Nutririon: The Big Picture

This forum being specific to the topic 'lone atrial fibrillation', it necessarily focuses heavily on some specific nutrients -- here's the Big Picture, from:

Essential Nutrient [en.wikipedia.org]

An essential nutrient is a nutrient required for normal body functioning that either cannot be synthesized by the body at all, or cannot be synthesized in amounts adequate for good health (e.g. niacin, choline), and thus must be obtained from a dietary source. Essential nutrients are also defined by the collective physiological evidence for their importance in the diet, as represented in e.g. US government approved tables for Dietary Reference Intake.[1]

Some categories of essential nutrients include vitamins, dietary minerals, essential fatty acids, and essential amino acids. Water and oxygen are also essential for human health and life, as oxygen cannot be synthesized by the body, and water, while a biochemical reaction product of metabolism, is not created in sufficient amounts. Both are necessary as biochemical reactants in some processes, and water is used in various ways such as a solvent, carrier, coolant, and integral polar structural member, but both are often not included as nutrients.

Different species have very different essential nutrients. For example, most mammals synthesize their own ascorbic acid, and it is therefore not considered an essential nutrient for such species. It is, however, an essential nutrient for human beings, who require external sources of ascorbic acid (known as Vitamin C in the context of nutrition).

Many essential nutrients are toxic in large doses (see hypervitaminosis or the nutrient pages themselves below). Some can be taken in amounts larger than required in a typical diet, with no apparent ill effects. Linus Pauling said of vitamin B3, (either niacin or niacinamide), "What astonished me was the very low toxicity of a substance that has such very great physiological power. A little pinch, 5 mg, every day, is enough to keep a person from dying of pellagra, but it is so lacking in toxicity that ten thousand times as much can [sometimes] be taken without harm."[2]

Fatty acids:
See also: Essential fatty acid [link]

o α-Linolenic acid (the shortest chain omega-3 fatty acid)
o Linoleic acid (the shortest chain omega-6 fatty acid)

Amino acids:
See also: Essential amino acid [link]

* Isoleucine
* Lysine
* Leucine
* Methionine
* Phenylalanine
* Threonine
* Tryptophan
* Valine

Essential amino acids necessary for human children but not adults:
o Histidine
o Arginine

Vitamins:

* Vitamin A (retinol)
* Vitamin Bp (choline)
* Vitamin B1 (thiamin)
* Vitamin B2 (riboflavin, vitamin G)
* Vitamin B3 (niacin, vitamin P, vitamin PP)
* Vitamin B5 (pantothenic acid)
* Vitamin B6 (pyridoxine, pyridoxamine, or pyridoxal)
* Vitamin B7 (biotin, vitamin H)
* Vitamin B9 (folic acid, folate, vitamin M)
* Vitamin B12 (cobalamin)
* Vitamin C (ascorbic acid)
* Vitamin D (ergocalciferol, or cholecalciferol)
* Vitamin E (tocopherol)
* Vitamin K (naphthoquinoids)

Dietary minerals:

* Calcium (Ca)
* Chloride (Cl&#8722
* Chromium (Cr)[3]
* Cobalt (Co) (as part of Vitamin B-12)
* Copper (Cu)
* Iodine (I)
* Iron (Fe)
* Magnesium (Mg)
* Manganese (Mn)
* Molybdenum (Mo)
* Nickel (Ni)[4]
* Phosphorus (P)
* Potassium (K)
* Selenium (Se)
* Sodium (Na)
* Sulfur (S) numerous roles[5]
* Zinc (Zn)[6]

The required quantity varies widely between nutrients. At one extreme, a 70 kg human contains 1.0 kg of calcium, but only 3 mg of cobalt.

Many elements have been implicated at various times to have a role in human health. For none of these elements, however, has a specific protein, complex or dietary reference intake been established:

* Arsenic (As)
* Boron (
* Silicon (Si)[4]

I encourage you not to quote Wikipedia for important information. It is user generated content and you have no way of knowing how reliable the source is. I have known people who wrote for Wikipedia and they were experts in nothing.

Caveat Emptor!

That brings up a greater problem of information in general...what to believe and what not to. I have read text books written by Phd's that were incorrect regarding specific matters, matters I am familiar with by personal experience. The general media is most often not worth the read, or the listen. In my experience, drug companies and many doctors have proven to be misleading, either by choice or ignorance. I always note the context of the message regarding health issues.
Whether it be wikipedia or any other source, it is a good idea to cross-reference the information and look for alternative points of view. If one has physical issues that need resolution, I believe that educating oneself in basic biology is essential just to be able to understand the processes that affect us and the resolutions that might be available.
Regardless of the source, determining the validity of the information is our job - it is nothing less than a matter of survival.

Caveat -

By nature and training I am "the skeptical inquirer". I cite Wikipedia when confident of its veracity, as in this case. In general, it is a trustworthy source for technical information. If you are personally skeptical about the above, I encourage you to play it against another source, e.g. the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University?

Your caution is acknowledged -- just be sure you are equally cautious when taking information from a more "professional" source?

Erling

Erling,
In the short time I have known your writings, you do strike me as someone who would carefully scrutinize your sources. It's hard to disregard your viewpoints when I have come to the same conclusions independently - in my case with some luck and trial-and-error, vs the hard work you invested in the matter.
Tom

Tom - I agree with much of your assessment and I definitely agree that Erling's knowledge and research experience brings accuracy to to the table. The general media seems to be about worthless in reporting anything current, useful, accurate or healthy. I just clipped the following from the paper:

What's Healthier?
Skipping breakfast or grabbing a doughnut?

A. No one recommends starting every day with a doughnut, but it's better to eat a sugary snack than to fast until lunch, says Dietitian Karen Ansel, spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association. "A doughnut provides enough glucose to switch your body into gear--at least for an hour or two before your blood sugar plummets again. For longer lasting energy, choose a piece of fiber-rich fruit instead."

All I can say is, Wow! With that type of advice, we can surely expect the prevalence of diabetes to continue to escalate. Readers will see that as the ultimate permission to eat badly. (An observation from long ago was that every doctor loved the diabetic patient because they had an income source for life.)

I've been attending seminars and doing functional medicine nutritional research for a long time because it became evident to me that conventional medicine was missing the mark not only for my own health including adrenal and thyroid issues, but also that of my son who became diabetic in his late 30's. I've found it totally frustrating that information from so many credentialled 'experts' so often turns out to miss the mark by a mile because of not keeping up with the functional medicine aspect of nutrition or they are locked into their own personal missions or agendas....or even getting back to basic biochemistry and biophysics. Further, many published studies are skewed in favor of the desired results rather than accurate science.

Fortunately, my health science education makes it somewhat easier for me to read between the lines for assessment but it's still a challenge to sort the 'wheat from the chaff.' I've found that once I locate a reliable interpreter of the data, I tend to follow those sources until proven otherwise.

Thanks to this forum (Thank you Hans!), readers can benefit greatly and save a huge amount of time trying to figure out what's accurate when it comes to treating afib. We are way ahead in this regard.

Jackie

Thanks Tom! It's good to know that this resource provided by Hans is of personal benefit to you. This is an amazing place for "Speaking Truth to Power" - the incredible power of the medical industry to deceive for the sake of profit. Knowledge is the true power, as Jackie will always remind us.

'Caveat' must not have used the link at the top of the post to see that the information is all from credible sources (see below). I like Wikipedia a lot for that very reason: it hyperlinks to other sources for puzzling the topic out from its page, rather than wandering all over the web for an initial focus. In fact, Wikipedia provided the basic understanding of the "cardiac action potential" that is a basis of CR session 72.

Listed references from Wikipedia's Essential Nutrient article:

-- "National Academy of Sciences. Institute of Medicine. Food and Nutrition Board. Dietary Guidance: DRI Tables". US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library and National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. October 2009.
-- Pauling, L. (1986). How to Live Longer and Feel Better. New York NY 10019: Avon Books Inc.. ISBN 0-380-70289-4. Page 24.
-- "National Academy of Sciences. Institute of Medicine. Food and Nutrition Board. Dietary Reference Intakes: Elements". US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library and National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. October 2009.
-- Nelson, D. L.; Cox, M. M. "Lehninger, Principles of Biochemistry" 3rd Ed. Worth Publishing: New York, 2000. ISBN 1-57259-153-6.
-- R. Bruce Martin “Metal Ion Toxicity” in Encyclopedia of Inorganic Chemistry, Robert H. Crabtree (Ed), John Wiley & Sons, 2006. DOI: 10.1002/0470862106.ia136
-- Mertz, W. 1974. The newer essential trace elements, chromium, tin, vanadium, nickel and silicon. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 33 p. 307.