Talk:Diet (nutrition)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Table Wrong[edit]

Why are carrots banned for raw vegans? Why cannot a fruititarian drink fermented fruit juice? Why cannot a paleolithic diet include wild legumes? (Eskimos pick legumes grains to make bread with berries, it grows on the tundra).

These feel like 'fad opinion diets' rather than factual diets.

I suggest removing the chart as it is entirely false.

Move?[edit]

The scope of this article is beyond health. If its scope was limited to health, then it would be largely redundant to the article Nutrition. I propose renaming to:

1. Diet (consumption)

2. Diet (eating)

or 3. Diet (ingestion)

Which name do you like?

ref: Wikipedia:Naming conventions

Darana 04:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I do not think this article is about health per se. It is more about "stuff that can be consumed by creatures". I think Diet (consumption) is the closest, but consumption doesn't sound right.Libertate 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia:Naming conventions guide suggests using gerunds for verbs, so I guess it'd be (consuming) or (ingesting), but both seem forced. I thought of another one: Diet (food). It makes sense as a parenthetical, however, there is already an article Diet food about processed foods for dieters. Currently, a search for "diet" returns the disambiguation page which lists this article, Diet food, and Dieting. Diet (eating) would be understood by most readers, I believe — even those with poor reading skills. I put a tag on this page to attract more comments. If there are no more comments in a few days, I suggest using Diet (eating).
  • I think Diet (eating) is a good choice. Eating is a synonym for consuming afterall.Libertate 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • UPDATE: I propose moving it to diet (eating habit) (would accomplete "Dieting"-article)

In addition, the dieting-page is to be moved to "Diet" (or redirected) and the diet disambugation page is to be moved to diet (disambugation) and diet eating habit can be linked in this page. KVDP (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge?[edit]

Shouldn't this just be merged into dieting? They seem like the same subject to me. Could somone explain how it differs? If not, I'll probably put in a merge request. Tyciol 04:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dieting involves losing weight. One's diet (nutrition) involves what foods one chooses to eat. Your diet can be vegetarian, kosher, "typical American", etc. That's not dieting.

Also, I don't think your "diet" is the same as "nutrition". I'd say they are separate topics, deserving of separate articles. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge, diet includes what people actually do, in various places, as well as perhaps should do; nutrition is more analytical. Nutrition is good article, "Diet" would dilute it, at least.--TheNautilus 22:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Quadell above, short term "dieting" is very different from one's typical "diet". As for "nutrition", I do not see any benefit merging it with "diet". Nutritionally you could obtain calcium from milk or nuts, but both of these can be part of very different diets (omnivore and vegan, for example). nirvana2013 18:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Approve Merge part of the article, and move details about "your own diet" to Eating habit, which is more suitable. Having both the articles "Dieting" and "Diet (nutrition)" is sloppy and not worthy of Wikipedia. KVDP (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Because diet (nutrition) is such a popular topic, and the possibility of linking to grey area sites for the purpose of traffic is extremely tempting, I suggest external links to be limited to government or sanctioned research documentation. Currently there are two links which I believe should be struck. Libertate 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Diet Table[edit]

Should this table include column "Carnivore"? Diet does not necessarily refer to humans only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Libertate (talkcontribs) 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

I added the column carnivore.Libertate 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional row of "fish" even "seafood", can be added? Libertate 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, fish is a very important dietary food staple --216.132.71.213 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I added Fish and Seafood lines. Seafood is a bit tough to handle for Halal though. And the table itself should say it is a summary of permitted foods for these dietary regimes, shouldn't it? --129.198.241.62 23:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Scitechinfo link[edit]

I don't understand why this one link keeps getting re-added (see history, no link here). It seems spectacularly valueless. Unless the user who keeps putting it in can explain why s/he is so insistent on having it included, I suggest leaving it off. · rodii · 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

regarding the diet table Halal diet is exactly like Kosher diet so why did u put that there is no Poultry in Halal diet ????? this is wrong.

Blokquote[edit]

Perhaps its possible to include following quote:

The quote is to refer to the japanese aswell as okinawan tradition of not eating untill completely saturated. This because the brain itself does not know when the body has enough (the brain can only estimate this some 20min after you normally finish eating; that is if you eat at regular speed most people do).

As this is important information and a important quote, I'd appreciate it if it would be added to the article 81.244.205.121 (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Okinawa program: Learn the secrets to healthy longivity" by Willcox, Willcox and Suzuki (page 86)

Diet Table[edit]

The Diet Table doesn't include eggs, yet separates many kinds of meats

I think that it should include it and also separate the vegetarian into lacto-ovo-vegetarian/lacto-vegetarian...because some veggies DO eat eggs, while others don't —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wubrgamer (talkcontribs) 16:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a distinction should be made between lacto-ovos and lactos. In India, the word "vegetarian" typically refers only to lacto-vegetarianism. --Nick, 02:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Another problem with the diet table is that it presents vegetarians and vegans as having very little food to eat. This is misleading, since the majority of the table consists of highly specific forms of animal flesh, but excludes grains, legumes, nuts and seeds, and fruit. Although the table does not explicitly oppose vegetarianism/veganism, it implies that they are severely lacking, and is therefore non-neutral. In addition, hunter-gatherer diets are lacking in grains and legumes, a fact that should be pointed out. --Nick, 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
How does honey fit into the table? It is an animal product, sort of. Abductive (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that it shows that hunter-gatherers don't eat grains. From what I am aware hunter-gatherers can eat wild grains, prepared in different ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordrichie (talkcontribs) 06:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

While looking at the diet table I noticed that under the Jewish column it says that Jewish people do not eat fruits and berries. My understanding of Kosher laws is that there is no law prohibiting the consumption of fruits and/or berries. I believe this should be corrected. I would do this myself but I am not 100% certain and I might do some personal research to verify if Kosher laws permit fruits and/or berries in the diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talkcontribs) 02:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I have since done a bit of personal research and found that fruits and berries are indeed kosher and therefore the diet table is incorrect. The only concern with fruits and berries with Kashrut (Kosher laws) is that the fruits or berries may have insects on them and eating the insects is not considered kosher but the fruits themselves are perfectly fine and all one has to do is inspect for insects. I can provide sources if necessary to verify my information but I am going to correct this mistake in the diet table. The other exception is certain grape products can be considered not kosher if not prepared by someone Jewish but whole grapes do not really apply, it is mostly about wine and grape juice products and does not really apply to the entry in the diet table. DoctorK88 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed several links in the table to more dieting-related articles (Carnivore, Ketogenic, Fruitarian) and changed "Frugivore" to "Fruitarian", which is the name of the human diet.Kmuster (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

New Article Proposal on LoneStart Wellness[edit]

Hello, I hope I'm doing this right. I'm new to Wikipedia and would like to see an article about my company (I'm co-founder). The company is LoneStart Wellness, and I've prepared a draft article in my user subpage, and included several reliable sources and links. But, I'm not sure where to go from there. I'm also not entirely sure how to link that subpage to this comment / request. Do I link to my user page? If so it's User:Mws1188/LoneStart Article. Otherwise, I'm at a loss. Thanks for any help or feedback. Mws1188 (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Melinda

More clarity[edit]

This article needs to work alongside cuisine and dieting (which are referred to on the diet) disambiguation page.

I feel that diet (ecology) might be a more useful term to consider for an article dealing with dietary behaviour of animals and other food-consuming organisms.

diet (nutrition)/dieting could deal with health implications of diet choice

and cuisine could deal with cultural (including religious) forms of diet - otherwise diet (culture) might be an option.

Thoughts--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion proposal[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fit for Life. Badagnani (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a good idea. MaynardClark (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Diets and religion[edit]

I propose to make a larger and more complete article about the diets used by all regions. At the moment, there is already a category diets and religion and a article Vegetarianism and religion, but this is incomplete and a larger article including all religious diets with a nice table and so on would be more informational. KVDP (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Diets with western processed foods[edit]

Perhaps a section can be made on the fact that the current foods are so processed and radically different from what humans used to eat that people are directed towards eating too much (as the human body can no longer accuratly determine how much it requires using these new foods). See the article by Yann Rougiers (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:LFkVrLGMGZgJ:www.yannrougiercoaching.com/legersurpoids/regimeefficace+yann+rougier+and+industrialisation&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=be , translate with google translate), add section in article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.186.248 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Weston Price Society has a lot on this. Micronutrients is a term and a concept which could perhaps be mentioned in the article. These things could go in the `Health' section of the article. -- Communpedia Tribal (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

edit to "Diet and life outcome" section[edit]

I have changed the section to say "...the British medical journal The Lancet found that Guatemalan men who had been well-fed...", from "...the British medical journal The Lancet found that those who had been well-fed...". I think the word 'those' is far to broad when the study only refers to a very specific group: 'guatemalan men'.

Secondly, I have removed the words "independent of other factors such as class or parental income" from "The infants that received the high-nutrition supplement had higher average salaries independent of other factors such as class or parental income" because the article makes absolutly no reference to 'class' or 'income'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defaultface (talkcontribs) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How about linking to the article about nutrient density? MaynardClark (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Diet affecting Microbial life[edit]

Perhaps it could be noted that what you eat influences the forming of the bacterial colonies you grow in the stomach. This again influences weight gain or loss (as they can increase or decrease the extraction of nutrients from food). See http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2009-sct/5161.html

Add in article

Etymology[edit]

Where does the word 'diet' come from? Is it okay to add that origin to the article? Alphapeta (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Under Health / Diet to improve measures of health[edit]

Guess that's the proposed new heading. Here's a key reference http://missclasses.com/mp3s/Prize%20CD%202010/Previous%20years/Antioxidants/Mindblower.pdf We'll explain study and classes of vegetables that evidence inhibition, blockage, and reversal of human cancer cell growth in a petri dish ... most active spinach, garlic, beets, broccoli. List best vegetables by cancer. Classifications of vege supergroups. Tie into Ornish work re Telomerase, fiber, prostate cancer findings. See http://www.ornishspectrum.com/proven-program/the-research/

As has been explained to you countless times before, we should be using review articles in medical journals, not primary studies. Yobol (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
What's helpful (not required) is a review stating consumption of vegetables and fruits may reduce the incidence of cancers, cardio, vascular, nerve brain prbs. That's easy i'll do. What should be means optimal re reviews, but we do the best we can which is OK. I'll find a review, then it's OK to cite individual primary research labeled such. Results in that study are accepted technology strong and helps substantiate observational studies in humans I'll get around to write and ref. human observ too. Much goes into subsections too someday, but guess users go for top article and headlines so strongest probable beneficial fruits and vegetables here. Not sure about section heading changes. Not sure how I'll reorg. As the top says it needs cleaning. I was looking for help with this talk not tirade tho short this time.32cllou (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Secondary sources are the sources of choice here. As there are so many secondary sources, including the FDA, CDC, ADA, etc. there is no need to use primary sources here, and I will continue to remove them as inappropriate and against multiple guidelines and policies if they are restored. Please use high quality sources that deserve WP:WEIGHT. Also, this is a high level article that should speak about diets in very general terms. This is not an appropriate place to discuss specific diets and their nutritional effects. We have other articles for those. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The NCI is a qualified secondary source. I'll shorten more, but the primary is OK wiki.32cllou (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree we need secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This review articles summaries things well"For lung cancer, recent large prospective analyses with detailed adjustment for smoking have not shown a convincing association between fruit and vegetable intake and reduced risk. For other common cancers, including colorectal, breast and prostate cancer, epidemiological studies suggest little or no association between total fruit and vegetable consumption and risk" [1] You have summarized this source as "A diet rich in diverse antioxidants will enable the body neutralize free radicals, which are the result of normal cell processes, of exposure to environmental factors like tobacco and radiation, and of exposure to and the utilization of oxygen. Free radicals damage molecular structures and DNA, which may lead to diseases, including cancer. Antioxidants “mopping up” free radicals prevent them from taking electrons from, and thereby damaging, other molecules." yet the important bit is "information from recent clinical trials is less clear. In recent years, large-scale, randomized clinical trials reached inconsistent conclusions." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

NCI secondary, then primary going deeper same line of thinking[edit]

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) 14:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
JMH649 do not remove secondary ref'd statements. Do not call secondary statements primary. Do not make false revert summaries.32cllou (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Please provide difs so that we can discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the dif you wanted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diet_%28nutrition%29&diff=502637851&oldid=502629452 Found a more detailed secondary to use in diet and healthy diet http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/WCRF%20Policy%20US%20Summary_final.pdf 32cllou (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC) PS the NCI refers us to that review.32cllou (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure this [2] is a primary source and the conclusions of the second source is "In recent years, large-scale, randomized clinical trials reached inconsistent conclusions" [3].Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete the NCI review of high heat meat?32cllou (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Diff please.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Carrots are raw[edit]

Regarding the Diet Classification Table, carrots are tubers. Couldn't a raw foods vegan eat raw carrots? Also, you don't have to – probably shouldn't – cook the grapes to make wine. Some alcohol is raw. So selective bibbling might not necessarily exclude one from the raw foods camp. (?) -- Communpedia Tribal (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Communpedia Tribal. I've modified the table accordingly. It only took a little over two years to do so! In the future, feel free to be bold and edit the table yourself. If other contributors disagree, then we can discuss it here. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 15:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Diet classification table: where to stop?[edit]

I've just recently amended the diet classification table and added an insect row. I've been thinking about how to further expand this table and considered possibly including human meat and "rodents" as possible food types, since there are some religious prescriptions against those in Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism (and, of course, the plant-based diets). Would this be going too far? It would cause the rather peculiar fact of carnivorous, ketogenic, omnivorous, and perhaps even "Paleolithic" diets permitting both food types. I have no personal objection to this further expansion of the table, but what do you all think? Considering how lifeless this talk page is, I'll just add that I will do whatever I think is best if there is no discussion on this issue. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 16:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your table editing, Nøkkenbuer. The concern I have is that secondary references are weak or absent from confirming the more subtle differences, minor exceptions or prevalence of practice for some of the diets. Rather than trying to be comprehensive to include every possible diet, we should stick just to the mainstream diets; WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Zefr (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the advice, Zefr. Does any of the information in the table need citation(s)? I assumed everything on there, including the information about insects and the various notes, is general knowledge; however, I can find specific sources substantiating the claims if necessary. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 16:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I feel we have to provide sources that build reliable information for the encyclopedia per WP:WHYCITE. Otherwise, the article could be fair game for blogs, commercial promotions, plagiarism, FAQs, etc. We should assume WP:NOTMANUAL, #s 6-8, so solid secondary references would aid most users of this article. --Zefr (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Dairy[edit]

Dairy is eaten by carnivores since it is an animal product, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk334455 (talkcontribs) 22:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)