Talk:Healthy diet/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

"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;

  1. Hmm, Is the article started? Yep, it is.
  2. Hmm, is it referenced? Yes, thoroughly
  3. Does it have relevant articles, and are they referenced? Yes, they are.
  4. Does it have relevant book references? Yep, absolutely.
  5. "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.
  6. Is it neutral? Well, the events at the bottom did actually happen, and yes, they also do have relevance to the article.
  7. "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.
  8. Encyclopedic Style? Yep, most certainly is, i dont think you'll find my point of view in there.
  9. "Finish the article with a good relevant image or graphic". Yes, I've got 3, all 3 are under appropriate and LEGAL liscences.
  10. 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;

  1. 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.
  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1.  ??

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)

First sections need merging into intro, then the following sections expanded again.

Spum 14:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Overhaul

Oops! Sorry, i removed the cleanup thing by accident :-/. No worries though, have put it back and now have a thing on - i'm doing a little overhaul on the article. I archiveds the past stuff because most of it was arguments, and i think we should start a "fresh". Well, anyway - I'm expanding and cleaning up the article so that it's better laid out, better explained and so on. Spum 13:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This conspiracy is no theory

Ref. "to deal with the issues presented by particularly imported culture - cigarettes, alcohol and fast food all being produced in their majority in the United States, or by US-based companies" It became part of our plot to rule the world by making all other countries full of fat, smoking drunks immediately after electing ourselves "Dictator for Life".

When was this some kind of conspiracy theory? Fast food, originated in the United States; McDonalds, Kentucky Friend Chicken, Pizza Hut - all companies which have been targeted by a recent government initiative, as well as an anitiative by the British Heart Foundation. Secondly, tobacco is something which is also something in the majority of american production; out of the top 10 tobacco producers, 5 of those were american, as well as 3 were based in Britain, but 2 of those are owned by american companies basing their production here, or convergances between british and american sources;

"The US market is dominated by four key manufacturers known as Big Tobacco: Altria, which sells roughly half of the nearly 500 billion cigarettes sold in the US, Reynolds American, Loews subsidiary Lorillard Tobacco Company (part of Carolina Group), and Vector Group's Liggett unit."

Tobacco Industry Companies, in order of Yearly revenue and world ranking:

  1. Philip Morris USA Inc. [6601 W. Broad St. Richmond, VA 23230-1701] 804-274-2000
  2. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. [401 N. Main St. Winston-Salem, NC 27102-2990] 336-741-2000
  3. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation [ 200 Brown & Williamson Tower, 401 S. 4th St. Louisville, KY 40202-3404 ] 502-568-7000

Give them a call, and they'll verify each and every fact i have stated. In fact, i'll give them a call on your behalf.

Now that i've backed up the fact of the United states being the progenitor of Mass production in cigarettes i'll move on to fast food restaurants. In fact, i'll allow you to read this one. Double this time, old pal - 8/10 of the companies in the world by size are, tum-dum-dum-dum!; 3 of which having subsidiaries within different names throughout the United Kingdom.

Spum 15:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

First sentence.

'A healthy diet is a diet which contains a balanced amount of nutrients, varied food, and minimal amounts of sugar, fat and salt.'

This is wrong, as You can not put sugars and salt in the same plane as fats. (By the way, it's not SALT itself a problem, but SODIUM.) From few sources (Mayo, eg.) we can quote that fat intake should go even up to 20-30% of daily calorie intake. (Not to meantion now all kinds of fats.) So it's not true that healthy diet contains MINIMAL amounts of fat. I can quote, if needed.

Feel free to change it. I'm not an expert myself, so I dont' feel qualified to make that change. jf 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is important to distinguish between "good" and "bad" fats. For example, many experts recommend including moderate levels of olive oil and moderate to high levels of fish oil in the diet. It is also important to note that the designers of some diets - for example, the Zone, Atkins and Paleo diets - generally recommend a higher level of all fats (and lower level of carbohydrate) than government diet experts do. 23 June 2005

I'm going to modify it. The definition certainly is well-intentioned and probably correct in a lot of cases, especially in more developed countries. It is the big public-health push in the US. I think rather than saying it is "wrong", I'd say it is "overly specific" to a certain demographic.
For instance, you don't want to "minimize" fat; you want to eat a healthy proportion and, if possible, ingest certain types of fat. But you need a good dose of fats in your diet for good nutrition. A host of physical processes depend upon fats in the diet, beginning with (certain) vitamin and other nutrient transport. Your brain cell membranes are made of fat. As another example, the minimization of "salt" (NaCl) could conceivably kill you fairly quickly -- say if you were stranded in a desert with plenty of non-salt food and fresh water. (You can theoretically commit suicide by drinking water! More realistically, there have been distance runners who have visibly suffered ill effects from NaCl and KCl deprivation, although this is much less common with the advent of sports drinks.) Even in the US/UK, research appears to indicate that the deletorious effects of comparatively high NaCl intake may, for a majority (or possibly vast majority) of the population, be a myth -- the scientific equivalent of an urban legend.
My point is that sufficient dietary fat is more important to good health than avoiding excessive dietary fat. While this is consistent with the technical concept of "minimal" or "minimize", such terms connote an effort to eat as little as possible, which is unhealthy. Actually, it is also incorrect to call for a technical "minimal" intake of fat, as fat, salt, and sugar can be ingested in higher amounts than minimum requirements with no ill effect.

Apollo 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Editor, Daily Health Report

This is worse than I thought. "an unhealthy diet, made up of . . . excessive amounts of . . . polyunsaturated fat." ?!?

Apollo 16:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Healthful

I do not know how much of the healthy-healthful debate has occured here. Although widely used when refering to a healthful diet, healthy food is food that is alive. Healthy food would scream when it is eaten! The correct word is healthful or nutritious. I suggest that the article would be better placed under "nutritious diet" or "proper diet" and the word healthful be used as the adjective to describe foods which promote health.--Counsel 16:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. I was considering a mention myself, for the sake of technicality. --AWF
Oh for goodness sake.... Healthy
Healthy - 1. enjoying health and vigor of body, mind, or spirit: well
He was father to three healthy daughters.
2 conducive to health
A healthy diet and exercise can help to maintain proper weight.
3 evincing health
HEALTHY FOOD IS NOT FOOD THAT IS ALIVE any more than red food is food that is communist. Words have more than one meaning. Which meaning is meant is derived from context. Healthy is not incorrect. aussietiger 05:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Globalize

Hi everyone! I've added an extra paragraph to remind you all that this is an Encyclopedia for everyone in the globe, and a US-bias panel just in case someone else can bring in some variety in POV. Congratulations for your good work to date. Cvalda 00:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

First two paragraphs

I found the first two paragraphs to be quite problematic. I tried to help, I'm not sure how successful I was, but there you have it. Maybe someone else can have a go at it.

Steve Lowther 07:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Healthful?

Heh, hello. You may be aware of how i re-boosted this article. I'd just like tosay that the majority of the sources which i used were from a book called a Human Perspective on Nutrition, and it's an english publication. I haven't really read the article through since i did my last edit on it some many aeons ago, but if it is american based, then i'm sure there's a lot of other things to add into it. Unfortunately, there are countries which do not have such a communal and central approach or view of a healthy diet; I only have experience in British, American and, to a small extent, Japanese health perspectives, and interms of Nutritional and dietetic experience, UK and US. I'll hopefully be revamping WP:NAD, but as of now i'm concentrating on expanding Physiology and Medicine based articles after receiving my qualification as a Physician.

If any of you needs any guidance for the article, please don't hesitate to drop me a line! James S 21:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just like to follow up to say the "Healthful" debate has not raged amongst the nutrition community which i'm privvy to (Old workplace) Upon asking, they said it was an expansion of the "Friendly Bacteria" idea that was put forward due to L Casei Immunitas and soforth. It's most likely just slang, so please try to filter through what are commonly accepted terms, and what arent. A healthy diet generally means a diet which promotes health to the best extent possible through a balanced diet that provides you with energy equal to that of the amount of exercise you do. If you harvest plants, they're "dead" as you remove their source of gaining nurients and their respiration and photosynthetic potential is very low.
I urge you; as a dietician and a man of medicine, if you are wanting to change facts in such an article SUPPLY REASONING AND SOURCES.
James S 21:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Rewrite

It looks like I can be useful here. My intention is to rewrite and expand the article into a more universal, and somewhat more rigorous, treatment of healthy dietary principles. Hopefully by the time I'm done all the claims will be adequately referenced and the tone and organization will be consistent.

This looks like a pretty big job -- already I notice that there are no entries for "refined carbohydrate" or "complex carbohydrate" -- so any and all productive co-workers will be appreciated.

I don't have a lot of time so this will be piecemeal and I already have entered a bunch of unreferenced data off the top of my head. I've already messed up the footnotes but if nobody else gets to them, I'll eventually get them consistent. Apollo 18:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Healthy diet?

Is this a joke? How on earth can one expect to be healthy when dieting?

Do not merge with healthy eating, for the love of all things sacred. Chris 18:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Note: This user was blocked indefinitely for trolling shortly after this comment was made.

Why? ChrisWright1979 = user:cjwright79 (don't call me a sockpuppet, I'm being up-front)

Merge

I think the merge is a great idea. The healthy eating article is currently full of unsourced material, but weeding it all out would leave us back with a stub. This article on the other hand is well sourced with a better structure and balance to the information. Plus the two terms mean the same thing! --Siobhan Hansa 08:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No Bad Foods?

This is currently under the section "Foods": There are no foods which are intrinsically linked on a singular-consumption basis to illness, disease or decline of body function. Yet, there are foods, such as fugu, which when improperly cut or prepared can result in death. In essence, "there are no bad foods"[5].

Doesn't the middle sentence of this paragraph directly contradict the opening and closing sentence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glippy00 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I think it's it's more badly worded than anything. The issue with fugu is the way it is prepared. I guess it's the same as eating something that's infected with bacteria or which one has an allergy to. It could kill you on a singular-consumption-basis, but it's not the food itself, it's the allergic reaction or the bacteria. Personally, whatever was meant, I don't like this sentence. Falsetto 17:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Offline CopyEdit

I will spend some time today copyediting this article offline... JeffC 17:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Phew, that was a lot of work :-)

Mostly I found myself combining redundant text in various different paragraphs. I spent a lot of time rearranging and reorganizing sections, and attempted to take a neutral POV on all sections.

Note that the article needs to be re-wikified and re-referenced (I left the References in the bottom sections, just the "pointers" to them need to be re-established). JeffC 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-wikified. Somebody else can certainly redo the references if they'd like to :-) JeffC 04:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate

This line: "its a fact chocolate is good for you" has been taken out of "Nutritional Overview" because it seems to be entirely random and have no place there. Falsetto 17:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oranges picture juxaposed

In reading this article, I found it strange that the section discussing the importance of a balanced diet and not eating "just one thing" has a picture of a huge bowl of "just oranges" next to it. Not a big deal, obviously, but if someone can scare up a picture of a balanced meal or some such, it would help better convey the point. --87.74.88.40 10:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Nutritional overview

Hey everyone. I'm concerned by the opening line of "Nutritional overview" which states: "Generally, a healthy diet will include:". I believe this should read more along the lines of "Generally, health professionals advise that a healthy diet will include:".

As the statement reads currently, it implies that the list of guidelines that follows is globally recognised as correct. Although the use of the word "generally" may be intended to indicate "Generally it is believed that a healthy diet should included:", I think it would more readily be interpreted to mean "Barring exceptional cases or variability between individuals, a healthy diet should include:".

For the most part the list makes very generalised statements that are essentially beyond reasonable debate. It makes no specific comments on the types or quantities of nutrients, particular poisons or carcinogens and so on, which is a good thing as there are various views on these details. Item 2, however, specifically states that saturated and trans fats should be avoided. While there is little debate over the healthfulness of avoiding trans fat, this is not true of saturated fat. As noted later in the talk page under "First sentence", some health professionals advocate for the unrestrained consumption of saturated fats and others specifically recommend the consumption of saturated fat for health purposes. To use the word "avoiding" in relation to saturated fat as well as in relation to poisons or carcinogens is misleading. There is no reasonable debate over the healthfulness of consuming poison or carcinogens; there is a debate over the role of saturated fat in human nutrition. Since I am new to this forum I do not intend to make any edits to the page, but would be interested to hear others' views on this point.

Secondly, I believe listing Vitamin A as a potential toxin is also misleading. The wikipedia retinol page [[3]] has a good run down of the problem. What is important to note is that Vitamin A deficiency is a far greater public health concern than toxicity. Putting Vitamin A alongside alcohol as noteworthy toxins is misleading, and may unfairly skew the casual reader's view of this vitamin. It would not be prudent to rank "Alcohol, water" as toxins or "Alcohol, cabbage", even though these statements would be true (eg as noted in talk page, a person can become ill or die from over hydration. Excessive consumption of cabbage can cause goiter). I think this should be amended. Zeroin147 08:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. I encourage you to be bold and make the edits. You can present your exact proposed edits here on the talk page first if you want to be more cautious. I might come back and edit the article later. --Coppertwig 02:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about my first comment and thought perhaps it was unnecessary, given that the basic nutrition guidelines are pretty generalised. However, looking at statements like "but not so excessive as to result in fat storage greater than roughly 12% of body mass", I feel this is not sufficiently general and so I propose to change:
1. "Generally, a healthy diet will include:"
to
Generally, a healthy diet is believed to include:"
2. "Sufficient fat, consisting mostly of mono- and polyunsaturated fats (avoiding saturated and "trans" fats) and with a balance of omega-6 and long-chain omega-3 lipids;
to
"Sufficient quantities of monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat and saturated fat, and avoidance of trans fat."
3. "foods or substances with directly toxic properties at high chronic doses (e.g. ethyl alcohol, Vitamin A);"
to
"foods or substances with directly toxic properties at high chronic doses (e.g. ethyl alcohol);" --Zeroin147 04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki pranksters

Somebody edited it and replaced a bunch of words with "cheese"

EgoBiboAqua 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Complete mess

Is there any chance we can change this to a referenced piece similar to this ? ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 10:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fresh vegetables" picture

Can somebody find a picture of actual vegetables to suit the picture text? Bell peppers, tomatoes and chilis are fruits.

10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I soooo agree!!! You need to explain in your article, which are fruits and which are vegetables.--Mary Di Valerio 18:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Meal frequency...food resources...and poverty curbing....

I would like to appeal to the people of the developed or fairly developed countries to reduce one meal on public holidays, who is not working, nor at medication, travel and sports matches. Let's say if 30% of the people on the earth to achieve this goal, imagine how much food resources which we can save, and which can be redistributed to the poor people? Further more, how much stresses and land that can be eased and saved for agriculture production?

If one thinks there might be potential health risks for this campaign, I suggest to conduct a scientific research on the defined people who are of 3 meals a day and ones who have already been conditioned as 2 meals a day to see what results are.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.24 (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)