Talk:Healthy diet/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 "Bad" food?
2 Why can i never keep it short :-/
3 However
4 Cleanup
- 4.1 You MUST be joking
5 I will say
- 5.1 This has been flagged for copyright issues?
6 Reform and Points which need re-changing
- 6.1 First sections need merging into intro, then the following sections expanded again.

"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;

Hmm, Is the article started? Yep, it is.
Hmm, is it referenced? Yes, thoroughly
Does it have relevant articles, and are they referenced? Yes, they are.
Does it have relevant book references? Yep, absolutely.
"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.
Is it neutral? Well, the events at the bottom did actually happen, and yes, they also do have relevance to the article.
"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.
Encyclopedic Style? Yep, most certainly is, i dont think you'll find my point of view in there.
"Finish the article with a good relevant image or graphic". Yes, I've got 3, all 3 are under appropriate and LEGAL liscences.
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;

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)