acids (especially those that are essential) is particularly important in some situations: during early development and maturation,..."

"...characteristic combinations are the basis of distinct cultural cooking traditions."

Minerals

"...from foods in which they occur naturally, or at least as complex compounds,..."

"...sometimes even from natural inorganic sources (such as calcium carbonate from ground oyster shells)."

  • I found a contrary study about this and not much support. Perhaps it can be removed to reduce confusion?

"...the most famous is likely iodine in iodized salt which prevents goiter."

Macrominerals

"...provides signaling ions for nerve and membrane functions)"

"causes strong peristalsis, increases flexibility, increases alkalinity)"

"Potassium, a very common electrolyte (heart and nerve health)"

"Excessive sodium consumption can deplete calcium"

Trace Minerals

"...and must obtain this cobalt-containing vitamin in the diet"

"Copper required component of many redox enzymes, including cytochrome c oxidase"

"Chromium required for sugar metabolism"

"...is needed in larger quantities than others in this list, and sometimes classified with the macrominerals"

"Iron required for many enzymes, and for hemoglobin and some other proteins"

"Manganese (processing of oxygen)"

"Molybdenum required for xanthine oxidase and related oxidases"

"Nickel present in urease"

"Selenium required for peroxidase (antioxidant proteins)"

"Zinc required for several enzymes such as carboxypeptidase, Alcohol dehydrogenase#In humans|liver alcohol dehydrogenase, carbonic anhydrase"

Vitamins

"...be synthesized in the skin, in the presence of UVB radiation."

"Excess levels of some vitamins is also dangerous to health (notably vitamin A)..."

"...and for at least one vitamin, B6, toxicity begins at levels not far above the required amount."

Water

"...although some assert that 6–8 glasses of water daily is the minimum to maintain proper hydration."

  • Citation needed.
  • The link that is provided is broken.

"The notion that a person should consume eight glasses of water per day cannot be traced to a credible scientific source."

  • Possible citation: [4]
  • This is a primary source, but it is written in a way that is easy to understand

"http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=18495 Dietary Reference Intakes: Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate"

  • Broken link. Consider replacing with [5]

"...however, putting them at risk of water intoxication, which can be fatal."

"In particular, large amounts of de-ionized water are dangerous."

  • I’m not sure this is true. I think it would be very hard to separate cases in which someone was killed from drinking too much water in general from those in which the person drank too much DI water. I also could not find a source for this. You may wish to consider removing this sentence.

"...water and assorted beverages (caffeinated included)."

Other Nutrients

"Phytochemicals may act as antioxidants, but not all phytochemicals are antioxidants."

  • You may wish to consider removing this because there is no way to know for sure whether every phytochemical is an antioxidant.

Antioxidants

"Recently, some researchers suggested an interesting theory of evolution of dietary antioxidants."

  • Possible citation: Benzi et al. 2003. Evolution of dietary antioxidants. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology - Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology. Volume 136, Issue 1, Pages 113-126

"...compounds (Beta-carotene converted to Vitamin A by the body..."

"...Vitamin D synthesized from cholesterol by sunlight)."

"...the majority of antioxidants; about 4,000 are known."

  • I could not find a citation for this. Consider removing.

"...vitamin C can reactivate free radical-containing glutathione or vitamin E by accepting the free radical itself."

"safely dealt with by more efficient antioxidants in neutralizing a free radical's butterfly effect."

"These nutrients are typically found in edible plants, especially colorful fruits and vegetables..."

"...but also other organisms including seafood, algae,..."

"...and fungi."

"...increasingly survive rigorous testing by prominent health organizations."

"...are known to provide certain health benefits to the cardiovascular system and immune system."

"Less rigorous studies have proposed a correlation between zeaxanthin intake and cataracts."

  • Perhaps this can be reworded to say, “Another study has proposed…”

"...lutein, has also been shown to lower the risk of contracting AMD."

"Both compounds have been observed to collect in the retina when ingested orally..."

"Another carotenoid, beta-cryptoxanthin, appears to protect against chronic joint inflammatory diseases, such as arthritis."

"While the association between serum blood levels of beta-cryptoxanthin and substantially decreased joint disease has been established..."

  • Consider moving the following citation up to just after "established" in this sentence: [6]

"...has substantial credible evidence of negative association with development of prostate cancer."

"However, it does not protect the eye nearly as well as zeaxanthin..."

"...flavonoid]]s||berries, herbs, vegetables, wine, grapes, tea||general antioxidant, oxidation of LDLs, prevention of arteriosclerosis and heart disease..."

"...isoflavones (phytoestrogens)||soy, red clover, kudzu root||general antioxidant, prevention of arteriosclerosis..."

"...and heart disease,..."

"...easing symptoms of menopause,..."

"...cancer prevention..."

"isothiocyanates||cruciferous vegetables||cancer prevention

"...cancer prevention,..."

"...organosulfur compounds]]||chives, garlic, onions||cancer prevention, lowered LDLs, assistance to the immune system"

"...saponins||beans, cereals, herbs||Hypercholesterolemia, Hyperglycemia, Antioxidant, cancer prevention,"

"...Anti-inflammatory..."

"capsaicinoids||all capiscum (chile) peppers||topical pain relief, cancer prevention, cancer cell apoptosis"

Intestinal Bacterial Flora

"...In humans, these include species such as Bacteroides,..."

""...L. acidophilus..."

"...and E. coli..."

"...and defending against some infectious diseases."

Governmental Policies

"...and passed a national registration or licensure examination, respectively."

"...Anyone may call themselves a nutritionist, including unqualified dietitians, as this term is unregulated."

Whole Plant Food Diet

"...entitled The Secrets of Living Longer, also recommends a whole plant food diet."

"... consuming four servings of nuts a week reduced their risk of heart disease."

  • Possible citation: Buettner, D. 2005. The Secrets of Living Longer. National Geographic. 208. 2-27.

The French Paradox

"Reduced consumption of processed carbohydrate and other junk foods."

"Regular consumption of red wine."

"More active lifestyles involving plenty of daily exercise, especially walking; the French are much less dependent on cars than Americans are."

Sports Nutrition

Protein

"Protein is an important component of every cell in the body. Hair and nails are mostly made of protein."

Water and Salts

"...during periods of physical exertion is key to peak performance."

"Additional carbohydrates and protein before, during, and after exercise increase time to exhaustion as well as speed recovery."

  • This does not pertain to water. You may consider removing this from the “water” section.

"...the right amount of water is key."

  • This seems a bit vague. The right amount of water is key to what? You may wish to expand upon this sentence.

"The main fuel used by the body during exercise is carbohydrates, which is are stored in muscle as glycogen—a form of sugar."

"...improve overall strength and endurance."

"...which are added to foods as opposed to sugars that come naturally in fruits and vegetables."

Malnutrition

"Malnutrition refers to insufficient, excessive, or imbalanced consumption of nutrients." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000404.htm "In developed countries, the diseases of malnutrition are most often associated with nutritional imbalances or excessive consumption."

  • I could not find a citation for this statement. You may consider removing it.

"...the real challenge in developing nations today, more than starvation, is combating insufficient nutrition."

  • Consider revising to say, “more than 50% of child deaths are attributed to malnutrition in developing countries”.

"...the lack of nutrients necessary for the growth and maintenance of vital functions."

Illnesses caused by improper nutrient consumption

"Marasmus"

"Obesity]], diabetes mellitus, Cardiovascular disease"

"Simple carbohydrates"

"Complex carbohydrates/micronutrient deficiency: Obesity/Cardiovascular disease

"kwashiorkor"

"Rabbit starvation"

"Ketoacidosis (in diabetics)"

"Saturated fat: Obesity/Cardiovascular Disease"

"Trans fat: Obesity/Cardiovascular Disease"

"Unsaturated fat: Fat soluble vitamin deficiency"

  • I could not find a citation for this.

"Unsaturated fat: Obesity/Cardiovascular Disease"

"Vitamin A: Xerophthalmia/Night Blindness"

"Vitamin A: Hypervitaminosis A"

"Thiamin: Beri-Beri"

"Riboflavin: Skin and Corneal lesions"

"Niacin: Pellagra"

"Niacin: dyspepsia"

"Niacin: cardiac arrhythmias"

"Niacin: birth defects"

"Vitamin B12: Pernicious Anemia"

"Vitamin C: Scurvy"

"Vitamin C: diarrhea causing dehydration"

"Vitamin D: Rickets"

"Vitamin D: Hypervitaminosis D"

"Vitamin E: neurological disease/Hypervitaminosis E"

"Vitamin K: Hemorrhage"

"Omega-3 fatty acid: Cardiovascular disease"

"Omega-3 fatty acid: Bleeding, Hemorrhages"

  • I've seen conflicting reports about this. Perhaps this should be removed.

"Omega-6 fatty acid: Cardiovascular Disease/cancer"

"Cholesterol: cardiovascular disease"

"Calcium: osteoporosis"

"Calcium: Tetany (medical sign)|tetany]], carpopedal spasm, laryngospasm,"

"Calcium: cardiac arrhythmias"

"Calcium: Fatigue (physical)|Fatigue]], depression, confusion, nausea, vomiting, constipation, pancreatitis, increased urination,"

"Magnesium: Hypertension"

"Magnesium: Weakness, nausea, vomiting, impaired breathing, and hypotension"

"Potassium: Hypokalemia]], cardiac arrhythmias, Hyperkalemia, palpitations

"Sodium: hyponatremia, Hypernatremia, hypertension"

"Iron: Anemia"

"Iron: Cirrhosis]], Hepatitis C"

  • These cause iron overload, but are not necessarily caused by iron malnutrition.

"Iron: heart disease"

"Iodine: Goiter]], hypothyroidism"

Mental Agility

"...increasing a student's potential to process and retain academic information."

"The "nutrition-learning nexus" demonstrates the correlation between diet and learning and has application in a higher education setting."

Mental Disorders

"Supplements that have been studied most for mood elevation and stabilization include eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid (each of which are an omega-3 fatty acid contained in fish oil,"

"...but not in flaxseed oil), vitamin B12, folic acid,"

"...and inositol."

"For example, hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance are strongly linked to chronic inflammation,"

"...which in turn is strongly linked to a variety of adverse developments such as arterial microinjuries and clot formation (i.e. heart disease) and exaggerated cell division (i.e. cancer)."

"...in overweight individuals (and thereby lower blood sugar levels in those who have type 2 diabetes)." *Possible citation: http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/DM/pubs/insulinresistance/ "leptin's normal effect to maintain an appropriately high metabolic rate."

Processed foods

"Removing the outer layer of rice by polishing it removes with it the essential vitamin thiamine, causing beri-beri."

"Pasteurisation was effective against bacteria, but it destroyed the vitamin C."

"As mentioned, lifestyle- and obesity-related diseases are becoming increasingly prevalent all around the world."

History

"Agriculture developed about 10,000 years ago in multiple locations throughout the world..."

"Around 475 BC, Anaxagoras stated that food is absorbed by the human body and therefore contained "homeomerics" (generative components), suggesting the existence of nutrients."

  • I can’t find this concept pertaining to food. The idea of homeomerics, from my interpretation, has more to do with things being made up of basic components.

"In the 1500s, scientist and artist Leonardo da Vinci compared metabolism to a burning candle."

"...a deadly and painful bleeding disorder."

"The discovery was ignored for forty years, after which British sailors became known as "limeys."

"The essential vitamin C within lime juice would not be identified by scientists until the 1930s. "

"...discovered the details of metabolism, demonstrating that the oxidation of food is the source of body heat."

"In 1790, George Fordyce recognized calcium as necessary for fowl survival."

"...were recognized as the primary components of food, and methods to measure their proportions were developed."

"...identifying protein as an essential dietary component."

"...carbohydrates (sugars), fats (fatty acids) and proteins (amino acids.)"

"...can be stored as fat or as glycogen."

"...but British sailors and Japanese naval officers did not."

"Baumann observed iodine in thyroid glands.

"...contains vitamin B1, also known as thiamine."

"applying principles of physics in nutrition."

"...which the body cannot synthesize."

"single-grain experiment, which took four years to complete.

"The vitamins were studied in the first half of the twentieth century."

In 1913, Elmer McCollum discovered the first vitamins, fat soluble vitamin A..."

"water soluble vitamin B"

  • I don’t find a reference to McCollum discovering any member of the vitamin B complex. He thought he had, but it turned out to be vitamin D.

"...and named vitamin C as the then-unknown substance preventing scurvy."

"Lafayette Mendel and Thomas Osborne also performed pioneering work on vitamins A and B."

"...still cured rickets, naming vitamin D"

"Also in 1922, H.M. Evans and L.S. Bishop discover vitamin E as essential for rat pregnancy, originally calling it "food factor X" until 1925."

"In 1925, Hart discovered that trace amounts of copper are necessary for iron absorption."

"In 1927, Adolf Otto Reinhold Windaus synthesized vitamin D, for which he won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1928.

"...Szent-Györgyi concurrently elucidated much of the citric acid cycle."

"In the 1930s, William Cumming Rose identified essential amino acids, necessary protein components which the body cannot synthesize."

"In 1935, Underwood and Marston independently discovered the necessity of cobalt."

"...discovered the chemical structure of vitamin E."

"It was synthesised by Paul Karrer."

"...principles drawn up by Elsie Widdowson and others."

"In 1941, the first Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) were established by the National Research Council." The reference I’ve provided says the first RDA was in 1943.

"In 1992, The U.S. Department of Agriculture introduced the Food Guide Pyramid."

"In 2002, a Natural Justice study showed a relation between nutrition and violent behavior." *Possible citation: http://www.naturaljustice.org.uk/files/Science-25-9-09.PDF

Plant Nutrition

"There are 17 essential plant nutrients."

"Zinc is required in a large number of enzymes and plays an essential role in DNA transcription."

Malnutrition

"Although there are more organisms in the world who are malnourished due to insufficient consumption, increasingly more organisms suffer from excessive over-nutrition; a problem caused by an over abundance of sustenance coupled with the instinctual desire (by animals in particular) to consume all that it can."

  • I could not find a citation for this. Consider removing.

There is also a section above titled, "Malnutrition", and many of the same concepts are discussed in both. Consider removing the bottom section entitled, "Malnutrition".

--Jason.somarelli (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Child Nutrition Programs Authorization. Congressional Record of the 108th Congress, April 3, 2003.
  2. ^ http://www.mypyramid.gov/
  3. ^ http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm
  4. ^ "Drink at least eight glasses of water a day." Really? Is there scientific evidence for "8 × 8"? by Heinz Valdin, Department of Physiology, Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, New Hampshire
  5. ^ http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-Water-Potassium-Sodium-Chloride-and-Sulfate.aspx
  6. ^ Pattison DJ, Symmons DP, Lunt M; et al. (2005). "Dietary beta-cryptoxanthin and inflammatory polyarthritis: results from a population-based prospective study". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 82 (2): 451–5. PMID 16087992. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    Am J Epidemiology 2006 163(1).
Rich Farmbrough, 11:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nutrition/Archive_1&oldid=1136250708"