Talk:Diet (nutrition)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Move?

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)

[edit] Merge?

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)

[edit] External Links

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)

[edit] Diet Table

Should this table include column "Carnivore"? Diet does not necessarily refer to humans only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Libertate (talk • contribs) 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)

[edit] Scitechinfo link

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.

[edit] Blokquote

Perhaps its possible to include following blokquote:

Hara Hachi Bu Eat only untill you are 80 percent full. Okinawan proverb [1].

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)

[edit] Diet Table

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 (talk • contribs) 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)