Talk:Nutrition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nutrition has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.

	To-do list for Nutrition:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Make sure water and all the caloric sources are mentioned, with the usual warnings about alcohol and the alkaloids. Show the easiest ways to obtain all the essential nutrients and amino acids without eating meat (this is not to be biased against meat, just frugal and comprehensive, as meat is easy for complete nutrition (if the high fat and cholesterol which often comes with it is considered nutritious) and generally more expensive before processing and packaging, and always much more expensive by land use) Mention that potassium supplements are often only 3% of the U.S. RDA per tablet. potassium supplements can result in heart problems including heart failure.^{[citation needed]} Why encourage potassium supplements? Better to mention avocados, bananas, fruit as rich sources. Mention that most people these days are deficient in calcium and often potassium, and most women are deficient in magnesium. Try to show nutrients with significant drug-interaction profile (e.g., vitamin K.) Get the history of recognition of the essential minerals Magnesium Potassium List the most common deficiencies and their side effects (since this varies by age, graphs would be best for comparing RDAs to mean and median intake levels in men/women, by age, with graphs for different locales if there's time. Figure out if the phytochemicals and nutrient turpines are "essential," "vital," or "helpful." Same thing for the Omega-3,6,9 fatty acids.

To-do list for Nutrition:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Make sure water and all the caloric sources are mentioned, with the usual warnings about alcohol and the alkaloids.

Show the easiest ways to obtain all the essential nutrients and amino acids without eating meat (this is not to be biased against meat, just frugal and comprehensive, as meat is easy for complete nutrition (if the high fat and cholesterol which often comes with it is considered nutritious) and generally more expensive before processing and packaging, and always much more expensive by land use)

Mention that potassium supplements are often only 3% of the U.S. RDA per tablet.
- potassium supplements can result in heart problems including heart failure.^{[citation needed]} Why encourage potassium supplements? Better to mention avocados, bananas, fruit as rich sources.

Mention that most people these days are deficient in calcium and often potassium, and most women are deficient in magnesium.

Try to show nutrients with significant drug-interaction profile (e.g., vitamin K.)

Get the history of recognition of the essential minerals
- Magnesium
- Potassium

List the most common deficiencies and their side effects (since this varies by age, graphs would be best for comparing RDAs to mean and median intake levels in men/women, by age, with graphs for different locales if there's time.
Figure out if the phytochemicals and nutrient turpines are "essential," "vital," or "helpful."
- Same thing for the Omega-3,6,9 fatty acids.

This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

==Misc comments==

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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Many more excellent articles on nutrition, many fully referenced and by professional doctors and nutritionists are avaliable at the Nutrition for Optimal Health Association (NOHA) website at: NOHA link

[edit] Cleanup of links section

Took out the following links:

Nutrition and Nutritional Supplements Information

(mostly a GoogleAds farm)

Nutrition Dictionary

(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)

[edit] Timeline

I think we want something like this.

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/u/t/Talk%7ENutrition_c777.html"