Talk:Healthy diet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Medicine / Cardiology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Cardiology task force (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Health and fitness (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"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. "[edit]

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

Comment[edit]

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)

Questionable wording[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Delete please[edit]

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)

Improvements[edit]

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...[edit]

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.[1] 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 ???[edit]

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

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....[edit]

--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
Main article: Healthy diet
or Error: no page names specified (help)., since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles." --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:54, 6

December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this term perhaps is more appropriate

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

A branch of dietotherapy....[edit]

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

Merger[edit]

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)

Extremely biased[edit]

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)

Fatty acid consumption[edit]

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)

no mention of refined carbohydrates[edit]

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[edit]

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.[1]

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)

Healthy diet as a study of interest[edit]

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)

American Heart Association[edit]

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)

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) 14:46, 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) - 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)

nutritionfacts.org[edit]

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[edit]

This ref does not mention pulses so not sure how it supports the content in question [2] 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.[[3]]. 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[edit]

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 [[4]] The fast is part of the regular education program at two colleges; here's one account [[5]]. 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 [[6]] 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)?[1]
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

  1. ^ White, Ellen G (1938). Counsels on Diet and Foods (PDF). ePub. 

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

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)