Talk:Healthy diet

Comment

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

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

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

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)

Improvements

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...

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. 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
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)

Which term covers all, ....or which term targets the public health and green environmentals ???

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

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=health+promoting+diet&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

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....

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=healthy+eating+index&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

--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 or , since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:54, 6

December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this term perhaps is more appropriate

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=Dietotherapy&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

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

A branch of dietotherapy....

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=herbal+dietotherapy&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Dietotherapy+%E9%A3%9F%E7%96%97%E6%9C%AC%E8%8D%89&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

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

Merger

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)

Extremely biased

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)

Fatty acid consumption

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)