Talk:Healthy diet/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Bad" food?

- "In terms of foods, there are no foods which are intrinsically linked on a singular-consumption basis to illness, disease or decline in any form of body function. This is the "longer version" of the term There are no bad foods[4]." -

Though it seems to me that there may be foods about which one could legitimately say: "It would be better to avoid eating this altogether."

Numbers of people *have* died from a single consumprion of fugu.

Some ferns may be toxic [1] and studies from Japan have implicated them in the high incidence of stomach and throat cancers there [[2]]. - 17 NOV 2005

• Yes, but i'm pretty sure that's when the fish is imporperly cut, and poison is secreted onto the actual parts of the fish that people eat. Last i checked, poison isn't edible. The actual meat itself, if cut properly is edible, imporperly cute, covered in poison because the glans of the fish secrete it. As for the ferns, if thyey are intrinsically linked to poison, they are not edible. Or, if it is likely that it contains some substances that contain toxins, then they aren't classed as edible foods, which are in essence, poison-less. 213.40.131.66 10:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• • This becomes a "No true Scotsman" argument: "But *of course*, Trans fats aren't good for you." "But *of course*, massive quantities of salt aren't good for you." Etc, etc. There's a continuous spectum from very healthy foods, through less healthy foods, through quite unhealthy foods, to poisons -- or in other words "non-bad foods" through "slightly bad foods" through "bad foods", to "non-foods" -- which is what the quote from the article denies. - 21 November 2005

I'm not sure who wrote this, but can you specify? If true, we need to change this article. --Viriditas 00:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Why can i never keep it short :-/

• You're misreading what i said. Yes, excessive intakes of many substances considered edible will lead to bad things. However, what i am saying is, there is no food that is not poison, toxin, or any other form of deadly chemical, that will, when eaten kill you instantly, and guaranteed. The fugu is only deadly when it is THE WRONG PART OF THE FISH, the correct part is edible, and not deadly. As with anything, eating lots of anything is a bad DIET not a bad FOOD. If i eat a chocolate bar once a week, and had a balanced diet, the sugar content, etc would fal within acceptible limits, and would not be dangerous (hear me out), now if i had a diet of nothing but chocolate bars.. well, you can see where i am coming from.

Yes, some people are allergic and have a risk of becoming ill when eating dairy products if they are lactose intolerant, or nuts or may have some form of wasting disease, eating disorder, or so on. Now, if we look at someone who, for instance is not lactose intolerant.. does milk make them ill? No. The consumption and amount of foods is referred to as... DIET! Which means, then the consumption is BAD DIET, not BAD FOOD.

• Poisons are poisons.
• There are foods which have low nutrient contents, yes, but they do not on a SINGULAR CONSUMPTION BASIS (remember what the paragraph says) contribute to, or be intrinsically linked to diseease, dysfunction, or disorders. By singular consumption, i mean ON THEIR OWN.

So, to round up. If someone eats 100 chocolate bars a day, it's not a "BAD FOOD", it's a "BAD DIET", because the overall nutrient intake is solely reliant upon chocolate, for example. However, there are foods (again i mentioned this in the article) which, if eaten continuously as part of a diet, will contribute to the decline of health; e.g. high-fat-fatty foods, fried foods, and so on, but again, the consumption of multiple "bad foods" is a "bad diet".

Again, we can refer to how the nutrient value of a food is to see how beneficial it is to our health, those with a low amount of nutrients, are not reccomended as the staple of a diet, but nevertheless; can be eaten in moderation within a balanced, healthy diet! In the end, though "bad" is what you make of it, and probably based on homogenisation;

Say, "smoking is bad for you"; Now, you immediately know that even one cigarette means you're inhaling smoke, and doing (small) amounts of damage to your lungs. This means, cigarettes, even when taken singularly have been proven to cause eg; sore throats, coughing, and so on.

"Drugs are bad, mmkay" - Again, we look at Mr Mackey from south park's quote, and again, drugs, when taken have an effect which alters your state of mind, as well as physical changes, such as in marijuana, ecstacy and heroin, there are all effects associated with these; "Stoned eyes", "manic behaviour", "depressive behavior" , etc. Again, when you take drugs, they affect your body physically in a way that they can do damage, if even in small amounts, or what law defines as dangerous; Eg- lowered reaction time, bad for driving.

So, from this, "BAD", means, from my point of view, something which will be proven to, even on one consumption or use, cause Some (no matter how minute) effects which contribute to the decline of your health - e.g "getting the ball rolling", thinking of say cigarettes as chipping away at your health.

Now, with fast foods, there is this too, some people are sick after eating so much fatty foods, but that may be an after effect of eating too fast, or too much in one sitting. Yes, it does make some people sick, but what i am saying is; If you have a healthy diet, and had one big mac a week, it is not as if the big mac is going to eventually kill you, despite a healthy diet, because a healthy diet means balance, and yes - i hate to say it, small amounts of mcdonalds-intake can still sit within a healthy diet, as can chocolate, and so on.

However, as a dietician myself, i wouldn't really reccomend it because of the general shit quality of the food, and the general fattiness, but the reason why is because i would use the "mcdonalds is unhealthy... (and then the rest of the "if")" is because i would not want people thinking they could get their protein intakes from sources such as macdonalds, and to get them from natural sources, or even legumes, and so on.

If you wish to discuss the matter;

• Wikipedia: User:Spum
• Jabber: spum@amessage.de (no, i'm not german)
• IRC: Freenode (Spum)

I don't bite ;-) Spum 11:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

However

The use of the word however needs to be limited. There are just too many and it stands out. --Viriditas 00:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Article requires major cleanup. --Viriditas 08:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You MUST be joking

Let me get this straight.. This requires a cleanup. You're removing sections.. sections which have actually been verified as relating to a healthy diet, just banged them straight out of there. Seems wierd, i've told a few admins, and stylists from the wikipedia channel, and they seemed not to have a problem with it. So lets get these points out;

1. Hmm, Is the article started? Yep, it is.
2. Hmm, is it referenced? Yes, thoroughly
3. Does it have relevant articles, and are they referenced? Yes, they are.
4. Does it have relevant book references? Yep, absolutely.
5. "It's often a good idea to separate the major sections of your articles with section headlines. For many topics, a history section is very appropriate, outlining how thinking about the concept evolved over time."[from "How to Write a Great Article"] Yep, i'ts got that too.
6. Is it neutral? Well, the events at the bottom did actually happen, and yes, they also do have relevance to the article.
7. "If different people have different opinions about your topic" - I've spoken to various people who have opinions, and sorted that out by changing grammar, that was the only problem.
8. Encyclopedic Style? Yep, most certainly is, i dont think you'll find my point of view in there.
9. "Finish the article with a good relevant image or graphic". Yes, I've got 3, all 3 are under appropriate and LEGAL liscences.
10. Topics are relevant? Well, yes, seen as they seem to keep cropping up in Nutrition Journals, Books ahoy, if you want references, i'm more than willing to APA reference a complaint of why you're hasty to remove things from this article.

I think most definately, you're taking things into your own hands, and just chipping away whatever you think is irrelevant. I assure you, these topics are what i have "whittled down" to create the bare minimum of topics, and the headers are merely used AS PER THE STYLE GUIDE for making it easier for people to read.

In future, i'd appreciate, that you did, like others have before you, post SOMETHING USEFUL on the talk page, if you dispute the material, having some other source ready.. again,. like others have.

I'm reverting this back to my edit, because i quite frankly don't think you know what you're doing. Spum 08:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Please be aware that the sections that I've removed have been replaced to avoid any dispute. Unfortunately, the article as it currently stands still needs cleanup. If you take a look at the edit history, you'll see I've done a lot of cleanup already. Your above "criticisms" actually avoid describing or referring to any of the changes that I've actually made. This is not a dispute over content but about writing style, much of which needs cleanup. You should know that your statement, "i quite frankly don't think you know what you're doing" is bordering on a personal attack, so you may want to refrain from those types of comments. If you have a problem with a current edit that I've made (all of which have been to cleanup and improve this article) please describe them below. As it stands, the article is poorly written, redundant, and difficult to read. Statements like: The regulation of food and nutrients, means lessening or increasing the amount of nutrients or food which would be within the diet. Most of the responses to foods within a diet come from people's innate belief that there are 'good' and 'bad' foods, and it is from that belief where people most often devlop bad diets, because they are eating foods which they consider "healthy" in abundance will create a healthy diet; however, this could not be further from the truth require serious copyediting, and these poorly written types of sentences are found throughout most of the article and need to be fixed. To see how much I've improved the article readability, view this edit comparison. If there are any artifacts which skew the meaning in any way, fix them. For what it's worth, you're the first person who has ever complained about another editor cleaning up their mistakes. --Viriditas 09:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuck it, you can piss around with it all you want. Just remember to tell no-one what you're doing when you do it. Fuck me, why do i bother anymore. I was actually, as said to someone else, going to rewrite the grammar, i usually write what is known as a DRAFT before i rewrite it, to make sure that all the info and references are in there, but then again, what use are references if you just remove a shitload of information without even a fucking whim what it is. Oh well, do what you want; as, you do after all. -preceding unsigned comment by 213.40.131.66

I'm not sure what the problem is, here. None of the information has been removed, but some information has been condensed for clarity. If you have a specific problem with a particular item, I don't see any reason why we couldn't agree to add it back in. I'm more concerned about readability at this point, as my self-revert of content removal demonstrated. Nobody owns a Wikipedia page, so let's work together to improve this article. Again, if you find a specific problem with my edit, bring it up or fix it, but don't blanket revert a version that corrects spelling and grammar errors. That's not only silly, but counterproductive. --Viriditas 09:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What would you know about being productive? Go write your own fucking articles. -preceding unsigned comment by 213.40.131.66

For the second time, Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Please refrain from making them. Again, I will repeat what I said above: if you have a specific issue or dispute with any of my edits, please bring them up. We do not post drafts on Wikipedia. If you would like, you can copy your preferred version to your user space and work on it there. If you need help doing that, I can show you how. But this is the main article space where draft-like articles will be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia guidelines for style, composition, grammar, and spelling. If you would like to keep your draft version, please work on it in your user space and then copy it over here when you are done. --Viriditas 10:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll condense articles that i write on thanks. As for the working together, go fuck yourself. I'll condense it myself, thanks. As for the draft article bollocks, you're talking shite. rather have a draft than a shitty 10 line article. Go write your own articles, quit bothering me, post some useful fucking info when you start pissing around with an article, and try to pretend you're not an administrator. Spum 12:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You do not own this article, and that was the third attack--fourth if you include the one on your user page. You may want to pay special attention to the statements at the bottom of the "Edit this page" view. Right below the "save page" button, it says: "You are encouraged to create and improve articles. The community is quick to enforce the quality standards on all articles....If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it." --Viriditas 13:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm already aware of that, so boom goes your point i'm trying to own the article. I'm fully aware, after all, i did read the rules; something which i'm convinced you haven't done. I couldn't care less what you think, i'm not going to do articles in my talk page while you think you can fuck about willy-nilly on any page you choose. I've already noticed you're very gung-ho in reporting people as things they are not, as per your user page. You're not supposed to touch other people's user pages - if you dont like it, dont look at it. I'm well aware of what mediawiki does, again, and i couldn't care less what shit you post on your user page.
You think you're just going to do what you want on pages other people work on - Oh shit, shock horror, people - not names, work on articles - and no matter which angle you put it under, you'll come to the conclusion that pages are created by people, and the credit is taken by; "WIKIPEDIA AND AUTHORS", not just the wikipedia. So, if you don't mind, i'll get back to work on the article which i've contributed to, thanks. I'm not in it for the fame, or any other such rubbish, as some seem to be - and i don't think any number of "I love wikipedia" icons, graphics, love letters, videos and other such nonsense will change the fact you're trying to make yourself something you're not. So, i'd appreciate if you just went and did your "magic" on another article.
Spum 13:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC) <-- Not a chump.

Sorry, I haven't a clue what you're talking about. You blanked your user and talk page, and redirected them to my user and talk page. That's essentially vandalism, and I reverted it. You also blanked your user page and wrote, "VIRIDITAS IS A HAWAIIAN WANKER". That's a personal attack, and I reverted it. The fact that you admittedly "couldn't care less" what [I] think" is telling. I suggest you start caring what other people think, especially when it comes to personal attacks and vandalism. --Viriditas 13:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

True, i should have referenced that quote.. I'm sure there's no limit to sources. I can do what i want with my user page, as can you - why else would you suck up on it? I couldn't care less about YOU, that is. Everyone else is just super. Spum 13:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you can't blank your user and talk page and devote it to personal attacks against Wikipedians. Please consult WP:NPA and WP:HA. As for your admission that you couldn't care less about other editors, I suggest you review WP:AGF as well as WP:CIV. Finally, I ask that you stop attacking me in edit summaries "fuck viriditas" etc as well as on this talk page. I'm well within my rights to remove your comments as personal attacks, but I prefer to let other people observe your behavior. --Viriditas 14:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, when did i say other editors? Again, you're trying to make me sound as if i'm out against every editor. No. I'm against wannabe-admins, such as yourself. I've spoken with SlimVirgin on the matter, and as far as i'm concerned your attitude is just very wierd. In summary, you're a wannabe-admin, who seems to give NO reasoning why he does something, and just does something. It also seems to me that you use these weaknesses in wikipedia policy to do whatever the hell you want. Well, you have the floor Mr Viriditas, you may do as you want to the article because so long as you draw breath, the wikipedia is a place i no longer wish to contribute to. My condolences. Spum 14:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA. This page is about discussing how to improve this article. It is not a staging ground for personal attacks against other editors. If you can't discuss the article, then please don't comment. Thank you. --Viriditas 14:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I will say

The main problem, spum, is that you are taking personal possession of the article. That's a major no no. This is not your article. It's Wikipedia's. The whole point of this site is collaboration. You have to be open to changes. If you aren't, then you shouldn't be here. Simple as that. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This has been flagged for copyright issues?

Damn, what the. Content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources. - Very strange. I can only wonder who has doubted that. Now, also - the bottom sections are looking rather thin for their headers, and a bit of the information has been removed or condensed into a really teeny tiny bit, but - i cant be bothered adding more information because it'll get rephrased, paraphrased and condensed, and then any hope of a direct book reference will have been destroyed.

"Jamie Oliver" as a header makes absolutely no sense as to what is in the paragraph. As a direct quote, it creates a pas de deux right off the page. I mean, what is the point of the header? Isn't there a line between condensing and sanity of headers? It's alright having more succinct paragraphs, but as a header "Jamie Oliver" doesn't actgually tell me anything... From the context it just sounds like the government threw Jamie Oliver at a school or something. Perhaps more appropriately, "Involvement of Jamie Oliver" or even "Jamie's School Dinners". Still, what is the point - resistance is futile. Spum 10:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The copyright warning was recently added to the editing view. All Wikipedians see it whenever they try to edit. "Jamie Oliver's school dinners" sounds fine. --Viriditas 11:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reform and Points which need re-changing

Okay, i know you're doing what you do Viriditas, but there's some errors in what has been changed - i don't know if it's you, but there's some things here that don't match. I'm not having a go at you, but as i mention somewhere i forget now, there's condensing things that can be condensed, and then there's others which get the point accross the wrong way when you change them - this is the type i mean;

1. Embellishments

As people differ in all aspects of size, build, body mass, height and weight, the "adequate" or "average" serving size is different. This makes the RNI difficult to calculate whether a person is at adequate intake, as nutrient levels which may seem high on average, may be low or normal for somebody with a high-end nutrient requirement. [13]

Okay - "size, build, build, height" are superfluous, they're all to do with Body mass, after all - the size of say someone's Bicep, or shoulders, doesn't add difficulty to determining the adequate or average person - because again, they're all "crafted" through processes of exercise and dieting.

1. Miscontrued/ salvaged point

The regulation of food and nutrients, means lessening or increasing the amount of nutrients or food which would be within the diet. - Regulation means adjusting NUTRIENTS, which come from food according to your needs, or your classification of sport or exercise.

This makes the RNI difficult to calculate whether a person is at adequate intake - RNI doesnt calculate anything, RNI is the reccomended Nutrient intake, and is a guideline for sedentary people to follow and adjust according to exercise they do. Calculating the RNI, or the RDA is done by the government by selecting the higher end of the spectrum, therefore most people's needs will be satisfied, and others will have excesses which should be circumvented by exercise reccomendations of 30 minutes to an hour a day.

1. Misconstrued Again

It is known that the sensations we experience when we consume food as a child have some effect on how we consume food in our later life, and has been thought to be the reasoning behind eating habits; from this it is known how much we can eat in one sitting.

Our survey says.... Nope. We cant ever know how much anyone can eat in one sitting, but the childhood, and past eating experiences shape and AFFECT the amount people can eat, or at best provide a yardstick, but that method is rarely used.

1. Could be seen as deadly in the eyes of a media student.

Governments often use this term to refer to the ideal diet which the average person requires to remain healthy.

We all know that the word "average person" is something that is so much disputed, there's hundreds of books on the matter. The actual correct term is Average SEDENTARY Person, might not seem different, but if i applied an average to a group of rowers, golfers, football players, or rugby players, obviously the average would be different - there's a world of difference.

1. ??

Narrow Diet

Eh? It's known as a Deficient or LACKING diet, not Narrow... What?

I'll repeat what I said on 30 November. If there are any artifacts which skew the meaning in any way, fix them. Let me rephrase that: please fix them. I agree with most, if not all of what you've said above. --Viriditas 15:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

First sections need merging into intro, then the following sections expanded again.

Spum 14:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Overhaul

Oops! Sorry, i removed the cleanup thing by accident :-/. No worries though, have put it back and now have a thing on - i'm doing a little overhaul on the article. I archiveds the past stuff because most of it was arguments, and i think we should start a "fresh". Well, anyway - I'm expanding and cleaning up the article so that it's better laid out, better explained and so on. Spum 13:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This conspiracy is no theory

Ref. "to deal with the issues presented by particularly imported culture - cigarettes, alcohol and fast food all being produced in their majority in the United States, or by US-based companies" It became part of our plot to rule the world by making all other countries full of fat, smoking drunks immediately after electing ourselves "Dictator for Life".

When was this some kind of conspiracy theory? Fast food, originated in the United States; McDonalds, Kentucky Friend Chicken, Pizza Hut - all companies which have been targeted by a recent government initiative, as well as an anitiative by the British Heart Foundation. Secondly, tobacco is something which is also something in the majority of american production; out of the top 10 tobacco producers, 5 of those were american, as well as 3 were based in Britain, but 2 of those are owned by american companies basing their production here, or convergances between british and american sources;

"The US market is dominated by four key manufacturers known as Big Tobacco: Altria, which sells roughly half of the nearly 500 billion cigarettes sold in the US, Reynolds American, Loews subsidiary Lorillard Tobacco Company (part of Carolina Group), and Vector Group's Liggett unit."

Tobacco Industry Companies, in order of Yearly revenue and world ranking:

1. Philip Morris USA Inc. [6601 W. Broad St. Richmond, VA 23230-1701] 804-274-2000
2. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. [401 N. Main St. Winston-Salem, NC 27102-2990] 336-741-2000
3. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation [ 200 Brown & Williamson Tower, 401 S. 4th St. Louisville, KY 40202-3404 ] 502-568-7000

Give them a call, and they'll verify each and every fact i have stated. In fact, i'll give them a call on your behalf.

Now that i've backed up the fact of the United states being the progenitor of Mass production in cigarettes i'll move on to fast food restaurants. In fact, i'll allow you to read this one. Double this time, old pal - 8/10 of the companies in the world by size are, tum-dum-dum-dum!; 3 of which having subsidiaries within different names throughout the United Kingdom.

• http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/profile/713_1442.html

Spum 15:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

First sentence.

'A healthy diet is a diet which contains a balanced amount of nutrients, varied food, and minimal amounts of sugar, fat and salt.'

This is wrong, as You can not put sugars and salt in the same plane as fats. (By the way, it's not SALT itself a problem, but SODIUM.) From few sources (Mayo, eg.) we can quote that fat intake should go even up to 20-30% of daily calorie intake. (Not to meantion now all kinds of fats.) So it's not true that healthy diet contains MINIMAL amounts of fat. I can quote, if needed.

Feel free to change it. I'm not an expert myself, so I dont' feel qualified to make that change. jf 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is important to distinguish between "good" and "bad" fats. For example, many experts recommend including moderate levels of olive oil and moderate to high levels of fish oil in the diet. It is also important to note that the designers of some diets - for example, the Zone, Atkins and Paleo diets - generally recommend a higher level of all fats (and lower level of carbohydrate) than government diet experts do. 23 June 2005

I'm going to modify it. The definition certainly is well-intentioned and probably correct in a lot of cases, especially in more developed countries. It is the big public-health push in the US. I think rather than saying it is "wrong", I'd say it is "overly specific" to a certain demographic.

For instance, you don't want to "minimize" fat; you want to eat a healthy proportion and, if possible, ingest certain types of fat. But you need a good dose of fats in your diet for good nutrition. A host of physical processes depend upon fats in the diet, beginning with (certain) vitamin and other nutrient transport. Your brain cell membranes are made of fat. As another example, the minimization of "salt" (NaCl) could conceivably kill you fairly quickly -- say if you were stranded in a desert with plenty of non-salt food and fresh water. (You can theoretically commit suicide by drinking water! More realistically, there have been distance runners who have visibly suffered ill effects from NaCl and KCl deprivation, although this is much less common with the advent of sports drinks.) Even in the US/UK, research appears to indicate that the deletorious effects of comparatively high NaCl intake may, for a majority (or possibly vast majority) of the population, be a myth -- the scientific equivalent of an urban legend.

My point is that sufficient dietary fat is more important to good health than avoiding excessive dietary fat. While this is consistent with the technical concept of "minimal" or "minimize", such terms connote an effort to eat as little as possible, which is unhealthy. Actually, it is also incorrect to call for a technical "minimal" intake of fat, as fat, salt, and sugar can be ingested in higher amounts than minimum requirements with no ill effect.

Apollo 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Editor, Daily Health Report

This is worse than I thought. "an unhealthy diet, made up of . . . excessive amounts of . . . polyunsaturated fat." ?!?

Apollo 16:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Healthful

I do not know how much of the healthy-healthful debate has occured here. Although widely used when refering to a healthful diet, healthy food is food that is alive. Healthy food would scream when it is eaten! The correct word is healthful or nutritious. I suggest that the article would be better placed under "nutritious diet" or "proper diet" and the word healthful be used as the adjective to describe foods which promote health.--Counsel 16:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. I was considering a mention myself, for the sake of technicality. --AWF

Oh for goodness sake.... Healthy

Healthy - 1. enjoying health and vigor of body, mind, or spirit: well

He was father to three healthy daughters.

2 conducive to health

A healthy diet and exercise can help to maintain proper weight.

3 evincing health

HEALTHY FOOD IS NOT FOOD THAT IS ALIVE any more than red food is food that is communist. Words have more than one meaning. Which meaning is meant is derived from context. Healthy is not incorrect. aussietiger 05:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Globalize

Hi everyone! I've added an extra paragraph to remind you all that this is an Encyclopedia for everyone in the globe, and a US-bias panel just in case someone else can bring in some variety in POV. Congratulations for your good work to date. Cvalda 00:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

First two paragraphs

I found the first two paragraphs to be quite problematic. I tried to help, I'm not sure how successful I was, but there you have it. Maybe someone else can have a go at it.

Steve Lowther 07:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Healthful?

Heh, hello. You may be aware of how i re-boosted this article. I'd just like tosay that the majority of the sources which i used were from a book called a Human Perspective on Nutrition, and it's an english publication. I haven't really read the article through since i did my last edit on it some many aeons ago, but if it is american based, then i'm sure there's a lot of other things to add into it. Unfortunately, there are countries which do not have such a communal and central approach or view of a healthy diet; I only have experience in British, American and, to a small extent, Japanese health perspectives, and interms of Nutritional and dietetic experience, UK and US. I'll hopefully be revamping WP:NAD, but as of now i'm concentrating on expanding Physiology and Medicine based articles after receiving my qualification as a Physician.

If any of you needs any guidance for the article, please don't hesitate to drop me a line! James S 21:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just like to follow up to say the "Healthful" debate has not raged amongst the nutrition community which i'm privvy to (Old workplace) Upon asking, they said it was an expansion of the "Friendly Bacteria" idea that was put forward due to L Casei Immunitas and soforth. It's most likely just slang, so please try to filter through what are commonly accepted terms, and what arent. A healthy diet generally means a diet which promotes health to the best extent possible through a balanced diet that provides you with energy equal to that of the amount of exercise you do. If you harvest plants, they're "dead" as you remove their source of gaining nurients and their respiration and photosynthetic potential is very low.

I urge you; as a dietician and a man of medicine, if you are wanting to change facts in such an article SUPPLY REASONING AND SOURCES.

James S 21:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

It looks like I can be useful here. My intention is to rewrite and expand the article into a more universal, and somewhat more rigorous, treatment of healthy dietary principles. Hopefully by the time I'm done all the claims will be adequately referenced and the tone and organization will be consistent.

This looks like a pretty big job -- already I notice that there are no entries for "refined carbohydrate" or "complex carbohydrate" -- so any and all productive co-workers will be appreciated.

I don't have a lot of time so this will be piecemeal and I already have entered a bunch of unreferenced data off the top of my head. I've already messed up the footnotes but if nobody else gets to them, I'll eventually get them consistent. Apollo 18:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Healthy diet?

Is this a joke? How on earth can one expect to be healthy when dieting?

Do not merge with healthy eating, for the love of all things sacred. Chris 18:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Note: This user was blocked indefinitely for trolling shortly after this comment was made.

Why? ChrisWright1979 = user:cjwright79 (don't call me a sockpuppet, I'm being up-front)

Merge

I think the merge is a great idea. The healthy eating article is currently full of unsourced material, but weeding it all out would leave us back with a stub. This article on the other hand is well sourced with a better structure and balance to the information. Plus the two terms mean the same thing! --Siobhan Hansa 08:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No Bad Foods?

This is currently under the section "Foods": There are no foods which are intrinsically linked on a singular-consumption basis to illness, disease or decline of body function. Yet, there are foods, such as fugu, which when improperly cut or prepared can result in death. In essence, "there are no bad foods"[5].

Doesn't the middle sentence of this paragraph directly contradict the opening and closing sentence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glippy00 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I think it's it's more badly worded than anything. The issue with fugu is the way it is prepared. I guess it's the same as eating something that's infected with bacteria or which one has an allergy to. It could kill you on a singular-consumption-basis, but it's not the food itself, it's the allergic reaction or the bacteria. Personally, whatever was meant, I don't like this sentence. Falsetto 17:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Offline CopyEdit

I will spend some time today copyediting this article offline... JeffC 17:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Phew, that was a lot of work :-)

Mostly I found myself combining redundant text in various different paragraphs. I spent a lot of time rearranging and reorganizing sections, and attempted to take a neutral POV on all sections.

Note that the article needs to be re-wikified and re-referenced (I left the References in the bottom sections, just the "pointers" to them need to be re-established). JeffC 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-wikified. Somebody else can certainly redo the references if they'd like to :-) JeffC 04:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate

This line: "its a fact chocolate is good for you" has been taken out of "Nutritional Overview" because it seems to be entirely random and have no place there. Falsetto 17:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oranges picture juxaposed

In reading this article, I found it strange that the section discussing the importance of a balanced diet and not eating "just one thing" has a picture of a huge bowl of "just oranges" next to it. Not a big deal, obviously, but if someone can scare up a picture of a balanced meal or some such, it would help better convey the point. --87.74.88.40 10:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nutritional overview

Hey everyone. I'm concerned by the opening line of "Nutritional overview" which states: "Generally, a healthy diet will include:". I believe this should read more along the lines of "Generally, health professionals advise that a healthy diet will include:".

As the statement reads currently, it implies that the list of guidelines that follows is globally recognised as correct. Although the use of the word "generally" may be intended to indicate "Generally it is believed that a healthy diet should included:", I think it would more readily be interpreted to mean "Barring exceptional cases or variability between individuals, a healthy diet should include:".

For the most part the list makes very generalised statements that are essentially beyond reasonable debate. It makes no specific comments on the types or quantities of nutrients, particular poisons or carcinogens and so on, which is a good thing as there are various views on these details. Item 2, however, specifically states that saturated and trans fats should be avoided. While there is little debate over the healthfulness of avoiding trans fat, this is not true of saturated fat. As noted later in the talk page under "First sentence", some health professionals advocate for the unrestrained consumption of saturated fats and others specifically recommend the consumption of saturated fat for health purposes. To use the word "avoiding" in relation to saturated fat as well as in relation to poisons or carcinogens is misleading. There is no reasonable debate over the healthfulness of consuming poison or carcinogens; there is a debate over the role of saturated fat in human nutrition. Since I am new to this forum I do not intend to make any edits to the page, but would be interested to hear others' views on this point.

Secondly, I believe listing Vitamin A as a potential toxin is also misleading. The wikipedia retinol page [[3]] has a good run down of the problem. What is important to note is that Vitamin A deficiency is a far greater public health concern than toxicity. Putting Vitamin A alongside alcohol as noteworthy toxins is misleading, and may unfairly skew the casual reader's view of this vitamin. It would not be prudent to rank "Alcohol, water" as toxins or "Alcohol, cabbage", even though these statements would be true (eg as noted in talk page, a person can become ill or die from over hydration. Excessive consumption of cabbage can cause goiter). I think this should be amended. Zeroin147 08:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. I encourage you to be bold and make the edits. You can present your exact proposed edits here on the talk page first if you want to be more cautious. I might come back and edit the article later. --Coppertwig 02:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about my first comment and thought perhaps it was unnecessary, given that the basic nutrition guidelines are pretty generalised. However, looking at statements like "but not so excessive as to result in fat storage greater than roughly 12% of body mass", I feel this is not sufficiently general and so I propose to change:

1. "Generally, a healthy diet will include:"

to

Generally, a healthy diet is believed to include:"

2. "Sufficient fat, consisting mostly of mono- and polyunsaturated fats (avoiding saturated and "trans" fats) and with a balance of omega-6 and long-chain omega-3 lipids;

to

"Sufficient quantities of monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat and saturated fat, and avoidance of trans fat."

3. "foods or substances with directly toxic properties at high chronic doses (e.g. ethyl alcohol, Vitamin A);"

to

"foods or substances with directly toxic properties at high chronic doses (e.g. ethyl alcohol);" --Zeroin147 04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki pranksters

Somebody edited it and replaced a bunch of words with "cheese"

EgoBiboAqua 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Complete mess

Is there any chance we can change this to a referenced piece similar to this ? ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 10:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fresh vegetables" picture

Can somebody find a picture of actual vegetables to suit the picture text? Bell peppers, tomatoes and chilis are fruits.

10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I soooo agree!!! You need to explain in your article, which are fruits and which are vegetables.--Mary Di Valerio 18:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Meal frequency...food resources...and poverty curbing....

I would like to appeal to the people of the developed or fairly developed countries to reduce one meal on public holidays, who is not working, nor at medication, travel and sports matches. Let's say if 30% of the people on the earth to achieve this goal, imagine how much food resources which we can save, and which can be redistributed to the poor people? Further more, how much stresses and land that can be eased and saved for agriculture production?

If one thinks there might be potential health risks for this campaign, I suggest to conduct a scientific research on the defined people who are of 3 meals a day and ones who have already been conditioned as 2 meals a day to see what results are.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.24 (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Questionable wording

Tip 4 caught my attention, especially since "evidence" was placed in quotes... Jonberling (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Avoidance of excessive saturated fat (20grams recommended limit, although the "evidence" for this claim is forever in debate after the testimony of results provided by the Framingham Heart Study of 1948-1998)

delete everything i say

this article is merely personal opinion which was completely unsourced and potentially dangerous

I agree needs refs. Started adding them.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I propose that this article be merged with "diet" and deleted. In its present form it is an editorial unsuitable for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.173.36 (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree just needs work.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

I will make a number of comments on possible improvements, in an informal review, but a more formal Peer review might benefit, feel free to comment.

1. The article should be constructed to compliment Diet (nutrition) not replicate.

2. It would be useful for the article to be constructed in Summary style and thereby link to the many articles already on diet, for instance.

3. The WHO is a good start but what about other national guidelines?

4. Food guide pyramids are often used to define healthy diets.

5. Different recommendations are made for the young and aged.

6. There are other 'essential' diet components such as Essential fatty acids

7. The lead makes mention of diet and chronic diseases, article should probanly have a section in Summary style linking to article Treatment sections of such conditions that specify such health diets.

8. Article should probably have a Summary style section on healthy diets for those with diet specific problems such as Food allergy, Food intolerance, Elimination diet

9. This article should differentiate itself from weight loss diets.

10. Should probably be a seperate Summary style section linking other alleged healthy diets such as Mediteranean diet, Macrobiotic diet, Paleolithic diet etc

All of this would help wikify the Article. Peerev (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What I think would be useful...

I think the best question this article can answer is "what essential nutrients are there that I don't know about, and what is the easiest way to include them in my diet?" So far I know about vitamins, essential minerals, essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, choline, protien and carbohydrates, but I haven't a clue what else is necessary in a healthy diet that I do not know about. For example, you won't find choline in multivitamin supplements, but you need 500 mg a day, and the only foods that contain very much are eggs, bacon, and liver. I won't be eating any liver, and I don't really care for bacon and eggs, so apparently I need a supplement. What would really make this article useful is if it listed everything that is essential to a healthy diet, then listed the foods which are most useful in fullfilling those requirements, meaning foods which contain large quantites of multiple nutrients, but do not contain a lot of calories, are relatively inexpensive, and unlike liver, are things that an average person is likely to actually eat. Then I can be sure that my diet contains everything it needs, at which point I might care when someone wants to tell me what I should exclude from it. Taking the shortcut of "eat a wide variety of foods" and then immediately diving into "here's what you shouldn't eat" doesn't impress me at all.

...but then, I suppose that's not what the "healthy" in "healthy diet" is all about. It seems more like a code word for "I'm better than you," in that people usually only talk about a "healthy diet" in terms of what they think is wrong with someone else's diet. Your average health nut doesn't care if a person gets their essential amino acids, just so long as they avoid that evil red meat. This Wikipedia page should try to be better than that. Science knows what nutrients we need and science knows what foods they are in. All someone needs to do is organize that information into a single article. Then people can learn what nutrients they need, learn what foods provide those nutrients, and only then does it make sense for them to learn what foods to avoid. -- The one and only Pj (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think the best organization would be something like the following.

1. Protein
2. Fat
3. Carbohydrates
4. Micronutrients
5. Alcohol <- is this a serious entry? Fennfoot (talk)
6. Published diets
   1. WHO
   2. ...

Each section would explain basic requirements as well as healthy and unhealthy kinds/amounts. A.J.A. (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Which term covers all, ....or which term targets the public health and green environmentals ???

This topic or the one of Health promoting diet...???

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=health+promoting+diet&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

I leave it for professional dietitians to elaborate --222.67.214.255 (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A red link in the See also section is associated with the following....

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=healthy+eating+index&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

--222.67.214.255 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SEEALSO: "Please refrain from adding links to pages that do not yet exist (red links)." as well as WP:REDLINK: "Red links are generally not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, or pointed with templates such as or , since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:54, 6

December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this term perhaps is more appropriate

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=Dietotherapy&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

--222.64.222.219 (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A branch of dietotherapy....

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=herbal+dietotherapy&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Dietotherapy+%E9%A3%9F%E7%96%97%E6%9C%AC%E8%8D%89&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.64.222.219 (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Fatty acid consumption

I notice that the healthy diet recommendations do not mention fatty acid consumption. I do believe there is a consensus that a skewed n-6:n-3 ratio is bad health. Perhaps add a recommendation to balance these fatty acids? Particularly, the Essential fatty acid interactions article already clearly states that a bad ratio is the cause for some lifestyle diseases, so increased n-3 consumption is good health. This should be included as a recommendation, no? Or does Wikipedia need the World Health Organization's permission to add new information? Mac520 (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To make an edit that has substantial chance of remaining for more than a couple days, you must verify your additions with reliable sources; that means peer-reviewed journals, books (particularly medical textbooks) from reliable publishing houses, and statements from highly reputable bodies like the WHO, AMA, Health Canada, etc. No fringe nonsense about how EFA will cure all ills and whiten your teeth while you sleep. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Those citations already proven it in that article. Acquiring citations it not the problem, as there are already dozens in that one article.Mac520 (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So long as your edits are justified with reliable sources, there shouldn't be a problem. Don't phrase it as a "recommendation" though, as wikipedia is not a how-to manual. I would suggest noting the effects of an unbalanced ratio on health, rather than saying people "should" do some thing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does the current status follow the "recommendation" format? Mac520 (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a wiki and can therefore be edited by anyone, including people who are unfamiliar with our policies. Feel free to fix it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Extremely biased

The only healthy diet quoted is the one by the World Health Organization. What about other diets, such as the Paleolithic diet? Mac520 (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a fad diet and is not supported by any major organization.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not a "fad diet", you're just calling it that to be dismissive. And just because it is not supported by major organizations has no bearing on its veracity. Mac520 (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The paleolithic diet is only recommended by a small group. It is not a general dietary recommendation and therefore does not belong in this section.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why does it need to be mainstream to be put up here? By only displaying the mainstream point of view you are ignoring other potentially better information. What is mainstream is not always right. Do not tell me you honestly believe that the World Health Organization, a beauracratic mess, has omniscience over optimum nutrition.Mac520 (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Some refer to this diet as a fad diet. It is not recommended any more than the chocolate diet. Please ask over at WT:MED if you want another opinion.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because some refer to it as a fad diet does not discredit the diet. It used to be a "fad" in an Austrian hospital 150 years ago to wash your hands after performing an autopsy before you used your infected hands to deliver a newborn baby; the doctor who started it was fired for contradicting authority. Today that is "standard practice". Likewise, the paleo diet should be judged for its veracity and relevance to health, not whether or not you personally think it's a healthy diet or if certain people attempt to discredit it as a fad diet to avoid actually addressing it.Mac520 (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh you persist without consensus to add this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The article should give prominence to various proposed "healthy diets" according to the weight given to those diets by reliable sources, written by experts on diet. Please see WP:WEIGHT. Fascinating though the paleolithic diet may be, it does not appear to have any significant following. Including it in this small article gives way too much prominence. If you feel strongly about promoting the paleolithic diet, there are other channels. If the world ignores the paleolithic diet when discussing healthy diets, then so must Wikipedia. Colin°^Talk 09:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Must agree with Doc James and Colin, based on our requirements for encyclopedic content. The paleolithic diet lacks the notability and requisite reliable sources (in the context of this article's subject) to support its inclusion in this particular article. -- Scray (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree - the paleolithic diet can not be compared in any way to the recommendations of the WHO. If a substantial number of dietary recommending bodies begin to adopt it, then perhaps we can talk. Until then, it's indeed yet another fad diet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. So you all agree that sugar, especially high fructose corn syrup, are good? That all fats are bad? That having a 40:1 omega-6:3 ratio is good? That meat is bad? That humans evolved to eat grains? Mac520 (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What we think doesn't matter it's all about what reliable sources say.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Mac520 (and dittoing Nutriveg's point ) - no, and please don't misrepresent our positions. We all agree that original research is not permitted, that the page should give due weight to mainstream opinion, not promote an fringe theory that lacks mainstream assistance, and that we must verify our text with reliable sources. You may find the paleolithic diet both extremely convincing and scientifically supported, but we go by mainstream opinion as represented by authoritative bodies. You may be a world-reknowned expert in diet and nutrition; please demonstrate this by citing peer-reviewed sources supporting your point (and indicating it is either the majority opinion within the scholarly community, or at least a substantial minority - and not just the result of a speculative and recent popular book) rather than by attempting to argue to its importance. Sources count. Opinions don't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I did include sources with my original edit. Three or four of them, in fact, but they were all reverted. Mac520 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Reliability isn't sufficient, it must also be demonstrated that it is not undue weight to include it. That's the primary objection. They're also speculative pieces ("shouldn't we eat like our ancestors" rather than "based on research we have demonstrated that eating like our ancestors is universally a good thing - and by the way we are also completely certain what our ancestors ate"). These articles can't be compared to the WHO recommendations (in addition to our ancestors not having access to modern fruits and vegetables - the paleolithic apple was very, very different from the modern one I'm certain). Other indicators include the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association is not pubmed indexed (from what I can tell) and none of these are statements by major and substantial bodies that recommend the diet. It may line up in certain ways with the diet recommended by the WHO and other important groups, but that's for the paleolithic diet to note. Until the idea becomes embraced by large, reputable, substantial governing bodies, it's a popular diet and not worth mentioning in the same page as the WHO. It's not enough to indicate that the diet exists, we must indicate that it is a) healthy and b) universally or near-universally seen as the premiere representation of a healthy diet comparable with the WHO recommendations. It fails primarily on the latter point. If mere mention were sufficient, we could probably include nonsense like Kimkins in the page - and we don't (though admittedly they aren't comparable).

Ultimately the point is this one - until the paleolithic diet is recognized by major governing bodies as the best type of diet to adopt, it shouldn't be mentioned on the page. It's probably more than a couple years away (particularly since it ignores many potential sources of valuable nutrition like milk and grains, which humans have evolved since paleolithic times to eat). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. There is a dissonance between what is endorsed by the establishment and what is right, but I understand that Wikipedia prefers the former. On a side note, I think you should do some more research before you conclude that it is possible to fully evolve to a diet of milk and grains in only 10,000 years. Evolution is a much, much slower process. Mac520 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Damn skippy, wikipedia very justifiably supports verifiability, not truth, and due weight on experts at that. Otherwise we'd be overrun by cold fusion cranks, creationists and alternative medicine nutjobs. The nice thing is - if the paleolithic diet has any actual scientific merit, it will be inevitably uncovered as time goes on. If it doesn't, it'll be abandoned. Only time will tell and right now it's too early to put any information about it on the page.

Punctuated equilibrium, and the ability of most Europeans to consume milk products during adulthood - theory and example of evolution at work within a 10,000 year timeframe. It's not speciation, but it is evolution. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be possible that we could completely change our nutrition requirements, it is also possible that we haven't. Milk is one thing, but fructose, linoleic acid, and gluten are different. Evidence already links excess linoleic acid to heart disease.

Actually I have reviewed all the evidence on this diet. If you have found a review which shows improvements in hard endpoints please provide it. I have not.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nutrition, not being an exact science, you will never see hard endpoints. Does the WHO provide hard endpoints? No, you only take their word because they an authority. Any contrary evidence is automatically going to be at a disadvantage because it is near impossible to prove anything in nutrition. So the authority's word will always dominate. And the authority's word is determined by whoever lobbies the hardest: factory farms.Mac520 (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The WHO is an international body with specific expertise in health which relies on the best science to come up with its recommendations. The worst you can say is we rely on their authority, but fortunately their authority comes from the knowledge and experience of the most reputable and respected scientists in the world. You can't discount their expertise by casting aspersions and invoking conspiracies - do you have any reliable sources that indicate their research or conclusions are suspect? If not, there is not much point in continuing this discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why 'history' section shouldn't be included that mentions such diets. 89.216.140.234 (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

no mention of refined carbohydrates

The article currently does not mention anything about refined carbohydrates vs. complex carbohydrates. It talks about sugars, although for the purposes of diabetes, obesity, heart disease, anxiety, and other chronic conditions, simple starches like white bread or skinless potatos have a high glycemic index just like sugars and have similar negative effects on the body. Where would be a good place to find an authoritative source commenting on this? Cazort (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is that the article relies solely on information from the World Health Organization, which has a vested financial interest in keeping people sick and therefore pretends that all carbohydrates are equally healthy, regardless of their complexity. If you do find authoritative sources commenting on the difference between refined carbohydrates and complex carbohydrates, don't bother trying to add them to the article, as the article's owners will revert you, calling the information "fringe theories" and "non-notable". 85.178.90.117 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yo-yo dieting

Yo-yo dieting is psychologically upsetting for people and lends to a lack of self confidence. Researchers from 8 countries in Europe have found a relationship between the angiotensin-converting enzyme and the studied women's weight. The higher the level of enzyme the women were found to have, the easier they found maintaining a healthy weight. The journal PLoS ONE reported that there are 8 other proteins were also linked to successful weight maintenance. The research now focuses on strategies that help people who need to keep the weight off in the long term rather than subsisting with initial weight loss.[4]

The above was removed from the article as it is neither sufficiently developed in science nor referenced adequately.--Zefr (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete please

The whole subject of what a healthy diet is, is by nature a subjective one. This page is never going to be more than a list of people's opinions on the matter. Either that or (god forbid) it will just become a direct copy of the official guidelines from the US. 212.248.169.208 (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all true. An unhealthy diet is recognized as one of the leading causes of mortality world wide. There is great scientific evidence on fruits and vegetables.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you making assumptions about a "healthy diet" meaning fruit and vegetables? In Australia, the CSIRO recommends fish and red meat for a healthy diet. Atroche (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And doesn't metioned fruits and vegetables? That I cannot believe! ShoesssS ^Talk 01:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be careful about saying fruit is healthy. See http://drbenkim.com/articles-fruit.html And I would also be careful about saying vegetables are good as if they all were. See http://www.activz.com/todays-fruits-and-vegetables-lack-yesterdays-nutrition/ Most discount grocery bought vegetables are just water containers, where the nutrients have been grossly eliminated due to cheaper soil replenishment farming. I think generalized statements like "fruit and vegetables" = health should be carefully linked to recommendations by government and health organizations, and not automatically tossed around like the truth. Also, if nutrition was just about vitamins, then vitamin supplements should have some kind of effect, but it's hard to find any study showing that vitamin supplements have any kind of short-term or long-term benefit. 8.21.178.113 (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

American Heart Association

Why is the American Heart Association's recommendations listed? The list of Nutritional guides is vast. Could someone delete that section? Lionfish0 (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Healthy diet as a study of interest

I think rather than try to conclusively define what constitutes a "healthy diet" this article should discuss the concept of "healthy diets" throughout history and various proponents of "healthy dieting" or "healthy eating". If you start talking about what constitutes a healthy diet, we get into the editorialized world. But talking about how "healthy dieting" was introduced as a government responsibility, how/when it was enacted, the history of the U.S. food pyramid, and other "healthy diet"-related topics, I think you can provide a valuable encyclopedic entry for the concept as a whole. There is no way we can conclude what exactly is "healthy" but we can explain the story of "healthy diets" in the culture of mankind. This would be a similar treatment to "Extreme sports" where the article does not try to define what is extreme or what is not extreme and rather objectively looks at the topic in relation to society and history as a whole. Also, this angle allows for interesting treatments of cultural differences between what constitutes a healthy diet, such as ancient Asian principles, Mediterranean principles, Egyptian beliefs, and other historically significant beliefs of what makes a diet healthy. --8.21.178.113 (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a fantastic idea. Treating the history of this concept would provide a lot of new, useful information that is not just the same stuff from Human nutrition, which can remain as a scientific account of the nutrients humans actually need. 50.137.113.187 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

NCI secondary, then primary going deeper same line of thinking

Moved from my talk. Please just discuss in article talk:

These include review articles and major medical textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. The content you have added has been removed partly for this reason. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that I can use primary research when secondary (NIH / NCI) initiates / makes the statement. In this case, once the NCI says there's some evidence in review that vegetables reduce incidence of cancers, I am free to use primary that goes deeper showing the petri dish test results maybe these vegetables are better than these ect. Note I didn't use that line of thinking in prostate cancer, where the NCI stated evidence is relatively weak. The BJC review is secondary to the NCI, since the NCI takes many such reviews and comes to independent conclusions. They are a review of the reviews.32cllou (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No that is not how it works. Please discussion at WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I will read wt med again, but seems like the wt is set by the NCI and providing primary thus supported is OK. I'll use this ref more http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/WCRF%20Policy%20US%20Summary_final.pdf

This referred (from diet) article (healthy diet) is where wiki normally delves into details using primary supported by secondary findings.32cllou (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

First image caption

The description in the article on the image File:Colorfull.jpg was recently changed to "vegetables", which I reverted back to "fruits"; however, the description of "vegetables" has again been inserted. The problem is that the image is of peppers and tomatoes; which, botanically, are correctly labelled as "fruits" (although, granted, for culinary purposes, they are frequently mislabelled as "vegetables"). Rather than immediately correct this again, I wanted to bring it up here for discussion. Perhaps the better solution is to get an image that contains produce that better meets the botanical definition of vegetables so that there's no confusion, such as File:Veggies.jpg ... even File:Marketvegetables.jpg would be better, as it contains true vegetables in addition to the tomatoes and other botanical fruits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Common usage is fine. My problem is not that they are all technically fruits, but they are restricted to two groups within the nightshade family. Wikipedia is not bound by Nix v. Hedden, but I a reminded that knowledge is the fact that a tomato is a fruit—wisdom is not putting tomatoes in fruit salad. Of the two images you suggested, I'm partial to the first. The goal is to show fruits and vegetables. Wikimedia has a good selection of images and my favorite (not a strong preference) is this one: File:West Show Jersey July 2010 45.jpg. I agree that we need a different image, but the caption was fine: it reflected the focus of the article.Novangelis (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my mistake, and thank you for pointing out the facts. I'm going to look on other pages for pictures of vegetables, especially leafy greens, allium, and cruciferous. How about saying "fruits and vegetables" in the meantime?32cllou (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There, hope that's OK using a picture from vegetables.32cllou (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, the tomato/pepper photo is excessive after the fruit and vegetable photos.Novangelis (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

One more trivial technical issue: is the citrus in the front center fruit image a grapefruit? I'm pretty sure it is.Novangelis (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger

Propose, that this page be merged and redirected to Human nutrition. Most content here is probably already there. username 1 (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Missed this comment. Is a good idea but has been done wrong with significant referenced content being deleted. Therefor will revert changes.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Human diet (nonexistent) should talk about diets and healthy diet should merge/move to it and human nutrition should talk about nutriet requirments.username 1 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

seconding thisFennfoot (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

nutritionfacts.org

Why does anyone think it belongs? Seems like an overly promotional, self-published website by a non-notable person. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Links to the domain were spammed to a number of other articles by the same editor. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ronz: I agree it has no value = WP:ELNO. --Zefr (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Revert

This ref does not mention pulses so not sure how it supports the content in question [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

IP(6) is primarily found in pulses. The review does say legumes, which is the same as pulses.32cllou (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's the abstract, and I've bolded key words:

"Inositol hexaphosphate (IP(6)) is a naturally occurring polyphosphorylated carbohydrate, abundantly present in many plant sources and in certain high-fiber diets, such as cereals and legumes. In addition to being found in plants, IP(6) is contained in almost all mammalian cells, although in much smaller amounts, where it is important in regulating vital cellular functions such as signal transduction, cell proliferation, and differentiation. For a long time IP(6) has been recognized as a natural antioxidant. Recently IP(6) has received much attention for its role in cancer prevention and control of experimental tumor growth, progression, and metastasis. In addition, IP(6) possesses other significant benefits for human health, such as the ability to enhance immune system, prevent pathological calcification and kidney stone formation, lower elevated serum cholesterol, and reduce pathological platelet activity. In this review we show the efficacy and discuss some of the molecular mechanisms that govern the action of this dietary agent. Exogenously administered IP(6) is rapidly taken up into cells and dephosphorylated to lower inositol phosphates, which further affect signal transduction pathways resulting in cell cycle arrest. A striking anticancer action of IP(6) was demonstrated in different experimental models. In addition to reducing cell proliferation, IP(6) also induces differentiation of malignant cells. Enhanced immunity and antioxidant properties also contribute to tumor cell destruction. Preliminary studies in humans show that IP(6) and inositol, the precursor molecule of IP(6), appear to enhance the anticancer effect of conventional chemotherapy, control cancer metastases, and improve quality of life. Because it is abundantly present in regular diet, efficiently absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, and safe, IP(6) + inositol holds great promise in our strategies for cancer prevention and therapy. There is clearly enough evidence to justify the initiation of full-scale clinical trials in humans."

Bolded words make it possible for to write antioxidant, antimutagenic, and anticarcinogenic, but not anti-hyperglycemic compounds. And possible to write may be applicable to lowering the risk of chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, but not diabetes. I will remove anti-hyperglycemic and diabetes from the sentence.

Here is another good review that I will include.[[6]]. I need to pull the full article and see why they say "Aside from the anticancer action, IP6 and inositol also have numerous other health benefits." I'll defer changes until I read this fully.32cllou (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Religious factors

I just removed a paragraph talking about people being motivated by religion to keep a diet. First, most of the paragraph was a copy of the information that's already in Daniel Fast and my first thought was to remove most of it per WP:UNDUE and leave a brief mention of different religious diets and fasts. However, there is no source that says that the Daniel fast is kept by people who feel motivated to do so because it is described in the Bible; secondly, there are no sources that indicate that Sawm which was the other diet mentioned is kept for health reasons, or indeed that there is a positive health effect of it. So I simply do not think that these two different food restrictions belong in this particular article. --bonadea contributions talk 06:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm Sorry, I was trying to fast to meet the wiki request for Daniel Fast links from other articles (and mostly copied the existing article).

Sawm was just another example of a common religious fast or diet. I'm just saying religious beliefs factor into diet in the intro.

There are two recent newspaper articles speaking of the increased popularity of the Daniel Fast. Here's one that's on the Web [[7]] The fast is part of the regular education program at two colleges; here's one account [[8]]. I'll use that second research article as a reference, if OK.

The point isn't that people do the Daniel Fast for health reasons. They do it for religious reasons. But, the scripture says the fast promoted relative (to those eating "royal food") health. We know from the three reviews at the start of Healthy Diet that diets higher in whole plant foods are more healthy. The DF is all plants.

The DF is probably a very healthy diet. Researchers in one of those formal studies speculate the reasons why it might be healthy. I can't write about the strong conclusions of those studies, because they are primary (not reviews). But, I should be able to relate the researchers speculation. The speculation is that the absence of saturated fats, lack of processed (no white flour, sugar ect) foods, the abundance of nutrient and fiber rich plant foods, the lack of preservatives and additives, and reduced intake of methionine (and leucine, from another researchers [[9]] comments), would make it a healthy diet.

Is it against Wiki rules to say Bible scripture says it's healthy, or the King thought it was healthy and let Daniel continue eating (what he thought would be bad for health turned out good)? Note the scripture contains a test of two diets, basically "royal" and vegan/whole plant food. I can recount the scripture, then write about the researchers speculations. I hope that answers your concerns, and I will write to meet them. Please provide additional feedback. Thanks for your efforts.32cllou (talk)

First, the section you added was about one motivation, not a factor. Second, it's too specific for a general article. If you're going to add this, you need to discuss religious motivations in general to eat a healthy diet (with proper sourcing). The Daniel Fast, if mentioned at all, should only be mentioned in passing. The same goes for Dieting, only there the text should discuss religious motivations to diet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand it's too specific for healthy diet, sorry. I'll just try to find a way to add a short sentence with the link. I can significantly shorten it in diet too.

I'll find another reference saying basically taking care of your body is something Scripture says you should do? You don't like this reference (which says that many many times)?

Are you saying scripture shouldn't be quoted?32cllou (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Scripture can be quoted but a secondary source is needed as a reference for the interpretation (see WP:PRIMARY). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I hope the Ellen G. White book, and those two research reports (the two Bloomer et al) provides the secondary source interpretation.32cllou (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

References

"One upping" other health organisations (e.g. WHO "one upping" Harvard or Heart Association)

Just out of interest, if someone complained that the WHO guidelines were given before the American Heart Association or Harvard University, that the writer is "one upping" WHO for no reason, what would the response be? Is there a method for the way in which we decide what is included first or later in Wiki? 182.255.99.214 (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's common in medicine for different organizations to issue their own guideliness even though they are aware of the others in the specialty. The usual reason is that although they overlap substantially, everyone has their own portion of details that they want to give more emphasis to, or a particular recommendation that someone else didn't make. Comparing all these largely-overlapping-but-slightly-different guidelines keeps people like the National Guideline Clearinghouse, and the evidence-based medicine academic physicians who use it, perennially plugging away. And then there's the challenge that, for many health care topics, you can do systematic reviews on a topic today to build a new guideline, and 5 or 10 years from now, it could stand to be done again. For example, you could do one for diabetes mellitus in 1995 and you think you're all set, and then someone goes and invents a whole new class of drugs—10 years later, back to the literature for another round! Quercus solaris (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"WHO recommends few standards such as an intake of less than 5 grams per person per day so as to prevent one from cardiovascular disease. "

intake of what ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwalvekar (talk • contribs) 10:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

question

I am new to editing. Do you think this website would be a good resource to reference to on the actual healthy diet article itself: spiralizer.com.au? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausnz (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed the spam link. And no. WIkipedia is not a vehicle for advertising anything. Jytdog (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Healthy diet From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leafy green, allium, and cruciferous vegetables are key components of a healthy diet

Common colorful culinary fruits. Apples, pears, strawberries, oranges, bananas, grapes, canary melons, watermelon, cantaloupe, pineapple and mango. A healthy diet is one that helps to maintain or improve overall health.

A healthy diet provides the body with essential nutrition: fluid, adequate essential amino acids from protein,[1] essential fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, and adequate calories. The requirements for a healthy diet can be met from a variety of plant-based and animal-based foods. A healthy diet supports energy needs and provides for human nutrition without exposure to toxicity or excessive weight gain from consuming excessive amounts. Where lack of calories is not an issue, a properly balanced diet (in addition to exercise) is also thought to be important for lowering health risks, such as obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cancer.[2]

Various nutrition guides are published by medical and governmental institutions to educate the public on what they should be eating to promote health. Nutrition facts labels are also mandatory in some countries to allow consumers to choose between foods based on the components relevant to health.

The idea of dietary therapy (using dietary choices to maintain health and improve poor health) is quite old and thus has both modern scientific forms (medical nutrition therapy) and prescientific forms (such as dietary therapy in traditional Chinese medicine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.85.238 (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

unclear what the remark above is about....Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments on the article

This is a very informative article about healthy diet. I would recommend more neutrality on the "Recommendations" section since it currently looks like it is written from a personal point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangtruong (talk • contribs) 04:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Unhealthy diets

The assertion "The Western pattern diet... is unhealthy" is not scientific. The Western diet (and steady supplies of food) is generally agreed by researchers to have led to increases in height, muscle mass, better bone health and longevity and earlier puberty (for good or bad), among other things. There are drawbacks of course, but the positive influences need to be mentioned. At the same time the diet is changing with Americans taking in more fruits and vegetables and perhaps eating better than European counterparts -- which should be addressed in the main article, Western pattern diet.Skingski (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)(talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Healthy diet. 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 https://www.webcitation.org/69bS0fblI?url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/index.html to http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707013735/http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates/index.html to http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024100927/http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/calcium-and-milk/index.html to http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/calcium-and-milk/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121216061255/http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2007&chid=71&coid=707&mid= to http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2007&chid=71&coid=707&mid=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Specific Conditions

More diets to facilitate searches who are looking for their specific conditions. specific conditions should have links liked to the explanation of their condition and tips for proper eating according to health condition. Paogc1 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Marion Nestle

User: Doc James, in these diffs you removed reference to Marion Nestle altogether. I restored what she said in the "other" section, but I kind of think that what she says should go first. it is entirely mainstream and most importantly, a healthy diet is not a complicated thing and she states this really simply. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Embedded controversy in this topic

This idea that there's one "healthy diet" is not only controversial, but clearly wrong. You could easily pick 10 different diets from "authorities," all of which say they're "healthy," and all of which are different. Thus, even the existence of this topic is "pseudo-intellectial" and unhelpful. We're perpetually finding that things which were considered healthy are not healthy, and things which were considered unhealthy are considered healthy, and everyone seems to disagree on almost every detail.

Worse yet, such an article is obviously bound to be perpetually out of date, due to variations in "expert" consensus. For example, diets that clearly reverse diabetes are ignorantly disregarded—even outright rejected—by the establishment, and corresponding advice about saturated fats and cholesterol are absurd, as is advice about "healthy grains." Thus, the "healthy diet," in this person's opinion is an outright LIE.

I propose it's either removed or goes to a page which disambiguates to different diets. 75.166.37.37 (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Article seems fine, and well-sourced. We aren't driven by random editors' opinions. Alexbrn (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Evaluating article/Nul90

The only comment I have is in regards to why there isn't there any images to support the article? Nul90 (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Nul90, Good point. Perhaps you can find some to add. FULBERT (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Diabetic diet

Wikipedia has an article on Diabetic diet so should this be included under the list of diets for specific conditions? Vorbee (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Unhealthy diets

This section uses two W.H.O sources which contradict each other. the first ( "WHO and FAO announce global initiative to promote consumption of fruit and vegetables".) attributes 2.7 million deaths to low fruit and vegetables intake, the second one ("Promoting fruit and vegetable consumption around the world") says only 1.7 million Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The original ref was the press release. Changing the ref to point at the conference report itself, it is clear that both sources quote 2.7 million.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

all-animal diets

An all animal-based diet would not be healthy. General Vicinity (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Tell that to eskimos. When animal food sources are all you have, then it's healther than not eating.

You're referring to the carnivore diet. In any case this article doesn't claim that an all-animal diet is healthy. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

eat for lunch

What should a teenager eat for lunch with a healthy diet? 49.144.108.137 (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for this article? This talk page isn't a forum discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Language arts

I will like to see some pics of fruits 207.191.244.145 (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Justinkui83.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TRReyna.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bellaespinoza2021.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Transclusion reference errors

I think that the transcluded Life extension#Healthy diet section only serves to bloat this article and it also comes with several reference errors because the ref names aren't defined. I would suggest that the section is simply linked to Life extension instead.CV9933 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Dietary recommendations

I think it would be a good idea to provide a bit more diversity among the recommendations and focus on governments or large NGOS - Harvard School of Public Health is well known, but does not make policy, and I don't think the opinion of two individuals is representative (one could fill many pages with individual comments). Wouldn't it be better to haveL

• WHO
• USDA
• EFSA (for Europe) - perhaps also individual countries?
• ideally some other countries as well (e.g. from List of nutrition guides)?

There has been a lot of work in this article, so I don't want to make any changes without discussing it!

Ggck2 (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

healthy diet microbiome

Was looking at this healthy diet article, under section microbiome it says Mechanistically, research suggests that the gut microbiome, which varies per person and changes throughout lifespan, is also involved in the beneficial effects, due to which various diet supplementations with prebiotics, various diverse (multi-strain) probiotics and synbiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation are being investigated for life extension, mainly for prolonging healthspan, with many important questions being unresolved. The ones who wrote this what do they mean by diet supplementations in this sentence: due to which various diet supplementations with prebiotics, various diverse (multi-strain) probiotics and synbiotics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_diet#Microbiome 118.210.107.193 (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I suspect they mean dietary supplements that contain prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics. ParticipantObserver (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Remove "a non-plant-based source of B-12" line from introduction article.

Vegan diets do not require eating only plants, and also include fungus and other microbial non-animal life forms, and B-12 supplements / B-12 in fortified foods are created from fermenting bacteria cultures. Therefore I see no reason to include this line. With the "although" at the beginning it is stated as if a contradiction is taking place, but as there is no contradiction, it doesn't seem relevant to make special note of in the into paragraph. Solspide (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, the cited source says something like that, but not that the B-12 source must be non-plant. I made a change. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)