|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eating article.|
|Eating has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Food and drink||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
- 1 Comestible should not redirect here
- 2 Ingestion redirect
- 3 Slang terms for eating?
- 4 Caption: Picture of Table and Chairs
- 5 Eating vs. feeding
- 6 Removing soldiers lunch image ?
- 7 Mass/weight of food consumed
- 8 Food disappearance
- 9 Too many statistics = counterproductive statistics
- 10 Poor photo selection
- 11  Mess up?
- 12 eating positions
- 13 too much on humans
Comestible should not redirect here
IMHO, comestible should not redirect here, but it does. This topic is eating, a comestible is, essentially, a food (i.e., something that gets eaten or drunk). This article is about the act of eating, not what is eaten.
If comestible continues to direct here, it should at least be mentioned in the article and explained what a comestible is.
If I learn how to undo a redirection, I'll undo it.
Ingestion, AFAIK, refers to the intake of foreign substance into the body by any means, like inhalation or absorbsion through the skin, not just by eating. For this reason, I don't think that Ingestion should redirect to Eating. --D. Estenson II 14:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- 'The Sage' dict. gives ingestion as eating for the primary definition.dick 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Slang terms for eating?
I think we should add common slang terms for eating. I could contribute a fair amount ie: Munching, pigging out, wolfing out, stuffing ones face, sucking food into ones lungs etc. Supra guy 05:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Caption: Picture of Table and Chairs
I'm not sure if the caption (The usual accessories for everyday eating: table, chair and tableware.) is entirely accurate - some cultures eat differently, surely that should be indicated in the caption. For example, if it's a Westernised method, perhaps just that one word could be included to make it more accurate? Lottie 16:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's only representative of some human cultures--dick 20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Eating vs. feeding
Why in goodness name do we have two different words for the same thing - feeding and eating. They both mean basically the same thing. It's also very unusual that the two words are used in different ways grammatically - for example to feed on makes sense, but to eat on does not. How did the 'on' come to be included in language in the first place? I'm finding the distinction between the two words very frustrating when trying to organize articles and categories appropriately, but this issue would also be good to discuss in the article. Richard001 08:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- you may have a point on the things that they are very much intertwine, but in a different aspect of the english word, feed, as it's root word, refers to give food to either animals, material fed into a machine, or supplying this material, while the term eat refers to the consumption of a meal, or otherwise to take into the mouth, chew and swallow. although they are but similar, there are differences in the english words that should be used in the english language in a correct and orderly manner. Not all the time that we use this words and our day to day activities so we might say that it is hard to compare and contrast a statement that is grammatically incorrect. vahn_dinio 09:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Removing soldiers lunch image ?
Perhaps the soldiers lunch image may be removed ? It doesnt really add allot and I already put it on the meal-article aswell (so its already being used).
Mass/weight of food consumed
I am unable to find any data on total daily consumption of food, by any group of people, by mass or weight of food. Everything is in calories, and then only usually "recommended", not research into actual total calorie consumption. (And consider here that the food "kcal" is a very badly calibrated unit of measure.) Or else it is broken down by type of food, and no attempt is made at adding up for one person per day. What gives! Very frustrating. Any leads? HOW MUCH DO PEOPLE EAT!?
This is still an extremely frustrating question to try to answer. But the lead is that the government does not call this phenomenon "per capita consumption" but "per capita disappearance" and then subtracts spoilage to get an estimate of how much we eat. Once you start looking for statistics by that term, you still only run into consumption data for specific categories of food, and usually only in kcal -- gahhh! I just want the whole shebang, on average, by mass, not kcal, please! Why is this so hard? I cannot find the link now but from an FDA webpage I arrived at a ballpark figure: that we Americans eat our weight in food every month, more or less. Anyone have a better answer?
Too many statistics = counterproductive statistics
- I was just at "Whole Foods", reading with bemusement signs with their new rating system ANDI. Some few foods have ratings in the 100s, but most (quite common and nutritional from any other standard) are "down" in the 10s. This quantifying of food is useful for creating emergency rations, military planning, and backpackers. For most circumstances, ANDI is just more "consumer noise". I'm not going to buy onions because they're not the top nutritional value? Who are they kidding? Let's go one step further ... what's the point of buying a "healthy" ingredient ... if it was poorly stored, it's old, a major part is thrown away in preparation, more is lost in cooking, and leftovers perish quickly and are unlikely to be used? What kind of a "deal" would that be? The statistics tell only a part of overall situation. In a generation that largely stuffs fast food, restaurant food, school and institutional lunches in their faces with little comprehension of what's in the food ... what purpose is served ... for the vast majority ... with endless statistics? Listen to your body, eat well, get regular exercise. Unless you have a special health problem, ignore most food statistics, most of the time. Get a life and stop playing with numbers. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Poor photo selection
There are four photos in the article, all of which have issues.
1) "Eating is often a social occasion". Confusing photo with three people's back nearly in photo center, and a bright unusual and (to me) unidentifiable mass taking up much of the rest of the center. Of the three people whose faces can be seen, one is very blurred, one has her eyes shut. There's not much evidence of food, in fact the man at the end appears not to be eating.
2) "Marines having lunch with Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom." This photo seems to have a political connotation that is not critical to article topic.
3) "High school students eating Ramen" Food is barely visible in the photo, appears to be a shot of someone's friend -- who doesn't appear to be eating. I removed this.
4) "A man eating." Slightly blurred, food visible, but not especially clear it's being eaten. Huge backdrop of car with clear branding seems bizarre and highly atypical.
These should all be replaced with high quality photos that prominently display food, and the act of eating. A cross-cultural mix of chopsticks, knife-and-fork, and eating by hand (say, a sandwich) would be nice. If someone else doesn't feel like doing this over the next few weeks, I will take a shot at it. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 Mess up?
there needs to be material on eating positions Human_positions#Eating_positions ref for example Romans used to eat lying on couches and the Japanese traditionally eat cross-legged on the floor. --Penbat (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
too much on humans
It focuses too much on human eating, a lot of what is said is not universal to most animals that eat. We should make a human section and make it clear and everything outside of it should be general. Also a little more information on fungi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)