Talk:Mineral (nutrient)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Silver

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

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

Oppose merger

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)

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)

Natrium

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

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

The periodic table in this article should be revised

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)

Q: Dietary minerals vs. nondietary minerals

Why arethe 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)

Copper

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Table formatting error

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)

Sources of Iron

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)

Some idiot just wrecked the whole page after i worked on it for over 50 hours. I know a 12 year old kid knows more than a me who has 12 years of university and 5 years of homeopathic school...

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

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)

Calcium a special case?

Why are supplements to meet the dietary requirement of calcium noted as "especially" useful? It says that calcium is mainly found in dairy, which could be especially problematic for people with dairy restrictions, but it's also very plentiful in ordinary baking powder, used in many foods. As a comparison, selenium is prominently found in liver and kidney, which could also be difficult to get into some diets, though it's also super-potently available in Brazil nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.204.134 (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Not All Micronutrients Are Dietary Minerals

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)

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)

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)

I think there should be some more discussion on this. I have added a dubious tag to the statement. All of the minerals listed in the Micronutrient article are covered in this article. I don't see the distinction nor is this article giving me anything substantive to help me see it. --Kvng (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fluorine clearly has an identified function

As tooth enamel constituent. So even though it may not be known if there are any enzymes that need it, clearly it is a dietary mineral element. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.196.206 (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't lithium listed under "other"?

It should be listed. It's known it plays a role in the human body.

Lithium clearly has a function so I have added it in the palest shade of green.Eregli bob (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Molybdenum

There is a conflict between articles. Recomended intake of molybdenum is 45 mg per day (RDA/AI). When I go by link to the Molybdenum article: "6. Biological role -> Human dietary intake and deficiency" I can read out in next: "The average daily intake of molybdenum varies between 0.12 and 0.24 mg..." Whom must I believe? ) --- Vedmin (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The correct RDA is 45 mcg = 0.045 mg. The mean daily intake in the US is indeed about what is quoted. SBHarris 23:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sulfur

So the first colored table has 4 main elements, then 7 major elements, then 10 essential minor trace elements, then some dubious elements.

But the big table following seems to omit sulfur, one of the 7 major elements.Eregli bob (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably because the table is concerned only with minerals you need in separate amounts, as simple compounds (with the exception of cobalt as B12). The thing about sulfur is that your entire need for it, is as the essential amino acid methionine, out of which you can make cysteine and whatever other sulfer-containing thngs you need, like Coenzyme A. So the "sulfur need" is really a methione requirement, which translates to a daily protein requirement (since methionine is hardly ever a limiting amino acid in dietary protein-- this is likely to be lysine or tryptophan). All this can be said at the beginning of the table. Or, alternatively, sulfur can be put in the table with the note that it's needed in the form of methionine, and nothing else for humans will do. The methionine is both required and sufficient. SBHarris 02:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

bromine

Just read that animal life, including humans, needs bromine. Dcebr (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

See this article for new finding that Bromine is essential for all animal life:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140605140007.htm Vendrov (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Cell paper seems indeed to be an exciting development. Within the bigger context however, it is a micronutrient and the role of bromine is not certain (reading the abstract cited above), so while this development merits addition to the list, but not more - otherwise one risks giving the discovery WP:UNDUE emphasis. Most readers are going to be seeking info on the more common elements that are required in greater abundance. At least those are my views. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I put Br in the table and coloured it as an essential trace element. Double sharp (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Move Cobalt to the main table

Currently, there are two tables. One is headed: "The following play important roles in biological processes:"
The other is headed: "Many elements have been suggested as essential, but such claims have usually not been confirmed."
Clearly, cobalt falls into the first category since the fact that it plays an important role for humans is long-established and noncontroversial. However, it is included in the second table with the tag "Cobalt is required in the synthesis of vitamin B12, but because bacteria are required to synthesize the vitamin, it is usually considered part of vitamin B12 deficiency rather than its own dietary element deficiency."
So? The fact that it is only required as part of B12 doesn't change the fact that it plays an important role in biological processes. Ordinary Person (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The excuse for cobalt being in the second table seems lame to me too. I support moving it to the first one, as you suggest. SBHarris 08:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Slacked lime a good source of Calcium for every day use ?

Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwalvekar (talk • contribs) 04:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Introducion style

Is it within Wikipedia's style to include instructional commands within the text? In this particular instance, I am referring to the last line of the second paragraph, which states "(see below for detailed discussion)". Isn't that the function of the table of contents? Its inclusion seems redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.120.120.249 (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It's completely unnecessary, so I have simply removed it. Deli nk (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Essential chemical elements for mammals table sorting function

The Essential chemical elements for mammals table sorting function doesn't continue to allow you to sort by different categories if you select one. You have to refresh the page to re-sort the table — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.17.50.150 (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dietary element. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081014205622/http://www.nutrition.arizona.edu:80/nsc101/chap08/ch08.htm to http://www.nutrition.arizona.edu/nsc101/chap08/ch08.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

RDA

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

— Preceding text originally posted by Kd4ttc (talk⋅contribs) 16:14:34, 05 January 2006 (UTC) diff→permalink // added by YBG (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Arsenic is good for you

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

— Preceding text originally posted by 210.200.105.231 (talk⋅contribs) 03:07:02, 01 February 2006 (UTC) diff→permalink // added by YBG (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Food Sources section

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.

— Preceding text originally posted by 153.19.38.2 (talk⋅contribs) 11:03:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC) diff→permalink // added by YBG (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Chlorine?

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

I just did a MAJOR edit on this page as I am HIGHLY knowledgeable on minerals and health

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

— Preceding text originally posted by 24.122.1.166 (talk⋅contribs) 01:08:45, 08 May 2007 (UTC) diff→permalink // added by YBG (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Some idiot just wrecked the whole page after i worked on it for over 50 hours. I know a 12 year old kid knows more than a me who has 12 years of university and 5 years of homeopathic school...

— Preceding text originally posted by 24.122.1.166 (talk⋅contribs) 21:13:59, 05 June 2007 (UTC) diff→permalink // added by YBG (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

— Preceding text originally posted by 74.78.98.109 (talk⋅contribs) 12:13:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC) diff→permalink // added by YBG (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

— Preceding text originally posted by Eebster the Great (talk⋅contribs) 18:16:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC) diff→permalink // added by YBG (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

— This entire section was archived and deleted (diff) from (permalink) on 02:30:46, May 31, 2015 (UTC). To help re-archive it with the previous section, it was restored and {{quotedfrom}} added by YBG (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning up old threads

There were many very old threads here mostly unsigned IP edits dating back to January 2006 through May 2010. The auto-archive process was not triggering due to the lack of dates. I added attribution to them so that the dates could be readily ascertained, with {{quotedfrom}} links so that my work could be easily double checked. The archives can be found at talk:Dietary element/Archive 1 in these sections:

• § RDA
• § Arsenic is good for you
• § Food Sources section
• § Chlorine?
• § I just did a MAJOR edit on this page as I am HIGHLY knowledgeable on minerals and health
• § Some idiot just wrecked the whole page after i worked on it for over 50 hours. I know a 12 year old kid knows more than a me who has 12 years of university and 5 years of homeopathic school...

YBG (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that and was going to say something about it. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yea, I though it would be good to clean it all up, especially since I invited editors of four different projects to come here. YBG (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed Arsenic because...

Tsuji, Joyce S.; Garry, Michael R.; Perez, Vanessa; Chang, Ellen T. (2015). "Low-level arsenic exposure and developmental neurotoxicity in children: A systematic review and risk assessment". Toxicology 337: 91–107. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2015.09.002. ISSN 0300-483X. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think you have inadvertently committed original research. Arsenic is on the short list of possibly essentiall elements.

I know this is unorthodox, but I Barbara (WVS) have inserted comments in italics after the references below:

Dietary Reference Intakes: The Essential Guide to Nutrient Requirements page 415 ^{states that minimum requirements for arsenic have not been determined but other animals need it.}

Advanced Human Nutrition ^{dietary needs of arsenic have not been established, but probably exist and then the source suggests the requirements.}

Encyclopedia of Human Nutrition ^{describes arsenic as a possible nutrient}

[4]

Whether a substance is toxic, even in small amounts, does not by itself determine whether it is an essential nutrient.

A toxic brew we cannot live without. Micronutrients give insights into the interplay between geochemistry and evolutionary biology Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC) - ^{a primary source supported by only ten references that state - "close to qualifying as a micronutrient in animals" with no mention of arsenic being an essential micronutrient for humans.}

I may have been in error, I've made plenty but 'original research'? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Your original research consisted in the implicit relationship between your deletion of arsenic and the research paper you used to justify your action. The assumptions are as follows:

1) that a nutrient can't be toxic in excessive amounts

2) that a nutrient required in extremely small amounts can't be more often encountered at toxic levels than at deficiency levels

The third assumption is a little more complicated. Known nutrients are usually toxic at levels substantially greater than the minimum required. For substances considered merely as "possible" nutrients, the difference between estimated deficiency levels and known toxic levels is one of the factors taken into account. In this case you are taking a primary source, treating its results as established fact, and using it to impugn decades of scientific research. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I am starting to understand what you mean, now. My source was a systematic review, not a primary source if that makes any difference. I am enjoying this discussion! Isn't the simplest solution to state that arsenic may be an essential nutrient?

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess I still good about removing Arsenic because the systematic reviews I have found don't mention it as an essential micronutrient.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

None of the elements on that table are essential. This is explained in the first sentence of the explanatory paragraph above the table. However, I have just changed the title of the subheading from "Other elements" to "Elements considered possibly essential but not confirmed" just to clarify.

The underlying theory behind this is that our distant ancestors were once anaerobic microbes living in a world where the concentration of free oxygen in the biosphere was about 1 ppb. The thinking is that our ancestors were probably similar to Hyperthermophile Archaea that live near undersea volcanic vents chomping on lead and cadmium, and drinking arsenic for breakfast. More complex life forms appear to have inherited some of their ancient metabolic pathways. Molybdenum and chromium, now formally recognized as essential, came out of this kind of research. The elements on this list have been studied in microbes, plants, and invertebrates, and non-mammalian vertebrates, where the metabolic pathways of these elements is well characterized. Once they get to mammals they run into problems: the deficiency symptoms are sometimes too vague to pin down exactly what's happening. Of the 20 or so elements currently being investigated, half are highly tentative, six (including arsenic) look fairly promising, and three (boron, nickel, and silicon) are now recognized as essential nutrients by the UK National Health Service (here)

Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Article should be Dietary mineral

Dietary element is not a recognized concept. The four most abundant elements in our diet, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen, are generally characterized in terms of sorts of foods they occur in, such as protein, carbs, etc. Sulfur is also not generally treated separately. The FDA counts cobalt only as part of Vitamin B12, although a case could be made for mentioning it. To argue that "mineral" is archaic sound like OR. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Support. In my experience, no one in the field of nutrition discusses "dietary elements". In editing discussions of nutrition at WP, it is frequently necessary to wikilink to dietary mineral which becomes a redirect. As you are suggesting, we should propose redirecting "dietary element" to "dietary mineral". The article would need little adjustment for this change, but in order to have consensus, other editors would need to weigh in. Since you are proposing this change, I recommend you recruit other editors from the article's history or at human nutrition by leaving a message on their Talk pages to come here for discussion and vote. --Zefr (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I suggest instead that the article be renamed Chemical elements required by living organisms. The bulk of the article is focused on the elements of the periodic table, but the title as it stands is not sufficiently descriptive for the average reader to understand that. The deprecation of the term 'dietary minerals' is unfortunate, as is the exclusion of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen. I will see if I can rectify these two content flaws. YBG (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment The root cause of this article naming issue is that this article belongs multiple projects which have different vocabularies. In particular, "mineral" has a completely different meaning in nutrition than it does in other disciplines including chemistry; and "element" has a specific meaning in chemistry that is different from the more general and ambiguous meaning in other disciplines. Although the WP:Primary topic for both terms is the meaning used in chemistry, nevertheless, both mineral and element are problematic when the context is not obvious, and the word "dietary" IMHO does not provide sufficient context and both phrases seem clumsy. When I was developing {{sidebar periodic table}} recently, I recall cringing at this article's title but I didn't think more about why and didn't even consider doing anything to remedy this situation. Now, thanks to Zyxwv99 raising this issue, I have thought about it and better understand what made me cringe and am prepared to do something about it, especially as it seems to me that the current title captures the worst of both worlds.

I suggest that we get input form the four wikiprojects that have voiced interest in this article by posting a message like this on the appropriate project talk page:

== Article renaming discussion ==

You are invited to participate in a discussion at talk:Dietary element § Article should be Dietary mineral. Only four editors have been involved so far, and while they agree the article should be renamed, they disagree about the best new name.

Please let me know if there is any way to make this better WP:POV-wise. YBG (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Let's do it. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done here, here, here, and here YBG (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Support We have nearly a thousand articles that link to this one. When it was created in 2003 it was entitled Trace mineral, but the content was clearly about dietary trace minerals. Very soon thereafter it was changed to Dietary minerals. On 8 December 2013 it was changed to its current title by a user with a Talk page full of warnings, blocked three times, and history of moving many pages. I am not an expert on nutrition, but it's my understanding that major nutrients are categorized as things such as proteins, (complex) carbohydrates, (simple) sugars, fats, etc. Micronutrients are divided into vitamins and minerals. Vitamins are organic, while minerals are elements, usually consumed in the form of compounds and utilized as ions. The point is, "mineral" is the standard terminology. More to the point, it is a generally recognized concept. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Support The traditional term is trace element, currently a disambiguation page. They are "trace" since anything more is a poison. The term dietary salt redirects to salt which is mostly about sodium chloride, though there is a section "Fortified table salt" that mentions other trace minerals in nutrition. Perhaps it should go to salt (chemistry). Mineral nutrient redirects to this article and lends the subject the scientific context of nutrition rather than the "dietary" context of choice and taste that influences eating. — Rgdboer (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, trace element is a stub, not a WP:DAB. YBG (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

support should be dietary mineral[5]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Support follows or (precedes) mineral deficiency. --Iztwoz (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Support should be dietary mineral and have disambig entry on mineral, supplements, micronutrients and whatever redirects will get readers to where they want to be. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• No support I support neither the current nor the proposed title because I do not see supporting references. Ozzie above links to an NIH website but that one also does not say, "Dietary mineral". Who has a good source which presents the correct term and gives a definition? Without a source, I would not support any particular name. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Mineral is the standard: according to the USDA; example, raw spinach, the organization that measures nutrient contents of foods, and the FDA, the organization that regulates guidelines for food product labeling. In Europe, the term minerals also applies, according to the European Commission and EFSA. --Zefr (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, mineral it is

@Zyxwv99, Rgdboer, Ozzie10aaaa, Iztwoz, Barbara (WVS), Blue Rasberry, and Zefr: There is a clear consensus to move to a title that includes the word "mineral" and not "element". I was about to move the article Dietary mineral, but then I though we should work a little more and get the best title. I thought of two possibilities:

• Dietary mineral The original suggestion
• Mineral (nutrient) or Mineral (nutrition) WP disambiguation notation

List your preference below -- or if you prefer something else, add it to this list and create a new sub-section below. YBG (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Dietary mineral

1. -

Mineral (nutrient)/(nutrition)

(nutrition) and (nutrient) articles and articles related to them

Andrew Saul (no disambiguation page for these two articles) Andrew Saul (nutrition) Andrew Saul Diet (disambiguation) → Diet (DAB page with no primary topic) Diet (nutrition) Diet (assembly) (Not mentioned directly on DAB page) Diet (Japan) → National Diet Diet (Hungary) → Diet of Hungary Diet (Multiple Sclerosis) → Swank diet Diet (Aqua Teen Hunger Force episode) → Aqua Teen Hunger Force (season 3) § Diet Food pyramid (disambiguation) → Food pyramid (an improperly formatted DAB page) (Not mentioned directly on DAB page) Food pyramid (nutrition) Food pyramid (food chain) → Ecological pyramid Prebiotic (disambiguation) → Prebiotic (DAB page with no primary topic) Prebiotic (nutrition) Prebiotic (chemistry) → Abiogenesis Protein (disambiguation) (DAB page) Protein (the primary topic on the DAB page) Protein (nutrient) Protein (band) (Not mentioned directly on DAB page) Protein (biochemistry) → Protein Protein (nutrition) → Protein (nutrient) Protein (wine) → Proteins in wine Key: bold indicates pages with (nutrient) or (nutrition) in the title X → Y indicates that article X is a redirect pointing to article Y italic indicates commentary not a part of article titles

Use of (nutrient) and (nutrition) as disambiguators

I haven't been able to get the grep title search to work, but I found the following using special:search/intitle:nutrient and special:search/intitle:nutrition. (Note: this method will not uncover redirects)

Here's what I found:

• 4 article titles where only one disambiguator makes sense
  • Andrew Saul (nutrition)
  • Diet (nutrition)
  • Food pyramid (nutrition)
  • Prebiotic (nutrition) (being nondigestible, I don't think they are "nutrients")
• 1 article title where either disambiguator makes sense
  • Protein (nutrient) chosen as the article title
  • Protein (nutrition) added as a redirect

To provide some context, I mapped out the relationship between these and related article titles, either with a different parenthetical disambiguator or with no disambuator. I found these using the search box, typing the title name up to the parenthesis and then looking at the list of articles that show up in the drop-down.

This list is shown in the hanging table to the right.

These are the findings of my search; I will add my conclusions to the list of preferences below. YBG (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Move history

The following moves might prove to be worth checking out

• special:diff/72259060: 2006-08-27 by Netesq (talk · contribs)

  move Protein in human nutrition to Protein in nutrition

  reason: Role of protein is not limited to human nutrition

  discussion:

• special:diff/316018613: 2009-09-24 by Tatterfly (talk · contribs)

  move Protein in nutrition to Protein (nutrient)

  reason: conform to Wikipedia naming conventions

  discussion:

I thought I found some talk page discussions of one or the other these moves, but now I can't find it. YBG (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Preferences

1. Support with a slight strong preference to (nutrient): This follows the standard WP:NCDAB naming convention for titles requiring disambiguation and it avoids the problem that the phrase "dietary mineral" does not seem to be well attested. YBG (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

   From the searches above, I see that there is only one article where either (nutrient) or (nutrition) could be selected, and in that case, a previous editor decided to put the article at (nutrient) with a redirect at (nutrition). I think we should do the same with this article. Based on this, I've changed my preference for (nutrient) from 'weak' to 'strong', but please understand that I feel even stronger about the importance of consensus. YBG (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

   A definite improvement but would go for Mineral (nutrition) --Iztwoz (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

   I'm fine with either one. In the words of WP:NCDAB, "Dietary nutrient" if it were commonly used would be the preferred natural disambiguation; (nutrient) is a generic class and (nutrition) is a subject area. The policy gives no preference between the latter two, but it does say "If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler." (See WP:NCDAB for examples and more info.) A cursory search turned up no (nutrition) articles and only one (nutrient) article, Protein (nutrient). Not a very strong case, but it does seem to give (nutrient) a slight edge over (nutrition). But I'll go with whatever one is preferred by others. YBG (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

   There's Diet (nutrition) --Iztwoz (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

   That makes it a tie. Anyway, it seems like we should decide between "Dietary mineral" on the one hand and "Mineral (nutrient)/(nutrition)" on the other, and then if we get a consensus on the latter, decide between these two. I've modified the section title to reflect this idea. YBG (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

   Either is OK - just assumed (nutrition) was more used. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

   I'll do a more complete search and report the results here in a few days. YBG (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

2. Support since I was actually thinking about that already, but didn't want to gum up the works by mentioning it. As for nutrient or nutrition, I'm open to either one at this point. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

I'm not sure 2½ Support constitutes a consensus, even in the absence of any opposition, but I'll go ahead and move the page to Mineral (nutrient). YBG (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight

This article is giving undue weight to two health claims. 1. That bromine is an essential nutrient, and 2) that chromium is not an essential nutrient. Even though both of these instances violate ordinary WP guidelines, health claims are held to an even higher standard. (see WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:Biomedical information). On chromium there is definitely a serious controversy within the scientific community. However, the "chromium is not essential" side represents a minority viewpoint. The bromine claim doesn't even come close to meeting any sort of notability standard. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

So, does that mean Br should change from green to chartreuse in the table? Double sharp (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Lanthanum and the lanthanides

Looking at the article (doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12249), it does not seem to matter which of the early lanthanides the organism in question gets as long as it gets at least one of them. Lanthanum will serve perfectly fine alone; so will Ce, Pr, or Nd; even Sm, Eu, and Gd will work (if less effectively due to smaller ionic size). I'd probably just single out La as the first of them and have a note saying "Due to the great similarity of the lanthanide metals, the concept of an essential element does not apply completely here because lanthanum may be replaced with some of the other cerium-group elements with no ill effects." Double sharp (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe what is necessary is the concept of an essential class of elements or something like that. YBG (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Can't find the information in the references.

@Zefr: Can you add quotations to the text in the references you added? I can't find the specific information in the references. Thanks! --VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent, but not that recent

@Zefr: The evidence that fluoride's effect is only topical was pretty well accepted by 2000, although the real proof came about in 2010 and 2013. Why did you change the word "Recent" to "2017?"

Elemental Depth Profiling of Fluoridated Hydroxyapatite: Saving Your Dentition by the Skin of Your Teeth? Frank Müller, Christian Zeitz, Hubert Mantz, Karl-Heinz Ehses, Flavio Soldera, Jörg Schmauch, Matthias Hannig, Stefan Hüfner, and Karin Jacobs. Langmuir 2010 26 (24), 18750-18759. DOI: 10.1021/la102325e

Peter Loskill, Christian Zeitz, Samuel Grandthyll, Nicolas Thewes, Frank Müller, Markus Bischoff, Mathias, Herrmann, Karin Jacobs. Reduced Adhesion of Oral Bacteria on Hydroxyapatite by Fluoride Treatment. Langmuir, 2013.

Systemic versus topical fluoride. Hellwig E, Lennon AM. Caries Res. 2004 May-Jun;38(3):258-62.

CDC MMWR. Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. August 17, 2001 / 50(RR14);1-42 Seabreezes1 (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Seabreezes1: as a general rule, using "recent" can lead to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of dates if the article isn't changed over months-to-years. By saying "as of 2017" would indicate recent, but given this history of fluoride research over 2001-13 cited in the article leads to me to feel we don't need to mention dates in the sentence. I'll revise again. Thanks for the references. --Zefr (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mineral (nutrient). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040812052326/http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/studentwebs/session2/group29/intronut.htm to http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/studentwebs/session2/group29/intronut.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

NE?

It is not clear what "NE" stands for in the Upper Limits column of the table. I'm assuming "not established", but that it also seems to include minerals where there is no reasonable tolerable upper limit. Can someone clarify? The links match the data, but do not explain where "NE" comes from. LordQwert (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hover cursor over NE and it shows "not established" Information from U.S. and EU setting of ULs. David notMD (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed table changes

In the big table there is a column DV for Daily Value. This should be replaced by RDA, using the highest RDA (excluding pregnant or lactating). RDAs are recommendations. DVs are for information on food and supplement labels. As a separate point, RDAs and ULs are used in United States and Canada. The European Union has made its own recommendations, described as PRIs and ULs. EU ULs have been added to the UL column, along with citation. David notMD (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

DVs replaced by RDAs. David notMD (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Calcium Content

The line "Calcium makes up 920 to 1200 mg of adult body weight, with 99% of it contained in bones and teeth" should be "Calcium makes up 920 to 1200 g of adult body weight, with 99% of it contained in bones and teeth". The source https://books.google.ca/books?id=0MDMBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA199&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false is correct, but the units must have been mis-transcribed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herrewiersma (talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Changed. Unless we were meant to mean Smurfs instead of humans? David notMD (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017

Please change "Plutonium" to "selenium" in the table of minerals, it's obvious troll. 84.16.39.49 (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. --Zefr (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This page needs some renovating. Why is it on block? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F8C8:1800:9878:AC26:E9F8:D1D (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected (I made about 30 edits in September). The block was put on because of persistent vandalism back in August. It might have been over-kill to set the block-end to March 2018. I believe that if you create a user name for your account you will be able to edit. What sort of changes did you have in mind? And remember to sign your Talk comments with four ~. David notMD (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Chromium

Greetings. Chromium was re-evaluated and in 2014, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published their opinion that setting an Adequate Intake is inappropriate for both healthy and diseased adults. Can you help by changing the chart on this article to reflect this change?

Rationale. The best source beyond EFSA that I can find is ESPEN, The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Their guidelines are free to download. The most recent mentions of chromium are:

ESPEN guidelines on chronic intestinal failure in adults Clinical Nutrition 35 (2016) 247-307

ESPEN Guidelines for adult parenteral nutrition Clinical Nutrition 2009; 28:359-479, chromium appears in 3 of 12 parts:

• Home Parenteral Nutrition in adults
• Intensive Care
• Surgery

As you can see, chromium was last mentioned in 2016, and before that in 2009. Not in 2017. Evidently they take their cues from the American Medical Association's 1979 publication of a list of essential trace elements. Despite the U.S. opinion not having changed, the rest of the world has moved on. Along with Europe, the Australasian group (AuSPEN) stopped listing chromium between 2014 and 2016. PMID 25516311 PMID 27440700 Thanks in advance for your help. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

In the section Elements considered... there is a sentence: "Chromium is considered an essential mineral by the U.S. Institute of Medicine but not for the European Food Safety Authority, which makes the decisions for the European Union." It would be better this citation added. David notMD (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Or the PDF of the one SL identified.

References

• (edit conflict)Couldn't the logic SusanLesch uses above be used to conclude that zinc stopped being recommended between 2014 PMID 25516311 and 2016 PMID 27440700, since it's not mentioned in the latter (perhaps I simply missed the mention)? As I noted at Talk:Chromium#Not_essential, a more neutral position (with support in a MEDRS) might be to recognize that some (esp USA) guidelines do include chromium as a recommended trace mineral (particularly in chronic parenteral nutrition), but it may no longer be considered "essential" (especially in Europe). — soupvector (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I hazard a guess that the vast majority of people visiting the article are thinking about what is considered essential for oral nutrition. If parenteral needs to be mentioned, how about its own section? David notMD (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I am disappointed in how ESPEN panned out as a MEDRS. soupvector is right about zinc, but worse, not mentioning something doesn't make it a source. Also, other MEDRS will cite ESPEN guidelines and we are still lacking a clear statement of reversal on chromium. Also, not mentioning something for seven years might just mean we're due for another mention five years from now.
• I agree oral consumption is the primary concern here, including Cr³⁺ supplementation and avoiding toxicity.
• Along with parenteral feeding, there is evidence that pharmacological doses can be beneficial (indeed, chromium may have saved a woman's life PMID 23125907). ESPEN explained in 2016 that parenteral solutions are already contaminated with more chromium than the US AI. Perhaps soupvector can supply studies that report pharmacological (and not physiological) dose benefits.
• David notMD, I liked your proposed text above. I can combine both references into one piggybacked citation. A tweak maybe, change "but not for" to "but not by". -SusanLesch (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Also, a source from my school lecture, here is a warning from the FTC about chromium(III) picolinate. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

How about keeping it simple here in Mineral (nutrient) by including an EFSA citation, and seeing if more detail is needed for the Chromium and Chromium deficiency articles? David notMD (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, fine idea. Now I see this topic is not news. There is a test color in the sandbox and a color chart if you want to try another. David notMD, thank you for your work keeping our nutrients straight. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The periodic table and citation are done. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Added Japan citation ("essential" as of 2015 review) and attempted to clean up the wording. David notMD (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Mineral ecology section

I am puzzled as to what this section is supposed to be about, when the article itself is about minerals as nutrients. Any thoughts? David notMD (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't miss the section if it wasn't there, but sense the original purpose was to give a perspective different from human needs on mineral uses and synthesis by microbes (bacteria, fungi) in soil and various water systems. From ref 57, the statement, "Bacterial biomineralization plays a critical role on biogeochemical cycles", requires reading the sources to gain clear ideas of what the first paragraph attempts to say because the current text is not clearly written. The second paragraph is clearer on the topic of minerals in ecology. Both paragraphs could be abbreviated. I'll post a draft here. --Zefr (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft revision for discussion and further editing

Minerals can be bioengineered by bacteria which act on metals to catalyze mineral dissolution and precipitation. Mineral nutrients are recycled by bacteria distributed throughout soils, oceans, freshwater, groundwater, and glacier meltwater systems worldwide. Bacteria absorb dissolved organic matter containing minerals as they scavenge phytoplankton blooms. Mineral nutrients cycle through this marine food chain, from bacteria and phytoplankton to flagellates and zooplankton, which are then eaten by fish. In terrestrial ecosystems, fungi have similar roles as bacteria, mobilizing minerals from matter inaccessible by other organisms, then transporting the acquired nutrients to local ecosystems.PMID 28128071

References

Much better. The text as it exists somehow suggests that bacteria are MAKING minerals rather moving minerals from inorganic to organic. The "...which are then eaten by fish." is too limiting. There are a lot of eaters in the ocean that are not fish. How about "...which are then eaten by everything from jellyfish, krill, fish, seabirds and whales." David notMD (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Nicely done. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Vital poisons

Vital poisons redirects here, but isn't explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Vital poisons," which is not an article but does redirect to Mineral (nutrient), relates to the theory that the mineral chemical composition of out planet represents Intelligent design, in that many of these minerals are essential to life but also toxic to life in higher concentrations. Example: for humans, selenium has a narrow window of safety: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sets the adult estimated average requirement at 45 micrograms per day and the tolerable upper intake level (UL for upper limit) at 400 micrograms. For most parts of the world, soil composition, and hence plant- and animal-sourced food composition, delivers an adequate and safe amount of selenium. My opinion is that "Vital poisons" has no place in this article, but could be added to Intelligent design if there are adequate references. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In the context of this article, the idea that minerals can be both essential and toxic could be addressed with content referenced to the Dietary Reference Intakes (ref #16), which specify that many of the minerals have an identified UL. David notMD (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: Well that was unexpected! There's no indication in the last version of "vital poisons" [6] that it has anything to do with intelligent design. Do you remember where you learned that? I can't find anything with a quick web search. -- Beland (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not realize that "Vital poisons" as an article had a history before all of it was deleted and replaced by a redirect. In the context of Intelligent Design, the seminal content traces back to Hugh Ross (astrophysicist). Within the field of nutritional biochemistry (my doctorate from MIT and a 40 year career) I never came across the term. See:

• https://www.reasons.org/explore/publications/tnrtb/read/tnrtb/1999/07/01/vital-poisons
• https://pjmedia.com/faith/2016/12/05/on-world-soil-day-dirts-billion-year-history-proves-intelligent-design/
• https://books.google.com/books?id=b9alDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT110&lpg=PT110&dq=%22vital+poisons%22+hugh+Ross&source=bl&ots=UCDNDCg7X9&sig=ACfU3U0BTA2HEHtqiyvROcoh7UPTjV1Qag&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiW8JyT8urmAhXtlOAKHaK2BU4Q6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22vital%20poisons%22%20hugh%20Ross&f=false
• https://books.google.com/books?id=UJRbBcF6YsMC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=%22vital+poisons%22+hugh+Ross&source=bl&ots=4tWPUI-fdX&sig=ACfU3U2OkKcdeTsIsXycbNtGxykPXnAUjQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiW8JyT8urmAhXtlOAKHaK2BU4Q6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22vital%20poisons%22%20hugh%20Ross&f=false

Interesting that the old version of Vital poisons was created by one editor on one day in 2016 and converted to a redirect by a different editor on the same day. David notMD (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the pointers! On the assumption that Ross is not simply recycling an archaic scientific phrase, I've added an explanation to Fine-tuned universe#History and redirected there, with a link to Nutrient for a chart on lower and upper safety bounds. -- Beland (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Safety subsection added to address the window of safety between risk of deficiency and risk of toxicity without any mention of "vital poisons." The real-world reality is that deficiencies in human diets are common, while with the exception of sodium, excessive intake is rare unless people choose to consume a dietary supplement that has more than the UL for one or more minerals. Especially in the U.S. it is legal to sell dietary supplements that exceed ULs. David notMD (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

5 or 7 major minerals?

The introduction claims that:

The five major minerals in the human body are calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, and magnesium.[2] All of the remaining elements in a human body are called "trace elements".

But the following section also includes chloride and sulfur among the major minerals (and calls all remaining minerals "ultratrace minerals").

So are they 5 or 7? --Jzandin (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Sulfur - in table or not?

I reverted the addition of sulfur to the table, but am open to being reversed on that. Sulfur clearly essential. David notMD (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Math check needed

"Oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen are the most abundant elements in the body by weight and make up about 96% of the weight of a human body. Calcium makes up 920 to 1200 grams of adult body weight, with 99% of it contained in bones and teeth. This is about 1.5% of body weight.[a ref] Phosphorus occurs in amounts of about 2/3 of calcium, and makes up about 1% of a person's body weight.[a ref] The other major minerals (potassium, sodium, chlorine, sulfur and magnesium) make up only about 0.85% of the weight of the body. Together these eleven chemical elements (H, C, N, O, Ca, P, K, Na, Cl, S, Mg) make up 99.85% of the body. The remaining ~18 ultratrace minerals comprise just 0.15% of the body, or about one hundred grams in total for the average person. Total fractions in this paragraph are WP:CALC amounts based on summing percentages from the article on chemical composition of the human body"

Thinking either the 0.15% is wrong or the about one hundred grams is wrong for percent of total body weight due to ultratrace minerals. Is there a ref instead of the WP:CALC? David notMD (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks right to me...if 1.5% of body weight is roughly 1000 grams, then 0.15% would be around 100 grams. The one is about 1/10 (one tenth) of the other. Hope that helps =) Firejuggler86 (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The math is right, meaning 0.15% approx 100 grams, but the amount feels really wrong. If the daily requirements for ultratrace minerals are on the order of micrograms per day, I believe there cannot be grams accumulated in the human body. David notMD (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Organic, unorganic minerals (nutrients). Boron (element). To ´See also´: Mineral deficiency

Sorry, just I cannot check how or whether the difference(s) of organic and unorganic minerals (in Mineral (nutrient) or Mineral deficiency) are mentioned and noted.
(It appears, as if not: "Most of the minerals in a human diet come from eating plants and animals or from drinking water.")
Just saying: plants do change the unorganic minerals from in the soil into organic minerals in the plants, which the body does/can use.
´Usually´ the body ´can´ not use the unorganic minerals. Except of exceptions. (Healing (Medicinal) clay just as example, to use from outside to the body, but even for from inside. Mineral waters.)
(Note: the important element Boron, where when is still in soil for plants available, for the health of the bones and further in the body as side-effect, should find a mentioning at some place, my opinion.
To ´See also´ (at least): Mineral deficiency (nutrient).
--Visionhelp (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Worth a mentioning ? (From the Micronutrient german article.)

About this presentation (the german Micronutrient article Mikronährstoff (Medizin); translation to english: translate de en, Mikronährstoff (Medizin)) I am surprised this saying (translated to english), if the english wording does not say exact the same (sorry, I just cannot compare the details lots), quote:
"In contrast to macro -nutrients such as fat , carbohydrates and protein , micronutrients are substances that the plant , animal and human organism must absorb without supplying energy . The micronutrients primarily include vitamins , minerals ( bulk elements and trace elements ), proteinogenic amino acids and omega fatty acids . [1] [2] Micronutrients are essentialfor the process of catabolic and anabolic reactions in the organism."
--Visionhelp (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not see this general description of micronutrients as improving this article. David notMD (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)