Talk:Vitamin/Archive 3

Adding Choline to the list of vitamins
I would like to u add Choline to the chart of vitamins on this page, and to the Vitamin template Template:Vitamin which produces the box at the bottom of each vitamin page. --Coppertwig 08:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * According to most of the articles I could find, choline is referred to as "vitamin-like" and is not essential at all stages of development, although deficiency can result in disease, and it is listed on most RDA charts. Here is an example of one "neutral" reference I found UNC at Chapel Hill: News release. Therefore, although it is a bit of a gray area, I don't think that it should be classified here as a vitamin at this time. Cheers--DO11.10 18:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On the Choline Wikipedia page, it says " In 1998 choline was classified as an essential nutrient by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine (U.S.A.) and Adequate Intakes (AI) have been established." That sounds pretty definitive to me.  The other sources are probably using out-of-date information.  I think it should just be added to the vitamin template -- a navigational aid.  --Coppertwig 22:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think it is probably safe to list it in the template. Between biotin and folic acid(?).--DO11.10 00:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I put "Choline (vitamin-like)" into the template. The situation is complex.  See my comments on Template talk:Vitamin.  --Coppertwig 12:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Choline nutrition is discussed here. Choline can be made in the body, and not all people require this in the diet, so I don't think this is a vitamin. TimVickers 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Water is also made in the body as a byproduct, but is nevertheless an essential nutrient IMO. The link you give calls it an essential nutrient.  Maybe it's an essential nutrient according to some definitions but not others, or in some opinions but not others.  Maybe some ingredient the body needs to make choline also tends to be in short supply.  The Choline page also calls it an essential nutrient.  I think it's fair to say that if it's an essential nutrient, then it's a vitamin -- it doesn't fit into any of the other categories of essential nutrients and making a whole category for Choline doesn't seem appropriate.  So, if there's a gray area as to whether it's an essential nutrient, then there's a gray area as to whether it's a vitamin.
 * My main concern here is providing links so people can navigate around the pages and find what they want to find. I have a suggestion:  How about putting Choline into the Vitamins template but with a marker:  it can appear in parentheses, or with (vitaminlike) after it, or something like that to indicate that it isn't exactly a vitamin.  I wouldn't want someone on a restricted diet to forget to consider choline just because it doesn't happen to appear in any of the categories.  --Coppertwig 03:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Water isn't made in the body. I think that would be the job of exploding stars. And it's not exactly a nutrient. Water is more like a catalyst, it makes cell function possible. I think vitamins are classified as essential nutrients that are needed for maintaining a healthy life of an organism until it produces and helps raising an offspring. If choline only improves your longevity and health later in life, then it's not exactly essential. HyborianRanger (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Water is made by burning fats and carbohydrates, indeed. But not enough for humans (however, enough that some animals like gerbils never need to drink in some circumstances, but get by on metabolic water). Water is not organic, also, so it wouldn't be a vitamin even if we only needed 10 mg a day of it. We have arbitrarily counted as "vitamins" only organic micronutrients that are needed in trace amounts (less than 100 mg a day or so). Essential fatty acids are needed in amounts larger than this, but they come close. They could possibly have been counted as vitamins (vitamin F!), but were not. It's hard to defend this perfectly, but that's where science drew the line. Choline is clearly not a vitamin The body can sythesize it in adequate amounts, apparently, since there is no deficiency "disease" for it. There do seem to be some "deficiency markers" like fatty liver, in some people. So this is a tricky thing. Right now there is an official "adequate intake" for choline (about 500 mg a day, far out of the vitamin range) but no RDA/DRI. . If choline ever is classed as a agreed nutrient, it will be at levels similar to essential fatty acids, and I don't think will be named as a vitamin. But I could be wrong. We will simply have to wait.  S  B Harris 03:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for partial revert of TimVickers edits
Thank you for contributing to the Nutrition category of the English Wikipedia. Many people working together are producing some excellent pages. I'm sorry to revert some of your edits; I don't want to discourage you. Some of your edits are helpful and good. I left in your square brackets around vitamin K and the disambiguated link to metabolism. I agree that the word "encompass" is a little awkward; you changed it to "cover", and now I've changed it to "include". The first sentence I find less wordy and more clear the way it was, so I changed it back. Many people would say it's incorrect to call anything "a chemical"; that you need to say "a chemical substance" and even that isn't very scientific;  after all, everything is a chemical substance, isn't it? Feel free to discuss what you don't like about the first sentence and we can try to find something we all agree on. --Coppertwig 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Definition of "Chemical" - Noun, a substance produced by or used in a chemical process. I added the material to the root article "nutrition" and tried to clean the page up a little. TimVickers 21:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

More problems with Vitamin template
I added "Choline (vitamin-like)" and just noticed two other problems:

First of all, there are two templates. Template:Vitamin and Template:Vitamins. The second one of these is used on only 6 pages (as opposed to 25 pages for Template:Vitamin). It says "Vitamins and Cofactors" on top and in addition to the vitamins it lists some, but not all, of the essential minerals at the bottom. The overall appearance of this template is very similar to Template:Vitamin. I think Template:Vitamins should be deleted.

The other problem: vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 are listed separately in the vitamin template. I would like to see only one mention of vitamin D. It says on the vitamin D page that ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) does not occur naturally in the human body. I think of it as a poor substitute that we used in supplements before we learned how to synthesize real vitamin D. I read that vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) is much more toxic than vitamin D3. Listing them separately gives the impression that people need both, (as with the B vitamins where each one is needed), whereas people just need some form of vitamin D. I suggest changing it to "Cholecalciferol (Vitamin D3)" or "Cholecalciferol (Vitamin D)" or just "Vitamin D". --Coppertwig 13:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Coppertwig, the intended emphasis of the two templates seems quite different; whereas the focus of Template:Vitamin seems to be on human nutrition, Template:Vitamins is more centered on enzymatic cofactors, regardless of what species the enzyme happens to belong to. Although the deprecated vitamins template is indeed imperfect, it is part of a larger series of navigational templates for biochemistry, which would have to be refactored if this one got deleted.  Perhaps a better solution might be to rename the deprecated template (say, to Template:Enzyme cofactors) instead of deleting it altogether; what do you think? Willow 22:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Renaming it might be a good solution. That would reduce the confusion with the Vitamin template.   I'm not familiar with the whole series of templates.  It could be renamed to Enzyme cofactors as you suggest or to Vitamins and cofactors or to something else.  Actually, the heading at the top of the template doesn't look very logical to me:  "Vitamins and cofactors"  -- shouldn't it be "Vitamins and other cofactors"?  Maybe changing the heading and name to just "Enzyme cofactors" would be best.   Thanks for your input. I was checking whether anyone cared about that template. --Coppertwig 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree renaming is a much better idea.--DO11.10 18:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi all, thanks for your suggestions! They really helped to clarify the intended use of the biochemical template, now called Template:Enzyme cofactors.  See you around, Willow 19:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mind control?
I have trouble with this sentence: "Supplements are, as required by law, not intended to treat, diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or cure disease". First of all, it doesn't state what jurisdiction it's talking about. Secondly, I doubt the law actually requires people not to intend that supplements do those things. That would be mind control. Probably the law requires that certain statements be printed on the packages. Thirdly, if the law does require that people not have those intentions, I doubt that everyone follows it, as this sentence seems to be claiming. --Coppertwig 03:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Coppertwig - I noticed the same thing. When I edited the page last weekend I fixed this problem.  The text of the act is "Supplements are not intended to treat, diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or cure disease."  This text, or something like it, is required language on bottles of supplements.  I just took out a vitamin supplement bottle.  The label reads "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."

shbrown 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion About The Controversy Related to Vitamin Supplements/Vitamins
Continued from archived Supplement controversy section

Summary of new points (28 November 2006) by shbrown 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.
 * I agree this is an important point, that should be included in the supplement section. According to the FDA the definition of dietary supplement is "a product (other than tobacco) that is intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients: a vitamin, a mineral, an herb or other botanical, an amino acid, a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total daily intake, or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combinations of these ingredients. is intended for ingestion in pill, capsule, tablet, or liquid form. is not represented for use as a conventional food or as the sole item of a meal or diet. is labeled as a "dietary supplement". IMO a vitamin is a collection of elements arranged in a certain way that facilitates a function, and a supplement is a) a "processed" (for lack of a better word) form of a vitamin, i.e. not a food that happens to have vitamins in it, and b)is intentionally used to supplement the diet. Thoughts??

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?)
 * No at the bottom with the other links is a more reasonable place, and that question should be answered on the megavitamin page, not here.

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.
 * Besides probably having some serious gastrointestinal issues, I doubt that someone who is eating that kind of diet has an Internet connection in their Unabomber-esqe cabin (kidding). Seriously, I doubt that anyone eats 1 to 2 pounds of peppers, a pound of (Cow??) liver or any fraction of a polar bear liver (holy crap BTW) on a daily basis, pretty much the only way a person would ingest the amounts of vitamins described in your proposed edit is by the ingestion of supplements.

Your statement "the use of high dosage supplementation specifically, is obviously contentious" requires qualification.
 * I meant that to mean YOU feel it is obviously contentious (or controversial), based on your proposed edits which I think serve as my "qualification".

And then this one "You will notice that nowhere in this article is there a mention of "So-and-so think that vitamins....". In addition to being facts, the RDA's and UL's are the consensus opinion of groups of physicians.
 * Well no those are the reported findings of studies done by physicians, not exactly the same as an "opinion".

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?--shbrown
 * I would rather not discuss that here, please contact me individually.--DO11.10 19:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think of vitamins by their chemical structures. Every vitamin page has a graphic with the chemical structure of its most common form. IMO, a vitamin extracted from a plant or synthesized in a lab, and then pressed into a tablet is still a vitamin. IMO wikipedia is expressing a point of view by breaking the topic of vitamin into two parts - the vitamin page and the megavitamins page. And then there is the vitamin poisoning page - hmm - obviously a point of view. IMO the point of wikipedia is to be an evergreen document that works to develop consensus through debate and transparency.

These discussions are concentrating my mind. You state that the RDA's are "the reported findings of studies done by physicians". Is this true? What studies? What is the history of the RDA's? Where is the rationale? What is the purpose of the RDA's?

Why are you so quick to dismiss my comments about foods rich in vitamins? How many RDA's would an athelete eating mostly meats and fresh fruits and vegetables consume on a daily basis? What about hunter gatherer societies? Wild foods tend to have much higher vitamin/calorie ratio than agricultural foods. How many RDA's in these diets? Why aren't simple questions like this easily answered?

I am not happy about the megavitamin page. IMO anything written on that page will be considered less credible than what is written on the vitamin page. I'm not in a hurry. I am probably going to start by trying to answer some of my own questions. Once I've got a factual answer to the history of the RDA's, I'm going to add to the history section. shbrown 03:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is some kind of place. Wikipedia has a page "Recommended Daily Intake" which pops up from a search on RDA. The vitamin page needs to link to this page in its discussion of the RDA. shbrown 03:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin U is not Allantonin but a methionin derivative Cabagin see "Merk Index"

Although this has been suspected in the past Vitamin B10 and B11 can not posibly be Vitamin R and Vitamin S. B10 and B11 are soluble in ethanol. vitamin R and Vitamin S are NOT soluble in ethanol. (some folates are not soluble in alcohol like folinic acid and PGA; some folates are soluble in alcohol like PHGA) Bertei

Folic acid deficiency symptoms
An earlier version said "Heart disease, cancer, and neural tube defects.". User DO11.10 edited it, removing mention of these three conditions, stating in the edit summary that "While potentally linked to, heart diseases and cancer are not CAUSED by folic acid deficiency". I've put the three conditions back into the table, modifying the way they are presented so that they're mentioned as "linked" rather than "caused". I think it's useful information. I hope this way of presenting it is acceptable to user DO11.10. Please feel free to discuss it here. --Coppertwig 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Not really. While I have no problem with the neural tube defect part of the addition, I have a serious problem with including "heart disease" and "cancer" for a number of reasons. First and foremost, those diseases are not CAUSED by folic acid deficiency, the header of the table column, as well as all of the other diseases listed are directly caused by vitamin deficiency. Second, the research on the relationship of folic acid and these diseases is mostly speculative and in several instances is quite contradictory. Third, the terms "cancer" and "heart disease" are far too broad to be the least bit informative here (i.e. what kind of cancer, under what circumstances, what stages of heart disease?) In my view, the point of the table here is to: a)summarize the vitamins b)provide links to other, more detailed articles c)show that deficiency of even single vitamins is directly related to very specific and detrimental diseases. In light of this I am going to remove the potential linkage to heart disease and cancer, but will leave the neural tube defect.--DO11.10 04:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute at this time the removal of heart disease and cancer here, although the word "caused" does not have a simple definition. Perhaps for many vitamins, it can be shown that supplements of the vitamin reduce the rate of diseases such as heart disease and cancer.  Depending on the definitions of "deficiency" and "cause", it can then be said that deficiency of the vitamins caused those diseases in many people.


 * "Mostly speculative" sounds as if there are some studies which are not merely speculative but have actual evidence; and when you say "contradictory" I wonder whether you're talking about a common situation where some studies establish, with statistical significance, that there are effects, and other studies fail to establish that.  I would like to point out that there is nothing contradictory in such results;  it simply means that some studies contain evidence and other studies do not contain evidence -- they don't disprove anything.  To get a contradiction, you have to have one study establishing with statistical significance that if there is any effect then it is less than a certain percentage, and another study establishing with statistical significance that there is an effect greater than that percentage.  It's relatively rare for statistical studies to have enough data to make these sorts of statements, as opposed to the usual "we established that there is a correlation" or "we failed to establish that there was a correlation."  Even so there is no logical contradiction, only proof that if the two studies are studying the same measurables in the same population then at least one of them involves a statistical fluke.  --Coppertwig 14:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

IUs?
Wouldn't it be a good idea to quote IUs in this article? I was thinking of possibly modifying the table to add it.WolfKeeper 05:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, have at it!--DO11.10 04:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

wording is confusing
This paragraph is pretty hard to follow, anyone understand what it is trying to say?: Throughout the early 1900s, the use of deprivation studies allowed scientists to isolate and identify a number of vitamins. Initially, lipid from fish oil was used to cure rickets in rats, and the fat-soluble nutrient was called "antirachitic A". The irony here is that the first "vitamin" bioactivity ever isolated, which cured rickets, was initially called "vitamin A", the bioactivity of which is now called vitamin D,[6] What we now call "vitamin A" was identified in fish oil because it was inactivated by ultraviolet light.
 * There's a whole wiki on irony and some cultural fighting about what the word actually means. If there's any irony on the naming of vitamin A and D isn't not a large one, at least to me. It's just a variation in initial terminology. Words do change meaning over time! In the 19th century a pilot and a driver weren't at all what they are today. And computer was a job description, not a thing that sat on your desk. No irony in any of this, or not much. Do I have some concensus to remove the word and clean this up, sicne I also agree that it needs some fixing? S  B Harris 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Production
The article is missing information on how vitamins are obtained; are they isolated from bacteria or plants, or chemically synthesized de novo? Sakkura (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bold change in LEAD definition
I have been WP:BOLD and changed the LEAD a bit. While it is true the vitamins are needed only in small amounts, the other part of the definition is that you usually (but not always) need to eat them, and can't make them. But that's conditional: not only don't you need to eat vitamin D and K in some circumstances, but some molecules are vitamins for some organisms and not others, such as vitamin C. This is really not an article on human vitamins only, but vitamins in general, which are defined by effect, not by structure! Speaking of which, since vitamins are defined by activity not structure, I felt I needed to introduce the concept of vitamers (different compounds, but all with the same vitamin activity) in the LEAD. That helps some. It probably should be a section in the article itself, pointing out why there are so many forms of various vitamins. S B Harris 00:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Antivitamins?
What about starting coverage of some relevant antivitamins? MTX, indirect anticoagulants, crimidine, 6-aminoniacine..?--84.163.125.38 (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a neat section to add. Be bold and do it. If it gets too long, we can always spin it off with a summary. Go for it. S  B Harris 23:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea, vitamins have been vital in chemotherapy. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"human experiment"
"Kanehiro initially believed that lack of protein was the chief cause of beriberi. With the support of Japanese navy, he experimented using crews of two battleships, one crew was fed only white rice, while the other was fed a diet of meat, fish, barley, rice, and beans. The group that ate only white rice documented 161 crew with beriberi and 25 deaths, while the latter group had only 14 cases of beriberi and no deaths. This convinced Kanehiro and the Japanese Navy that diet was the cause of beriberi."

japanese researchers especially in medical field would use humans to conduct his experiment, counting out the risk that will be faced by these people. as an informal statement as a comment: Kanehiro is pathetic for his questionable lack of humanity sense. Xmlv (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you really have a leg to stand on here. All of the working class sailors were already on a diet of white rice ... it was an improvemnt ofthe diet of the test subjects that was being investigated. Doesn't smack of "human experiment" or even a lack of ethics to me. Lets remember that researchers all over the world used questionable ethical experiments on people until long after Mengele and his inhumane experiments in the death camps. In the United States drug tests were often carried out on convicts and military personel. Other countries such as Canada, Great Britain, Farance, the Soviet Union, China etc all have updated their ethical experimentation codes, especially in the last 20 to 25 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.183.193 (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

sources of vitamin from everyday's food
this article too focusing on the medical explanations of vitamins.

if possible, by considering those readers who are not from medical education field or good medical/diet knowledge; can someone includes the examples of food so it brings the general understanding to the readers? Xmlv (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of foods, and each one contains amounts of most (if not all for some foods) of the 13 vitamins. Thus, all but a very cursory summary mention of such things would overwhelm this article, which is a general one. Such lists are more suited to the individual sub-articles on each vitamin. If you want something more inclusive, there's perhaps a possiblity of a subarticle looking at it the other way, though, with Foods for highest sources of vitamins in humans. But again, it would be only briefly mentioned here, as a MAIN article for a summary section. S  B Harris 23:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

i think no need to mention ALL 1k++ types of food, just the common food that anyone take?

the ppl know not much about diet/food nutritions, but then it could be a good idea to put examples of, like i said everyday's food. food that we usually eat everyday, you know. depends on different cultures of eating habits from different countries or continents.

i think in south american region, corn is their main staple food? corn is processed into flour and so on. north americans eat bread as the staple food. easter asians eat rice as staple food... and so on. so these give the ideas on how anyone can actually give example of the food they know or they take hence specify the nutrients contained. i eat polished rice everyday, so i still don't know what benefits it contained. i also eat brown rice, and i don't know what it contains either. so, simply these some general information we could need to know is good. and of course, it's always good to include some other rarely known foods that less ppl to know, with good arrangements on structuring these information.

PS: during his career, bruce lee was also a nutritionist somehow. he found interestings researches on the food he consumes. just an additional information if you are interested to read. btw, nice to see your fancy wiki templates.

Xmlv (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Retinol is Vitamin A?
Wow. Cosmetic companies boast their cosmetics containing retinol will smooth out wrinkles, but it's just vitamin A! That's a rip off. Bonne Nuit Bijou (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And the very idea that a cosmetic company would try to rip people off! The mind reels.  S  B Harris 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

vitamins
are they good for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.144.66.50 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they're bad for you. Anything else we can do for you, today? S  B Harris 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? WSNRFN (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Trolling. What are you talking about? S  B Harris 01:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting Merge with Micronutrients
Any reason we shouldn't merge the two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.30.80 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, since micronutrients includes the micronutrient minerals, which deserve Wikis on their own. Please don't suggest that a Wiki on a topic with such a MASSIVE literature behind it, be MERGED with anything. That's not the way Wikipedia grows; it normally goes the other way: see WP:SS. S  B Harris 22:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Where do the vitamins in vitamin pills come from?
One thing missing from this article is an explanation of where the vitamins in vitamin pills come from. How are they made? Are they sourced from fruits and vegetables? From mineral rocks? Are they entirely synthasized by scientists from chemicals?


 * Some are synthesized in a laboratory, some are food concentrates that include the nutrients you need.  It depends on the company.   Whole food supplements have not only the nutrients but all the co-factors needed by the body to recognize and use the supplement for food.   You have to check out what type of supplement you are buying.   Something like B-100 Complex is not natural.  No where in nature are there 100 mg of all the B vitamins together.   Something like Vitamin C, Ascorbic Acid, is not the full Vitamin C - its like wanting and egg and getting the egg shell.  Not natural. WSNRFN (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * While that is undoubtedly the viewpoint espoused by marketers of "whole food supplements", it does not reflect any actual scientific or clinical data that I'm aware of. Are you aware of any reliable sources demonstrating that "whole food vitamins" are associated with better health outcomes than "synthetic" vitamin supplements? MastCell Talk 23:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Biotin/Folic Acid confusion
The article currently claims (in the 'Names in current and previous nomenclatures' section) that biotin and folic acid have been reclassified as Vitamin B7 and B9, respectively. However, they are listed in the table with their chemical names, just beneath B1..3 and B5..6. Why? 65.96.201.130 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I'm going to go ahead and change their first-column entries. They're usually called B7 and B9 elsewhere, and I see no reason to use the chemical names here. 65.96.201.130 (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad move. While there are a lot of web cites that associate biotin and folate with specific numbers, you can also find B-17 associated with amygdalin! There's a lot of total crap on the web. No standard nutrition textbooks call biotin and folate by anything but these chemical names, never a B-number. There is a history of where the B numbers come from (I'd cite it but can't find it at the moment), but biotin and folate were (perhaps surprisingly) never associated with any of these B-numbers to the extent that the nutritional community has officially ever accepted the link. This is even true for B-5, believe it or not. S  B Harris 01:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Egyptians
"The ancient Egyptians knew that feeding a patient liver would help cure night blindness, an illness now known to be caused by a vitamin A deficiency..."
 * I have not checked the reference given for this quote, so it may already deal with the following points, in which case I apologise for the intrusion.
 * I've been reading "The Eye - A Natural History" by Stephen Ings (ISBN 978-0-7475-9286-0). Ings, referencing George Wolf, says that according to the Ebers papyrus, the Egyptians cured night blindness by squeezing juices from an animal's liver straight into the eyes (rather than feeding it to them as stated in the article).  However he also points out that this is by no means certain: it is unclear whether the term 'night-blindness' used in the papyrus has the same meaning as we use today, and also points out that the liver was used as a cure for nearly anything, pointing out the risk of "reading magical texts through medical spectacles", therefore it is not certain that the Egyptians really knew what they were doing.
 * In it's current form, the article gives too much authority to this statement, and assuming Ings is correct it should either be removed or rewritten accordingly.


 * --HappyDog (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible Etymology?
I've always thought that vitamin was derived from vital+mineral. Do we have any support for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.103.248 (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The derivation is vital + amine since it was originally thought that vitamins were amines. See the History section of the article. 96.54.53.165 (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing B Vitamins?
I'm surprised that the other 3 common B Vitamins (PABA, Choline, and Inositol) were omitted since they are very commonly in B Complexes and also naturally occur in Brewer's Yeast with the other B Vitamins. Has this already been covered as far as why they are not listed here or am I missing something? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * They aren't vitamins for humans (in the sense of being needed nutrients under any circumstances). Your body can make all you need (your kidneys make a gram or more of inositol a day-- compare with what's in a "B-complex" tablet). The fact that these things are put into "B-complex" formulations and are found in yeast with them, doesn't make them B vitamins. S  B Harris 16:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * They're not vitamins. There are eight B vitamins link, the others in the B sequence were proposed as vitamins in the past but found not to be essential. See B vitamin for more information. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's very true that they don't have an RDA (meaning not essential), but I was more referring to the fact that they are commonly in B Complexes, I thought they would at least be mentioned (maybe as a side note or something like the B Complex section has) or something. If nothing else, it's a friendly suggestion for a section in the article (as something people may look for on an informational site)... or maybe it should just be specified that the ones listed are the essential vitamins (as opposed to the chart that lists all "vitamins"... maybe it should specify "essential vitamins") Burleigh2 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Although now that I think about it, Vitamin D was also mis-classified as a vitamin when it was first discovered... if it were discovered today, I imagine it would be classified more like a hormone since the body synthesizes it when the skin is exposed to sunlight. I mean, if that's in the list, why wouldn't Inositol be on the list as well? Burleigh2 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Vitamin D is a bit tricky, since people do get rickets, so the deficiency disease does exist. There is no deficiency disease for inositol, so not a vitamin. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Portmanteau
This article proposes two different portmanteaus. Toward the beginning, there's "vital" and "mineral." Later on there's "vital" and "amine." I have no idea what the real etymology of the word is, but I highly doubt that both of those are correct.98.247.217.87 (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Vital mineral" is just wrong, historically. I don't know how it got there, but it's got to go. S  B Harris 02:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Word origin explantaion at the begining
I think that expalnation of word origin at the begining is not apropriate. In my opinion introduction needs to contain sentences "rough" explaning what vitamins are.

Čikić Dragan (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a long tradition that we often give word-origins in the lede/lead. Look at many other science articles. That said, it's not so important that we shouldn't discuss what it is first, so I've partly taken your suggestion and moved the historical origin to the very end of the lede. I'd put it in the first part of the history, but there's not obviously an easy way to put it up front, since the history starts with healing foods and only gradually works into the historical concept of micro chemical components. Funk is not mentioned until quite a ways into the article, and that's not right, either, if that's the first time the idea and word origin appears. S  B Harris 02:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Recommended dietary allowances
The recommended dietary allowances differ from country to country much like the RDA. I would like to see a note as to what geographical area these numbers cover. -- Mgm|(talk) 07:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Vitamins and anthropocentrism
The opening sentence says: A vitamin is an organic compound required as a nutrient in tiny amounts by an organism.[1] I was of the impression that "vitamins" are micronutrients that are essential for humans, while there are other organisms that need other micronutrients, but are not called "vitamins". Many endocellular parasites and symbionts cannot synthesise (=auxotrophs) ubiquinones, if the definition above is valid coenzyme Q10 is a vitamin... Consequently is this definition right?--Squidonius (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good question. Most dictionaries I've consulted make reference to humans, but some only make reference to "cells" (presumably in any animal) so by extention the word has been applied to animals. Thus, by that definition, ascorbic acid is a vitamin for humans (vitamin C) but not cats, but taurine is a vitamin for cats but not humans, and so on. No, taurine doesn't have a vitamin name for cats. However, carnitine is not a vitamin for humans but was identified as "vitamin Bt" for mealworms (!), of all things, but it's also called a "growth factor" for worms, so perhaps that's the last refuge of people who want another name for the exotic nutritional needs of every last organism. How we define "vitamin" is a totally different question of whether or not we want to discuss any other organisms than humans in this article. If we do, it will instantly become unwieldy. So I propose that even if we allow lose use of the term for other animals, we make it immediately clear that this article discuses only human nutritional needs. An article for growth factors and dietary needs of other species might be called something else: Dietary factor requirements for nonhuman organisms, or something.   S  B Harris 23:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is interesting. Yes, I think it should be made clear straight away too. The article focuses rightfully on humans, but at the same time pretends to cover all organisms, for example: "Vitamins are essential for the normal growth and development of a multicellular organism. Using the genetic blueprint inherited from its parents, a fetus begins to develop". Plus "In humans" is a tier 2 header but all other headers actually talk about humans. Although I do not think a section on vitamins for other mammals, animals and other forms of life would become unwieldly. (Squidonius not logged in) --130.123.104.22 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What's "Vitamin-like substance?" Definition?
Words "vitamin-like substance/compound" are used often, inside and outside of Wikipedia, but are there any "good" definitions? Either so or not, that fact should be recorded in this page, I think. Thanks beforehand.--Tmj qmj ttzz (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What fact exactly should be recorded here? That people use those words together?Millertime246 (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

resource
Is This the End of Popping Vitamins? October 25, 2011 in the WSJ by Shirley S. Wang 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Second sentence in introduction needs reference or clarification
The second sentence states "In other words, an organic chemical compound (or related set of compounds) is called a vitamin when it cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities by an organism, and must be obtained from the diet". This is not correct as Vitamin D is produced can be and is produced in sufficient amounts by the overwhelming majority of people. Those who cannot produce it either have a rare genetic defect or do not go out into the sun.

The sentence should therefore be either clarified, references, or changed.

AriaNo11 (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Something about an edit
I added more to the section "In Humans" and something confusing happened with the table. Can someone explain what I did, and fix it without removing my improvments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.187.141 (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In wikitables, the "|-" sign is an operator telling to start next row. You were changing it to the similar "|" operator which means "new cell". This page is a useful guide on wikitables. Materialscientist (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Pine needles for vitamins C and A
I feel like the usefulness of pine needle tea for providing vitamins C and A should be mentioned here, due to the usefulness in emergency situations. There are lots of references, might take a while to track down a good one. —Darxus (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Biotin and folate have no official "B" numbers
In fact, pantothenate isn't officially B5, but nutritionists let it slide. However, it's time we fixed this article as regards biotin and folate on the list. There's a reason your multivit label doesn't talk about B9 and B7. Yes, there are many errors on the web. But textbooks of nutrition suitable for academic courses never talk about B7 and B9. If I don't get any good rebuttal I'm going to get out my Goodhart and Shills and just be bold and fix this. S B Harris 19:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference 15
Is to an extension course from Colorado State. It's not all that WP:RS reliable, since not peer reviewed, and in fact it is wrong in saying that water soluble vitamins must be replaced "each day". Nonsense! There's no water-soluble vitamin your body doesn't store weeks worth of at minimum, and symptoms of scurvy don't begin to show even in malnurished people for a month. There's enough "water-soluble" B12 (at the extreme end of this) to last an average person for several years. So this is just the usual nonsense suggesting to people that if they dont' get every one of the 8 water solubles every day, something bad will happen to them. If that were true, there'd be no human beings left on Earth by now. I'm going to be WP:BOLD, and remove this reference as soon as I find something else to counter it. The problem is that the opposite is so well-known among nutritionists, that I'm not sure I can find a book that actually makes a blanket statement of something so obvious. S B Harris 02:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Great Soviet Encyclopedia mismatch
List of (water-soluble) vitamins there does not match this. Most surprisingly, panthothenic acid is B3 there and B5 here. Possibly this is regional or reclassification (mentioned here), but clarification needed. And I think some substances listed there (lipoic acid, inositol, &c.) are not recognised (by whom?) vitamins. If I had more time... 37.60.16.36 (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation history
Any ideas when and why the different pronunciations emerged in American and British English? I think it would be good to explain this briefly in the article, supposing good references can be found. --John (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

All organisms need vitamins?
Do all organisms need vitamins? Also cyanobacteria need vitamins? How do they get their vitamins? --Hartz (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Discovery of Vitamin
Here is the citation of peer reviewed scientific article written by Umetaro Suzuki, published in 1991. 15:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed paragraph
This was put into the LEAD by a good faith IP editor. It's fairly generally but a represents the general thinking of 25 years ago, which still hasn't been proven (indeed there more evidence against it now, than then. Anyway, it belongs in another article, and needs a refernece. 15:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"Antioxidants such as vitamin E act to protect your cells against the effects of free radicals, which are potentially damaging by-products of energy metabolism. Free radicals can damage cells and may contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease and cancer. Studies are underway to determine whether vitamin E, through its ability to limit production of free radicals, might help prevent or delay the development of those chronic diseases. Vitamin E has also been shown to play a role in immune function, in DNA repair, and other metabolic processes"  15:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

About milk sugar (lactose) that still contained small amounts of vitamin B
"One difference was that he had used table sugar (sucrose), while other researchers had used milk sugar (lactose) that still contained small amounts of vitamin B" This sentence may be mistakable and there is no citation for this.-- comment added by Drsrisenthil (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Heat
B1, B5, B6, B9 and vitamin C are destryed by heat ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwalvekar (talk • contribs)
 * You'll probably have to be more specific with your question. Is this related to specific content of the article?  Are you asking if vitamins can be burned?  Deli nk (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The table is not labeled very well and is sort of ambiguous. I am not sure what 'yes' and 'no' means in regards exposure to air, light, etc. Is it 'yes', vitamins are lost when exposed to X? Or is it 'no', vitamins are not maintained when exposed to X? -Anonymous Reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.198.125 (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Simpler English
Currently the intro contains the sentence: "By convention, the term vitamin includes neither other essential nutrients, such as dietary minerals, essential fatty acids, or essential amino acids (which are needed in larger amounts than vitamins) nor the large number of other nutrients that promote health but are otherwise required less often."

"... includes neither x nor y" seems clumsy. How about "excludes both x and y"? e.g. "By convention, the term vitamin excludes both other essential nutrients, such as dietary minerals, essential fatty acids, or essential amino acids (which are needed in larger amounts than vitamins) and the large number of other nutrients that promote health but are otherwise required less often." If this a direct quote from the cited source, then perhaps it should stay, but then quotation marks should be used.--TraceyR (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Nutritional factor vs. vitamine
There is a lot to say about the history of vitamins. Up until the late 20's, many nutritional factors have been isolated by medical scientists, but the structural elucidation was the key for tracking and quantifying those substances. It was not until the 1930', when Haworth and Karrer were able to determine the structure of these molecules. Lactoflavin was isolated 1920, but nobody really knew how the molecules looked like until the early 1930's. The physiological assays were crucial for the initial discovery, but it was left to the organic chemists, to determine the exact chemical structure of those vitamins. In many cases, full synthesis was required to confirm them. It is imperative to introduce those chemical scientists to the vitamin-interested audience.(Osterluzei (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC))

Introduction
"They are important for the treatment of certain health problems but [b]there is little evidence of benefit when used by those who are otherwise healthy[/b]." - First off, there should be a citation regarding this affirmation, and if accurate it should be at least rewritten. On the lines of "there is little evidence of benefit when used AS A DIETARY SUPPLEMENT by those who are otherwise healthy". Because obviously they ARE beneficial "when used" as FOOD by healthy people since they are vital nutrients. Or am I missing something here? --Spmoura (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and added ref to the lead as well as clarified that this refers only to supplementation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Nikolai Lunin
Did he discover vitamins? This ref says no  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Chart unexplained
The second chart in the Effects of cooking section has no key for what 'yes' and 'no' mean. I assume it means 'is depleted in x condition,' but it's not obvious.

173.25.54.191 (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - "yes," "no," and "partially" in the "exposure to light" and "Exposure to air" columns need clarification. I tagged some of those entries. Scott E. Kamholz (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is the only data that was available to me at this time. Please feel free to add/change if any one has more details.Rox Tarr (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Vitamin. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20160416203212/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-132081136.html to https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-132081136.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Vitamin. 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:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2008annualreport.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140102192411/http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveillance/AdverseDrugEffects/default.htmAdverse to http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveillance/AdverseDrugEffects/default.htmAdverse

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 15:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There were some errors in the second url; I fixed them.  Galobtter  Talk to me! 14:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is a start toward better opening citations
I object to the current opening sentence and citation, as being non-authoritative and non-scholarly in a field where there is clear consensus as to meaning, and where there are plenty of better sources. At very least, here are two standard, widely accepted dictionaries, and out competitor encyclopedia, to use as the starting point of a better opening sentence to the lead: I infer that the potentially contentious "or sometimes produced within the body" in the second bullet is intended to capture recent discoveries with regard to the microbiome, or other niche scholarship.
 * Any of a group of organic compounds that are essential for normal growth and nutrition and are required in small quantities in the diet because they cannot be synthesized by the body.
 * Any of various organic substances that are essential in minute quantities to the nutrition of most animals and some plants, act especially as coenzymes and precursors of coenzymes in the regulation of metabolic processes but do not provide energy or serve as building units, and are present in natural foodstuffs or sometimes produced within the body.
 * Any of several organic substances that are necessary in small quantities for normal health and growth in higher forms of animal life. Vitamins are distinct in several ways from other biologically important compounds such as proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids. Although these latter substances also are indispensable for proper bodily functions, almost all of them can be synthesized by animals in adequate quantities. Vitamins, on the other hand, generally cannot be synthesized in amounts sufficient to meet bodily needs and therefore must be obtained from the diet or from some synthetic source. For this reason, vitamins are called essential nutrients. Vitamins also differ from the other biological compounds in that relatively small quantities are needed to complete their functions. In general these functions are of a catalytic or regulatory nature, facilitating or controlling vital chemical reactions in the body’s cells. If a vitamin is absent from the diet or is not properly absorbed by the body, a specific deficiency disease may develop.

Please, someone closer to this area, do something with this, to make the opening sentence complete in its definition and without the word vital, with all of its various ambiguous scientific historical and etymologic connotations. Cheers. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Vital" replaced by "Essential" with some examples following wherein a vitamin might be conditionally essential. David notMD (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Vital" is actually derived from the Latin 'vita' and it means 'life'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead
Have restored lead to a last good version which did not differ greatly from that as passed for GA. In my edit - had stated restored to GA version. If the intention for changes was to bring it to Featured Article status - it seems to me instead to have been a step in the backward direction to de-listing.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * My intention is to improve the article. In the last three days, I have made around 43 edits to this page, with a detailed reason for each edit. The number of edits to the Lead was around 22. Here is the Lead with my edits:


 * A vitamin is an organic compound that an organism cannot make at all or in sufficient quantities to sustain health and life, and therefore must be obtained through other means, such as the diet, their own gut bacteria, or conversion of a precursor. By convention the word vitamin does not include other essential nutrients, such as dietary minerals, essential fatty acids and essential amino acids. Thirteen vitamins have been identified in humans. Vitamins are classified not by their chemical structure, but by their biochemical function. Each vitamin name (the word vitamin followed by a letter of the alphabet) refers to a number of vitamer compounds that all show the same biological activity. Vitamers by definition are convertible to the active form of the vitamin in the body, and are sometimes inter-convertible to one another as well.


 * Vitamins have diverse biochemical functions. The B complex vitamins function as enzyme cofactors, (coenzymes), or the precursors for them. Vitamin D functions as a hormone to regulate mineral metabolism, and is anti-proliferative. Some forms of vitamin A are regulators of cell and tissue growth and differentiation. Vitamin E and vitamin C are antioxidants. Other vitamin functions are also important.


 * While vitamin supplements are important for the prevention of certain vitamin deficiencies during pregnancy and for treatment of specific vitamin deficiencies when they occur and are detected, healthy people on a regular diet generally receive no benefit from taking either single or multiple vitamin supplements.


 * The term vitamin is derived from the word vitamine, coined in 1912 by biochemist Casimir Funk, who isolated a complex of micronutrients essential to life, all of which he presumed to be amines. When this presumption was later determined not to be true, the "e" was dropped from the name.


 * Perhaps a discussion could take place here as to which edits of mine are deemed not an improvement, and why, one sentence at a time. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello IiKkEe - apologies for overhasty overreaction to your changes. At first sight it seemed that a great amount of changes to the content had been made, but on later reading realised that a lot was just by the way of formatting. However i did find the first sentence(s) you changed to be overly worded and just not good prose. So we'll take it from here as you suggest edit by edit where arguable. All best --Iztwoz (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * (Iztwoz (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)twoz|talk]]) Great! Thanks for your apology and best wishes. May I suggest that you provide an alternative here to the first sentences I changed which you feel are overly worded and just not good prose? Perhaps we can have a cordial discussion here and reach a compromise that we can both live with, and then take it to the edit page together. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * (talk) On re-reading your last response: I like your idea of dealing with my revisions edit by edit, rather than sentence by sentence as I suggested. I will begin by restoring some of my edits you reverted, which you were kind enough to call an overhasty overreaction. I will do this with ample time between each edit for you to revert if you wish and then we can discuss here. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Reverted and changed sentences for reasons given in edit summary. You are experienced enough not to leave unnecessary redlinks on the page.? --Iztwoz (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you recent edits and explanations. I am not familiar with the term redlinks - I see you removed one with one of your edits, but you didn't say specifically what you removed so I can see what it is and whether I did it. Could you supply me with that info so I can learn?
 * The link was to diet which in fact wasn't a redlink (meaning no page exists) but a disambiguation link which shows up almost red on my screen.


 * One issue I would like to bring up here with you is the reference to other animals in the lead. It is my understanding that wikipedia articles are "human-centric" as per WPMoS, and that any info related to "other animals" should be reserved for the last section of the article, with that specific title. Do you agree, and if so, are you OK with my removing those from the lead? (See my version of the lead after edits above.) I did it once, but they reappeared with your reversion of the lead to an earlier one before my edits. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The sentence on animals was a carry-on from the removed conditional phrase - so it needn't be included - also if something is included in the lead it also needs to be covered in the body. (As for your first point about ref to animals shouldn't be in lead - anything in the text needs to be covered in the lead and vice versa. cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)