Talk:Antinutrient

Paleolithic ancestors
The source Plant Toxins and Antinutrients was used to support the statement that "Antinutrients are found at some level in almost all foods for a variety of reasons, however, they are mostly found in grains or food sources that were not in the diet of our paleolithic ancestors". However, I can see no mention of paleolithic diets in this reference and my reading of the source is actually the opposite of that point - that modern domesticated crops have lower levels of antinutrients than the original food plants from which they were derived. Could the editor that keeps replacing this statement please explain which part of this source they think supports that statement about paleolithic diets? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

refined sugar
I am removing sugar and refined sugar, since they are supported only unreliable sources.

I searched the CDC website and I found nothing.

Refined sugar doesn't "leach" nutrients from the body, but it replaces food that has nutrients in your diet:

Recommendations to select complex carbohydrates do not extend to refined sugars. Whereas complex carbohydrates contribute needed nutrients, pure sugars displace nutrient-dense foods from the diet. Purified, refined sugars ( mostly mostly sucrose or fructose) contain no other nutrients-protein, vitamins, minerals, or fibre-and thus qualify as foods of low nutrient density. A person choosing 400 calories of sugar in place of 400 calories of whole-grain bread loses the protein, vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, and fobre of the bread. You can afford to do this only if you have already met all your nutrient needs for the day and still have calories to spend.Nutrition: Concepts and Controversies. Cengage, p. 112 --Enric Naval (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Illogical reasoning. Getting most of one's energy needs from refined sugar or other "empty calories" doesn't necessarily stop one from eating micronutrient-rich, macronutrient-poor food, such as most vegetables. This may not be the reality for those eating many "empty calories", but calling refined sugars antinutrients does not follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XsHoa10pSogRcAVgjAxsVMs1C1BbYUspRh (talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary there is a growing consensus among medical doctors that define " refined sugar" (sucrose) as an antinutrient  that destroys health and causes addiction. In terms of pH balance a small amount of sucrose can cause turn the blood acid, thus causing nutritional deprivation. Medical practitioners, especially in the field of naturopathic medicine and and natural hygiene therefore define refined sugars as anti-nutrients. Heartcalm22 (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartcalm22 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Heartcalm22 (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Flavonoids
The current article has this to say on flavonoids:

"Another particularly widespread form of antinutrients are the flavonoids, which are a group of polyphenolic compounds that include tannins.[10] These compounds chelate metals such as iron and zinc and reduce the absorption of these nutrients, but they also inhibit digestive enzymes and may also precipitate proteins."

However the only reference article [10] neither refers to flavonoids as an antinutrient nor comments on chelating of iron, zinc or inhibition of digestive enzymes.

I wonder if someone with solid knowlege of these things could either add accurate referencing or else remove this section?

94.30.84.220 (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oxalates
5th paragraph (at present) says "Oxalates bind to calcium and prevent its absorption in the human body." - but no reference is given 79.173.144.50 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Baldavier

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Antinutrient. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080612160331/http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu:80/issues/toxins.html to http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/toxins.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources to expand with
bloop


 * https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-nutrients/
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7600777/
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/food-science/antinutrients
 * https://theconversation.com/anti-nutrients-theyre-part-of-a-normal-diet-and-not-as-scary-as-they-sound-149229
 * https://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/articles/what-are-anti-nutrients-and-should-i-avoid-them
 * https://www.seattletimes.com/life/wellness/anti-nutrients-might-sound-scary-but-theyre-not-so-alarming/

originalmess busta rhyme 06:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Antinutriet article
I nominate this article for deleting. Literally everything thing we eat, from vegetables to nuts, is stated as inhibiting the uptake of minerals. It’s the kind of uneducated and immature perspective that is reducing the credibility of Wikipedia. This kind of pseudo-science is being written into so many articles now. Get rid of it. 83Gulf (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:AFD documents the only process available for doing that. I can guarantee that such an attempt will fail. Not because there is a vast drive to write about what you feel is uneducated nonsense, but because it is notable, and the content appears generally cited to reliable sources. DMacks (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)