Talk:Mineral (nutrient): Difference between revisions

Food and drink C‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Medicine C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why are the most essential macrominerals listed last? Shouldn't they be listed first? Coming third, even though it states them as not trace elements, they appear lessened in importance. Would you mind if I changed that?

Also, could further information be provided on mineral balances needed where they work together ideally and do not interfere with one another, such as an excess in one providing a deficiency in the other? I'm not sure on the exact balances but I'll look into them.

This article lists some things which are "dietary minerals", and then some other elements which aren't (like calcium). To count as a dietary mineral, does something have to scientifically be a mineral (crystalline structure, etc.)? This page seems to disagree with the mineral page on whether calcium is a dietary mineral (that page says it is). -- Creidieki 8 July 2005 13:47 (UTC)

My understanding is that in the nutritional sense, the word mineral simply indicates that that the substance is not an organic molecule, as all vitamins are. If this meaning of mineral doesn't mesh with the meanings in the geological or chemical context, then we should include some discussion of this in the article. I'm sure others will have the same question that you did. ike9898 July 8, 2005 14:17 (UTC)

Under essential minerals the first sentence reads At least seven minerals are required to support biochemical processes but only six are listed. I referred two books and they mention only six. Arunkumarsuri (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the minerals around a bit. Iodine has an RDA of 150 mg/day. All the other trace elements are 1-20 mg/day (including iron at 10mg/day. Magnesium really is bulk with an RDA of 400 mg per day or so. Kd4ttc

OK, but still say why arsenic is good for you. Emphasize small amounts for those, as the reader might not be college educated, etc.

Doesn't silver cause heavy metal poisioning, and is consequently not harmless? matturn 11:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - silver does cause heavy metal poisioning. The LD50 for soluble silver compounds is 50 – 500 mg/kg as Ag (Ullmann Encyclopedia)

Oppose - I believe that dietary mineral and trace mineral should not be merged. This is because a trace element is applicable to analytical chemistry, biochemistry, and geochemistry. I think all three of these should put in their seperate categories. Chris 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree with Chris. Even the dietary mineral article divides into two groups of which trace elements are one. trace elements are by definition those that occur in very small concentrations, thus could be any mineral or actually any chemical element.Benkeboy 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph at the bottom of the food sources section is too general and non-specific. The comment about "university reseach" is laughable without proper references.

~ 5 g salt needed a day —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tothaa (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have just realised, that sodium and natrium are the same elements. - Tothaa 14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about chlorine, for stomach acid, and cation stability? Jack · talk · 14:40, Tuesday, 27 February 2007

My edits are not perfect though. The reference for indium is messed up too.

Stop shouting! 74.78.98.109 (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that there is no way to validate your qualifications online, so the only proper way to demonstrate the validity of your edits is reliable sources (which are, of course, necessary anyway to avoid WP:OR). Also, don't expect homeopathic school to impress many Wikipedians (for why, see homeopathy. Eebster the Great (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A periodic table in this article on dietary minerals indicates or implies a dietary role for V, B, Cr, Si, and As. No protein or related biomolecule has been characterized containing these elements from humans. I propose to remove this misleading information. I realize that intermitent evidence has been reported that these and some other elements might possibly be helpful to human health, but the weight of the evidence is modest. The table was contibuted by an unregistered user, so it is not easy to have a discussion of the original author. Few biochemists would support the inventory indicated in the table, as can be seen by consulting a modern text on bioinorganic and especially bioinorganic chemistry.--Smokefoot 17:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this page by looking up "Micronutrients" and was routed to "Dietary minerals". I understand the Wiki sense that similar topics should be combined yet I think when this occurs the more general topic should get the entry. In this case, while all dietary minerals are micronutrients, not all micronutrients are dietary minerals. I suggest that the entry be placed under the title "Micronutrient". LAWinans (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since my original post, I've looked at the info available at the "Micronutrient Initiative", a Canadian NGO, and the "World Health Organization", both of which so define "Micronutrient" as more inclusive than Dietary Minerals alone. For example, Vitamin A is a micronutrient but it is not a dietary mineral. Again, I renew my recommendation, bolstered by the MI and the WHO, that an entry on Micronutients be restored to Wikipedia inasmuch as micronutrients are not limited solely to dietary minerals. LAWinans (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since my comments, above, there has been substantial work on this entry AND a new entry has been added for "micronutrient". So my criticism is no longer apt. However, since some SuperEditor may try to change it again, I'll leave my comment here for possible use. LAWinans (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article lists copper as an essential mineral, but the top graphic shows Cu as a trace mineral. Which is correct (or is it a matter of opinion)? — Epastore (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an opinon, Epastore. Copper is an essential mineral -- essential to normal physiological function of cuproenzymes, and essential that it be obtained via the diet[1].--Paul144 (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term, "macromineral", in the graphic is not useful -- first, because it is not a term commonly used in medicine or nutritional science, and second, because essential minerals may be required in mg or mcg amounts. Whether the amounts are "macro" (> 200 mg as once stated in this article) or otherwise is not relevant, as minerals that are essential to normal physiological processes are defined by the enzyme or protein systems most requiring them, i.e., in mg or mcg amounts according to use.--Paul144 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe we should remove the graphic until a less misleading one can be had? — Epastore (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't find it a helpful aid and think the typical non-scientific user might be confused by it.--Paul144 (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets remove or replace the current periodic table graphic, since it is incorrect or not easily understood. Ideally we'd have an editable, color-coded periodic table. We do need to find a ref to the elemental composition of humans. The listing could be further corrected: cobalt, molybdenum, nickel, and especially sulfur are required by humans.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot -- I respectfully disagree that minerals found in humans are therefore required by humans, as our consumption of plant foods can deposit trace minerals unimportant for physiological functions. From the four you list -- yes, molybdenum for certain and some science indicates sulfur as confirmed in physiological processes, but cobalt and nickel... those two are less convincing and not widely accepted as "essential" physiologically.

We can take our lead from a respected source like the Linus Pauling Institute Micronutrient Information Center of Oregon State University[2] or Feinberg School of Nutrition at Northwestern University[3] which detail minerals essential to human health. If a mineral is not listed at such a resource, then science has not confirmed its importance yet. --Paul144 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well these talk pages are a good place to resolve our disagreements, so thanks for the courtesy. I might have mistyped - I was trying to list elements (17 by my count) that are required for human health. Like you said, all kinds of elements are about, the majority of which are irrelevant to human health. Sulfur (two amino acids, say no more), moly - you're cool with that. I am surprised you need to look at any "respected sources" for cobalt, since pernicious anemia should answer your questions. Ni as being essential is something that I assumed since it is in our ureases, but possibly we can live without the Ni-based ureases, i.e. there are other ureases or we dont need these enzymes. I am not an expert on that. Cobalt - I am confident about. Let me know if we are converging.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot -- thanks for the working list of 17. Cobalt, of course, is a cofactor in the essential vitamin, B12, so qualifies -- my oversight. Actually, I'm ok with the list of 17, but that doesn't mean it's widely accepted by the experts. Most of the nutritional references I access, like LPI and Feinberg School, have a list of 12 or so, leading to the question: if certain minerals are clearly part of human enzymes or protein functions not crucial to normal physiology, does that mean they are "essential" to health? If so, why are they not routinely included by expert resources as essential minerals? --Paul144 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table with a list of minerals, their functions, etc. has an extra blank column on the far right. Can someone fix, please? (Wiki-table formatting makes me vomit.) Thanks. 24.144.74.70 (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table does not include poultry as a source of iron. But the article on Iron included poultry as a source. Both can't be right. Does anyone know for sure if chicken meat is a good source of iron? Robauz (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]