Talk:Lifestyle disease

I'm baffled

Quote from Edit summary:

(I wrote this artice. It is 100% philosophy of alternative medicine. I am reporting your vandalism again!)

I'm baffled how he can put "Lifestyle Diseases" in the category of "Philosophy of alternate medicine". If someone can explain the reasoning behind it.... well, I'll be suprised that there was reasoning beyond 'fly-posting' - Xgkkp 10:15, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I shall repeat it one more time. I am the original author of this article.

Philosophy of alternative medicine articles are clearly NOT branches of alternative medicine, nor talking about history or famous people. Obviously, they are articles that talk about the philosophy of the movement or the natural philosophy theories that underlie alternative medicine. Wellness would be a good example, if it was not for its poor writing style and content. Alternative medicine is another classic example of the philosophy of alternative medicine.

Lifestyle Diseases discusses the philosophy behind only one branch of alternative medicine called natural health. It would have nothing to do with other branches, like homeopathy for example. John Gohde 23:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MHN's defintion of alt med includes anthing remtoly related to boilgoy or lifstely that is not part of the pathogen desase modleGeni

This article has a twin which is missing!

The lifestyle diseases article has a twin which is missing! I should know since I wrote both articles. This article has a companion article called modifiable risk factors. It is actually just about the only article on the web that talks about this subject in general rather than going down the list disease by disease. Both articles were originally part of one big web page on on my website. The twin is missing and is going to stay missing. Just thought that you might want to know that my generosity in developing Wikipedia has limits.

And by the way, I have already added the Wellness (alternative medicine) article to my folk edition of Wikipedia. I have also modified it. So, my copy is now better than Wikipedia's. I don't have the time to clean it up every time somebody takes a crap, even on the talk pages. -- 00:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The quote in the article couldn't be more wrong. Less consumption of starchy foods? Since the 1980's and the low-fat dogma pushing starch and sugar is practically all we eat. Oh, and vegetable oil. What we need is certainly not more bread, rice, potatoes and less meat. Exactly the opposite actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.97.142 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

1. WP:TALK
2. Comment made in 2005
3. No Name
4. Might try sending me email.

John Gohde (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

are diseases of civilization and longevity really synonymous?

My understanding is that diseases of civilization and longevity are not exactly the same things. Diseases of civilization, such as diabetes and heart disease will appear at increased rates in all age groups, so calling them diseases of longevity is a bit misleading is it not? Peregrine981 (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur. In anthropology, "diseases of civilization" usually refer to diseases that appear in agricultural societies that do not appear or are rare in foraging societies. Many of these diseases are a consequence of the agriculturalist's close association with domesticated animals (i.e. smallpox), occur because of micronutrient shortages in a narrow-spectrum agricultural diet (i.e. Iron Deficiency Anemia), or because of unsanitary conditions in crowded premodern cities (i.e. cholera). A popular and often quoted resource on this subject is Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Perhaps these subjects should be separated? Bwilreker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC).