Talk:Vitamin/Archive 2

Psuedo
"Pangamic acid, vitamin B15; the related substance dimethylglycine is quite wrongly referred to as vitamin B15 but also labeled B16." Which is the pseudovit? --Gbleem 17:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Catalysts
Catalysts need not remain unchanged - as long as the molecule is regenerated by the end of the reaction, it is still considered a catalyst. Someone might want to see if they can work this in in a concise manner - I'm reluctant to add anything, since this article looks messy enough as it is... --203.206.183.160 14:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization and clean up
I have reorganized and cleaned up this article in an attempt to improve the flow of information, and to facilitate the introduction of some examples of the function and importance of vitamins. I have also removed some POV wording, and some information that did not seem to be relevant to the article. I hope that the article has been improved.--DO11.10 20:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree...

It's very inaccurate, I suggest it be wholly removed for the time being.

216.70.37.171 12:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You may suggest it, but I recommend you stop actually blanking the article, since this is likely to get you blocked from Wikipedia. If you remove information you need to give a detailed account in the edit summary, point by point. Notinasnaid 13:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * The primary concern is the section "Notes", that fail criteria 1b, 1c, 1d and 2a, 2b and 2c is somewhat dependent on that, the rest of the article is ok on those points. You can either just remove the whole "Notes" section, or take time doing a total rewrite.
 * the image Image:Vegetable market.jpg needs to be removed, as it had wrong licence.
 * the image Image:Vegetable market.jpg needs to be removed, as it had wrong licence.

I'll give you seven days, on hold. → A z a  Toth 21:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Pass → A z a  Toth 22:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Supplement controversy edits
I have removed the following edits from the article:


 * [Use of vitamin supplements is controversial.] Although unproven, it is commonly believed that whole foods (fresh fruits and vegetables, unprocessed meats) raised without synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are healthier than processed foods of equivalent composition (same amounts of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, and minerals). Vitamin supplements are available in every pharmacy and grocery store that contain significantly higher doses than can be obtained by eating commonly available, inexpensive foods. There are proven side effects from using vitamin supplements, and the frequency and severity of side effects increases with increasing dose. Many of these side effects cause discomfort that initiates almost immediately after ingesting the offending supplement. Individual vitamin supplements are/have been claimed to be effective treatments for almost every ailment. Most of these claims have proven to be unfounded. On the other hand, vitamins at doses associated with side effects are effective treatments for some specific conditions, and, like drugs, show increasing effectiveness with increasing dose. For example, niacin raises good cholesterol and lowers bad cholesterol. The recommended dose is between 1000 and 2000 mg/day. This is far above the UL value for niacin (see side effects section below for the definition of UL). Another example is the use of vitamin C for treating burns. The recommended dose is close to 100 gm/day injected intravenously supplemented by a topical application of a 3 wt% vitamin C solution. This is far above the UL value for vitamin C of 2 gm/day. Unlike many of the side effects, in both these cases the patients are unable to perceive the proven benefits....


 * ...In light of these facts, it is not surprising that vitamin supplements are controversial. Proof that vitamins far in excess of the R.D.A's are effective treatments for some specific conditions is unsettling because it proves that the full benefits of vitamins can not always be obtained without taking on the risks of side effects. One of the central roles of vitamins is to catalyze the growth and development of children into adults. The R.D.A.'s were set to prevent classic vitamin deficiency diseases and to ensure that no children were harmed by vitamin side effects. An unspoken assumption is that the R.D.A.'s enable the optimal growth and development of every child. What if this assumption is not true?

These statements are very POV, and rather unencyclopedic in nature. Words like "commonly believed", "unsettling", "an unspoken assumption" and the sentence "What if this assumption is not true?", for example, diverge from the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia and insert the opinions of editors. In fact, I think that these edits were re-added to the article from a previous version, the "vitamin controversy" section, that was tagged, by another editor, as unencyclopedic in tone. While the input of all editors is appreciated, please carefully consider the nature of your additions and how they might be percieved by others. If you would like to reinsert some of this material please tone down the POV statements. Cheers--DO11.10 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

DO11.10. Thanks for your comments. These edits were not re-added - however you are correct that they were similar in tone to previous material of mine that was edited/deleted. I gave this section another try. I look forward to your comments. shbrown 03:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edits for the following reasons:
 * You'd deleted "Dietary supplements are often used to ensure that adequate amounts of nutrients are obtained on a daily basis, if the nutrients cannot be obtained through a varied diet" -- practically a definition of dietary supplement.
 * You apparently mentioned "the government" without specifying which government.
 * You give as evidence of controversy an organization contradicting itself; IMO in order to have controversy two different individuals or organizations have to disagree with each other.
 * You stated "Most of these claims have proven to be unfounded" -- that statement would require proof. As backup to this statement you give an example that you have to hedge with the word "generally" -- in other words, presumably the substance does have the claimed effect in some people.  So your claim about things being "unfounded" is not supported.
 * You use the subjective word "worse" to talk about people "claiming" that vitamins are safe; in fact vitamins are relatively very safe in comparison to typical drugs.
 * Your edits give the impression that vitamins have a lot of side effects when actually vitamins rarely have adverse side effects and often have beneficial side effects.
 * How about discussing here on the talk page what you think needs to be changed? Maybe people working together can come up with a consensus that's better than any individual can do alone.  --Coppertwig 05:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To add my $0.02 here: I had very deliberately removed anything having to do with claims about any specific vitamin, as the information can be found on the pages for each vitamin, and because this page is meant to be an overview of the concept vitamin. I think that the information you added is far too specific for such an overview article. Moreover, this article is about vitamins, not supplements, and, IMO, the supplement section should serve only as a general introduction to a related concept, which is why I shortened it to a strict definition type paragraph.--DO11.10 06:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to discuss. Let's start with what needs to be changed.  There is not enough text in the section.  I don't think that wikipedia readers leave with much insight into what is controversial about vitamins.

I agree with DO11.10. The subject of the article is vitamins, not the far broader category of dietary supplements. Nevertheless, I have no real objections to returning that sentence to the text.
 * Thank you.

The U.S. government. This is a reason to edit, not to delete.
 * There were a number of other problems with that section, too. And I didn't know what government you meant.  Anyway, this is an article about vitamins, not an article about the U.S. government;  that material may not be very relevant.

I don't understand your opinion about controversy. However, your objection is not hard to address. How about I add Linus Pauling - as represented by his book "How to Live Longer and Feel Better" vs. the U.S. governmental RDA committees? Would you allow me to post Pauling's recommendations as a comparison?
 * Maybe -- I wonder what point you would be making and what the overall edit would look like. Remember, this article has already been nominated as a good article.  When something is already good, it's harder to find a change that makes it better.

I wrote that vitamins have been claimed to cure every illness and provided a link to a website that literally claims that a specific supplement rich in B-complex vitamins can cure everything!
 * Wikipedia is for verifiable facts, not for reporting someone's opinion or what some unnamed person posted on a website or for providing links to websites selling things.

Surely you are not asking me to provide links to the controversies surrounding every disease? I provided as a specific example the controversial subject of using B-complex vitamins to treat PMS. The unfounded claim is that B-complex vitamins will help most people who have PMS. The direct quote from the fact sheet is "There is no convincing scientific evidence to support recommending vitamin B6 supplements for PMS." Personally, I believe that consistent reports from multiple orthomolecular physicians that B-complex supplements can be effective are "scientific" evidence. I don't like science being reduced to the narrowness of double-blind placebo controlled trials. That's why I qualified the statement. However, the trials cited in the reference prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that B-complex supplements are not a reliable, reproducible cure for PMS.
 * I agree with DO11.10: for the article as it stands, that material is too specific.  Something like it might be appropriate on a page about a particular vitamin or a page about B-complex.

I used worse to illustrate the controversy. I'd be happy to edit to something like - "worse according to critics of the practice of treating health problems with doses of vitamins in excess of the RDA's" and then "worse still according these critics"
 * It's still the word "worse" which is still a subjective opinion; worse, it's a subjective opinion by one person about a subjective statement by another person.  Wikipedia is not for reporting opinions about opinions. (Except maybe on the talk pages!  :-) --Coppertwig 21:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What is a "beneficial side effect?" I know what you mean. I also know that whatever unexpected problem went away, most doctors will not believe it (that ankle doesn't hurt so much, the vision is better, the cataracts stopped growing, etc. etc.)  IMO, these are not side effects - they are using vitamins to treat health problems. The ability of vitamins in doses at many multiples of the RDA to treat these problems remains controversial.

It is a fact - vitamins are associated with alot of side effects.
 * That's not a fact. It's a subjective statement which is too vague to be proven or disproven.  In fact, the proportion of people with noticeable or verifiable adverse side effects from vitamins is a tiny percentage of the huge number of people who are taking vitamin supplements.--Coppertwig 21:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Hausman's excellent book that I referenced? What is the problem here? The second point - vitamins rarely have side effects. I think you are making a valid point and that it might be better to add some language such as "At doses below the UL's, vitamin side effects are rare.
 * Referring to the "UL's" means referring to the government standards of one particular country. Wikipedia should be more balanced than that.  Also:  the reader may not even know what "UL's" are.  By the way, would you do me a favour?  I would like to look at the U.S. government's UL's.  The Vitamin article has a footnote that's supposed to lead to the UL's.  It leads to an FDA website.  I spent several minutes searching around that website and did not find the UL's.  Would you please find them for me and tell me where they are?  I would like to look at them myself.  I would also like to fix the footnote so that other readers can also find the UL's.  Thanks in advance.  Although there is some disagreement, I really think this is essentially a collaborative process and that we can cooperate towards the goal of having an excellent, factual article.--Coppertwig 21:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When I open the footnote page for UL (#8) Dietary Reference Intakes: Vitamins pdf, I see across the top: Nutrient, Function, Life Stage Group, RDA/AI*, ULa, Selected Food Sources, Adverse effects of excessive consumption, Special Considerations.


 * At the bottom of each page the footnote says: aUL = The maximum level of daily nutrient intake that is likely to pose no risk of adverse effects. Unless otherwise specified, the UL represents total intake from food, water, and supplements....
 * It is possible that one of the refs for UL has the wrong footnote attached, it should be ref #8.--DO11.10 00:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

["...]More importantly, vitamin side effects almost always swiftly disappear with no long term effects if supplementation is stopped." The side effect section above has excellent text, "Like side effects from drugs, vitamin side effects increase in severity with increasing dosage. At high enough dosages vitamins can cause extreme side effects such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting.  Unlike side effects caused by drugs, vitamin side effects rarely cause any permanent harm.  When vitamin side effects emerge, full and rapid recovery is accomplished by reducing the supplement dosage.  Furthermore, the concentrations of vitamins an individual can tolerate vary widely, and appear to be related to age and state of health." My concern stems from these sentences "Unlike side effects caused by drugs, vitamin side effects rarely cause any permanent harm. When vitamin side effects emerge, full and rapid recovery is accomplished by reducing the supplement dosage." IMO, this makes it difficult to assess the frequency of vitamin side effects. Therefore, I'm reluctant to endorse the view that side effects are rare. I don't think the statement can be supported. I believe that most vitamin side effects may go unreported. People may figure out for themselves the connection between the supplements and their problems and reduce their doses themselves. They may find no need to go to a doctor or nutritionist.

DO11 - Your objection can be handled by editing. I want readers to know that vitamins have proven uses treating illness at doses in excess of 100 RDA's and that side effects are common at these doses. I'm happy to say exactly this, leave the references as they are, and move the specifics to the pages on niacin and vitamin C respectively.

How about, "Vitamins have been proven to be effective in the treatment of health problems at doses of >100 (niacin reference) and even >1000 (vitamin C reference) RDA's. Side effects are common at these doses."


 * I think that may be OK. I wonder where it would fit in in the article.  Maybe change "health problems" to "some health problems".--Coppertwig 21:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

shbrown 18:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add the following text to the controversy section. I've made substantial changes and have taken your comments into account. I don't know what to make of our discussion about vitamin side effects. They are not subjective. They are well documented. They are the basis for the vitamin UL's set by the Food and Nutrition Board. The Hausman book referenced is the most thorough discussion that I have studied. I added more text making it clear that although vitamin side effects cause discomfort, they almost never cause long term harm and, in that sense, are at least as safe to eat as whole foods. So - the proposed addition:

Use of vitamin supplements is controversial. Vitamin advocates believe that vitamin supplements are often required to achieve optimum health. They recommend taking doses of vitamins far in excess of the RDA. The RDA committee of the U.S. Food and Nutrition Board recommends that most Americans get optimal doses of vitamins by eating a healthy diet, since the RDA's of vitamins are readily obtained from food. Vitamin advocates believe that taking doses of vitamins far in excess of the RDA can often be helpful treating health problems. Vitamin skeptics believe vitamins in excess of the RDA do more harm than good. Skeptics made efforts to have vitamin supplements regulated. Vitamin advocates resisted. The negotiations about regulation ended with the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. The controversy remains evident in the language of the act. According to the act, "Scientific evidence supporting the benefits of some dietary supplements (e.g., vitamins and minerals) is well established for certain health conditions." In this sentence the government asserts that vitamins cure diseases. Yet in a subsequent sentence the government says, "Dietary supplements are not intended to treat, diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or cure disease."

Individual vitamin supplements and/or supplements containing multiple vitamins are/have been claimed to be effective treatments for almost every ailment. This can be verified by typing in the name of a disease and the word vitamin into an internet search engine. Some preparations are claimed to be a panacea. Most of these claims have proven to be in need of qualification. For example, a review of the scientific literature investigating the effectiveness of vitamin B6 for the treatment of PMS came to the conclusion that the vitamin was not obviously effective. Despite the scientific evidence, the claims are not going away. Individuals and organizations promoting vitamins as cures often claim that vitamins are safe and minimize the seriousness of proven vitamin side effects. Compared to drugs, vitamins are safe, and reports of vitamin side effects are rare. As a result, few people are aware of the long list of side effects that have been associated with vitamins. A comprehensive discussion of proven plus possible vitamin side effects requires a lengthy discussion.

The credibility of vitamin advocates has been enhanced by the proven effectiveness of vitamins in the treatment of some health problems at doses of >100 and even >1000  RDA's.  Side effects are common at these doses. shbrown 01:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the point here. Although you repeatedly use the word vitamin (such as "vitamin advocates") all of your edits have attempted to introduce information about supplements, not vitamins. This article is not about dietary supplements, and therefore it is unnecessary to mention benefits and risks that can only be obtained through the use of supplements. You will notice that nowhere in this article is there a mention of "So-and-so think that vitamins...." that is because what vitamins are (nutrients needed in small amounts), what vitamins are used for (enzymatic reactions), and why you need vitamins (to enable the aforementioned reactions to prevent disease of deficiency) are facts. The use of high-dosage supplements specifically, is obviously contentious, but because the controversy has to do with supplements it does not change, and has little relevance, to the facts about vitamins mentioned above. It is for this reason that I changed the header from "supplement controversy" to "supplements" (something that should have been done long ago), as the previous header implied that this article was going to discuss the controversy, which it does not, and should not. Saying that vitamins are available as supplements and how supplements are regulated are facts that are important to this article. The controversy should be, and is, discussed in articles like megavitamin therapy. I suggest that attempt to discuss these edits in such articles. I must caution you however, that the edits you have presented read, to me, like a point of view and an attack, and I suggest that you read the articles WP:NPOV, WP:AWT, and WP:WTA before submitting the above material to any article.--DO11.10 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good. You are right and I'm sorry about that.  I'm not sure how I was supposed to understand your point of view based only on your earlier comments.  I expect it will take considerably more time for me to thoroughly understand your point of view, and it will take time for you to understand mine.

Honestly, it is news to me that a vitamin extracted from food (or synthesized in a factory) and pressed into a tablet is not a vitamin but, instead, a supplement. I just reread the page, and I'll need to reread more carefully again, looking for clarification of when a vitamin is a vitamin, and when it is a supplement. If this is a fact, it is an important one and should be added to the end of the first paragraph where the manufacture of vitamin supplements is first mentioned. Editing to make this point clear is also needed in the vitamin side effects section.

Your statement "the use of high dosage supplementation specifically, is obviously contentious" requires qualification. The use of high dosage niacin supplements to normalize blood lipids in the treatment of CVD is not contentious. Vitamins are also, like steroids, used in high concentrations in skin creams. These treatments are safe, proven in controlled clinical trials, and have been verified as effective in clinical practice.

Next - again I have to check more carefully - but I did not see the word "megavitamin" anywhere on the vitamin page. Megavitamins are related to vitamins and should be linked. I have been reading Wikipedia for almost a year studying and contributing to the vitamin pages. In all this time I have not come across the megavitamin therapy page. I have had a paradigm in my mind that supplements are dominated in herbs and minerals and other substances about which I have little expertise. I haven't been interested in these types of supplements so I have never linked to the dietary supplements page. So - that's why I had never considered trying to contribute to those pages.


 * I knew when I looked harder I would find the link to megavitamin on the page. I am proof that not everyone looks down there.  I think there should be a link to megavitamins in the main text of the vitamin article (where is the threshold between vitamins and megavitamins.  To be specific, let's use niacin as an example.  20 mg is near 1 RDA for an adult.  100 mg is an ordinary amount when eating niacin rich foods.  100 mg is 3 times the UL of 35 mg.  It is not possible to get time-release niacin in single tablets of >250 mg due to side effects.  Is one, 250 mg supplement a megadose?  In my experience, most people taking vitamins can't tell me the dose they are taking.  I don't think this is a good thing and that we, as vitamin educators, need to discuss specific doses.

shbrown 03:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You made another statement that I'd like to explore. "This article is not about dietary supplements, and therefore it is unnecessary to mention benefits and risks that can only be obtained through the use of supplements." I believe that any side effects from vitamin supplements can be experienced by eating foods rich in vitamins. For example, eating 1 to 2 pounds of green peppers a day gets a vitamin C dose over 2000 mg. 1 lb of liver can contain as much as 100 mg of niacin. Polar bear liver contains more than 500,000 IU vitamin A in a quarter pound.

And then this one "You will notice that nowhere in this article is there a mention of "So-and-so think that vitamins...."". The article features the RDA's and UL's for vitamins. These values represent what the RDA committe of the US Food and Nutrition Board thinks. In addition to being facts, the RDA's and UL's are the consensus opinion of groups of physicians. That's why the RDA's are a little different from country to country.

Concerning your cautionary statement, I need more feedback. Could you be more specific about what you perceive my point of view to be, and what it is I am attacking? There are verifiable facts in my contribution. I will write and rewrite words around the facts until they meet the standards of wikipedia. Now I'm off to study the megavitamin therapy and dietary supplements pages. Thanks for pointing me to them. shbrown 03:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

DO11 - I copied and pasted our recent exchange to a new section at the bottom of the page. I recommend continuing the discussion there. Thanks. shbrown 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Contiued on main talk page Supplements

Removal
This article is so shoddy in most of it's assertions and over-simplistic and simply innacurrate in it's citations (what it's asserting from the cited sources) that I am wholly removing several sections for the time being.

66.188.208.180 07:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You will need at the very least to put edit summaries, and refer to this discussion, or everyone (including some robots) will assume you are simply vandalising, and promptly undo your changes. Notinasnaid 07:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay we will take this point by point:


 * 1) "what it's asserting from the cited sources" Yes, you are correct some of the Governmental and Merck sources (which is what I assume you are having a problem with) go to an overview page that has a list of vitamins. It seemed simple enough to me that a person could then choose which vitamin they were interested in reading/checking up on/whatever. Nonetheless, I have gone back in and put EVERY single "Vitamin Fact Sheet" as a reference so that you don't have to pick.
 * 2) "shoddy in most of it's assertions" and "simply innacurrate (sic.) in it's citations" This is just plain wrong. I suggest that you actually check out the references (I mean read them). Or cite specific examples of information that you take issue with.
 * 3) "over-simplistic" Well yes, if you are a medical doctor you might find the treatment of this sunject to be simplistic, but I would wager that most other people would not. Further, this page is meant to be a summary of vitamins, (each specific vitamin has it's own individual page) it is not mean to go into vast amounts of detail, that can be found on the individual vitamin page.
 * Lastly, removing sections is never okay, without a GOOD explanation of why you are doing it. See my explanation in the "supplement" section above, as an example.--DO11.10 19:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

End notes/citations
I am removing this, with hopes to clean it up later. Many of the statistics from the cited sources on this page are false, or unapplicable to the source. 216.70.37.171 13:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The concerns you raise are serious. Please discuss them. However, deleting citations is not acceptable as a way of dealing with them. If you will not engage in dialog, and continue in this way, you will be blocked. Please add new discussions at the END of the talk page, thank you. Notinasnaid 13:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed a list of examples of various Vitamin functions. I fear that an individual may see that list, and falsely assume that this is the limit of the functions of these vitamins are able to perform. Instead, I kept a general statement about the bodily functions of vitamins and moved the specific details to the wiki pages of the various vitamins cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.208.180 (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2006

This article has been cleaned up quite nicely, with the removal of a few rather ambiguous citations and some inaccurate information. When referencing a book, specific excerpts should be indicated. When a general (relatively well known) statement regarding the nature of vitamins is accredited to a book (with no specific chapter or page numbers) it seems as if Wikipedia is just trying to add a credible reference to their vitamin page... 71.215.172.78 22:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)