Talk:Dietary mineral

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Q: Dietary minerals vs. nondietary minerals

Why are the most essential macrominerals listed last? Shouldn't they be listed first? Coming third, even though it states them as not trace elements, they appear lessened in importance. Would you mind if I changed that?

Also, could further information be provided on mineral balances needed where they work together ideally and do not interfere with one another, such as an excess in one providing a deficiency in the other? I'm not sure on the exact balances but I'll look into them.

This article lists some things which are "dietary minerals", and then some other elements which aren't (like calcium). To count as a dietary mineral, does something have to scientifically be a mineral (crystalline structure, etc.)? This page seems to disagree with the mineral page on whether calcium is a dietary mineral (that page says it is). -- Creidieki 8 July 2005 13:47 (UTC)

My understanding is that in the nutritional sense, the word mineral simply indicates that that the substance is not an organic molecule, as all vitamins are. If this meaning of mineral doesn't mesh with the meanings in the geological or chemical context, then we should include some discussion of this in the article. I'm sure others will have the same question that you did. ike9898 July 8, 2005 14:17 (UTC)

[edit] RDA

I moved the minerals around a bit. Iodine has an RDA of 150 mg/day. All the other trace elements are 1-20 mg/day (including iron at 10mg/day. Magnesium really is bulk with an RDA of 400 mg per day or so. Kd4ttc

[edit] Arsenic is good for you

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

[edit] Silver

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

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

[edit] Oppose merger

Oppose - I believe that dietary mineral and trace mineral should not be merged. This is because a trace element is applicable to analytical chemistry, biochemistry, and geochemistry. I think all three of these should put in their seperate categories. Chris 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with Chris. Even the dietary mineral article divides into two groups of which trace elements are one. trace elements are by definition those that occur in very small concentrations, thus could be any mineral or actually any chemical element.Benkeboy 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Food Sources section

The paragraph at the bottom of the food sources section is too general and non-specific. The comment about "university reseach" is laughable without proper references.

[edit] Natrium

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

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

[edit] Chlorine?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The periodic table in this article should be revised

A periodic table in this article on dietary minerals indicates or implies a dietary role for V, B, Cr, Si, and As. No protein or related biomolecule has been characterized containing these elements from humans. I propose to remove this misleading information. I realize that intermitent evidence has been reported that these and some other elements might possibly be helpful to human health, but the weight of the evidence is modest. The table was contibuted by an unregistered user, so it is not easy to have a discussion of the original author. Few biochemists would support the inventory indicated in the table, as can be seen by consulting a modern text on bioinorganic and especially bioinorganic chemistry.--Smokefoot 17:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not All Micronutrients Are Dietary Minerals

I found this page by looking up "Micronutrients" and was routed to "Dietary minerals". I understand the Wiki sense that similar topics should be combined yet I think when this occurs the more general topic should get the entry. In this case, while all dietary minerals are micronutrients, not all micronutrients are dietary minerals. I suggest that the entry be placed under the title "Micronutrient". LAWinans (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Since my original post, I've looked at the info available at the "Micronutrient Initiative", a Canadian NGO, and the "World Health Organization", both of which so define "Micronutrient" as more inclusive than Dietary Minerals alone. For example, Vitamin A is a micronutrient but it is not a dietary mineral. Again, I renew my recommendation, bolstered by the MI and the WHO, that an entry on Micronutients be restored to Wikipedia inasmuch as micronutrients are not limited solely to dietary minerals. LAWinans (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)