Talk:Healthy diet/Archive 1

message: - "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  and studies from Japan have implicated them in the high incidence of stomach and throat cancers there 
[]. - 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Bad" food? 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Why can i never keep it short :-/ 

message: 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)
thread_title:  However 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: I will say

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This has been flagged for copyright issues? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reform and Points which need re-changing 

message: Spum 14:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sections need merging into intro, then the following sections expanded again. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: 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:
# Philip Morris USA Inc. [6601 W. Broad St. Richmond, VA 23230-1701] 804-274-2000
# R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. [401 N. Main St. Winston-Salem, NC 27102-2990] 336-741-2000
# 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.
* http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/profile/713_1442.html
Spum 15:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This conspiracy is no theory 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Globalize 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First two paragraphs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No Bad Foods? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chocolate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oranges picture juxaposed  

message: Somebody edited it and replaced a bunch of words with "cheese"
EgoBiboAqua 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki pranksters 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Fresh vegetables" picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Meal frequency...food resources...and poverty curbing.... 

message: Tip 4 caught my attention, especially since "evidence" was placed in quotes... Jonberling (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable wording 

message: 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)
thread_title:  delete everything i say 

message: 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)
replies: text: Disagree just needs work.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
thread_title: Improvements 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Which term covers all, ....or which term targets the [[public health]] and green environmentals ??? 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A red link in the ''See also'' section is associated with the following.... 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  A branch of dietotherapy.... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Why does the current status follow the "recommendation" format? Mac520 (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's a wiki and can therefore be edited by anyone, including people who are unfamiliar with our policies.  Feel free to fix it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatty acid consumption 

message: The article currently does not mention anything about refined carbohydrates vs. complex carbohydrates.  It talks about sugars, although for the purposes of diabetes, obesity, heart disease, anxiety, and other chronic conditions, simple starches like white bread or skinless potatos have a high glycemic index just like sugars and have similar negative effects on the body.  Where would be a good place to find an authoritative source commenting on this?  Cazort (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the problem is that the article relies solely on information from the World Health Organization, which has a vested financial interest in keeping people sick and therefore pretends that all carbohydrates are equally healthy, regardless of their complexity. If you do find authoritative sources commenting on the difference between refined carbohydrates and complex carbohydrates, don't bother trying to add them to the article, as the article's owners will revert you, calling the information "fringe theories" and "non-notable". 85.178.90.117 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  no mention of refined carbohydrates 

message: Yo-yo dieting is psychologically upsetting for people and lends to a lack of self confidence. Researchers from 8 countries in Europe have found a relationship between the angiotensin-converting enzyme and the studied women's weight. The higher the level of enzyme the women were found to have, the easier they found maintaining a healthy weight. The journal PLoS ONE reported that there are 8 other proteins were also linked to successful weight maintenance. The research now focuses on strategies that help people who need to keep the weight off in the long term rather than subsisting with initial weight loss.
The above was removed from the article as it is neither sufficiently developed in science nor referenced adequately.--Zefr (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Yo-yo dieting

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: And doesn't metioned fruits and vegetables?  That I cannot believe! ShoesssS Talk 01:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be careful about saying fruit is healthy. See http://drbenkim.com/articles-fruit.html And I would also be careful about saying vegetables are good as if they all were. See http://www.activz.com/todays-fruits-and-vegetables-lack-yesterdays-nutrition/ Most discount grocery bought vegetables are just water containers, where the nutrients have been grossly eliminated due to cheaper soil replenishment farming. I think generalized statements like "fruit and vegetables" = health should be carefully linked to recommendations by government and health organizations, and not automatically tossed around like the truth. Also, if nutrition was just about vitamins, then vitamin supplements should have some kind of effect, but it's hard to find any study showing that vitamin supplements have any kind of short-term or long-term benefit. 8.21.178.113 (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete please 

message: Why is the American Heart Association's recommendations listed? The list of Nutritional guides is vast. Could someone delete that section? Lionfish0 (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: American Heart Association

message: I think rather than try to conclusively define what constitutes a "healthy diet" this article should discuss the concept of "healthy diets" throughout history and various proponents of "healthy dieting" or "healthy eating". If you start talking about what constitutes a healthy diet, we get into the editorialized world. But talking about how "healthy dieting" was introduced as a government responsibility, how/when it was enacted, the history of the U.S. food pyramid, and other "healthy diet"-related topics, I think you can provide a valuable encyclopedic entry for the concept as a whole. There is no way we can conclude what exactly is "healthy" but we can explain the story of "healthy diets" in the culture of mankind. This would be a similar treatment to "Extreme sports" where the article does not try to define what is extreme or what is not extreme and rather objectively looks at the topic in relation to society and history as a whole. Also, this angle allows for interesting treatments of cultural differences between what constitutes a healthy diet, such as ancient Asian principles, Mediterranean principles, Egyptian beliefs, and other historically significant beliefs of what makes a diet healthy.  --8.21.178.113 (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a fantastic idea. Treating the history of this concept would provide a lot of new, useful information that is not just the same stuff from Human nutrition, which can remain as a scientific account of the nutrients humans actually need. 50.137.113.187 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Healthy diet as a study of interest

message: The description in the article on the image :File:Colorfull.jpg was recently changed to "vegetables", which I reverted back to "fruits"; however, the description of "vegetables" has again been inserted.  The problem is that the image is of peppers and tomatoes; which, botanically, are correctly labelled as "fruits" (although, granted, for culinary purposes, they are frequently mislabelled as "vegetables").  Rather than immediately correct this again, I wanted to bring it up here for discussion.  Perhaps the better solution is to get an image that contains produce that better meets the botanical definition of vegetables so that there's no confusion, such as :File:Veggies.jpg ... even :File:Marketvegetables.jpg would be better, as it contains true vegetables in addition to the tomatoes and other botanical fruits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Common usage is fine.  My problem is not that they are all technically fruits, but they are restricted to two groups within the nightshade family. Wikipedia is not bound by Nix v. Hedden, but I a reminded that knowledge is the fact that a tomato is a fruit—wisdom is not putting tomatoes in fruit salad. Of the two images you suggested, I'm partial to the first. The goal is to show fruits and vegetables. Wikimedia has a good selection of images and my favorite (not a strong preference) is this one: :File:West Show Jersey July 2010 45.jpg. I agree that we need a different image, but the caption was fine: it reflected the focus of the article.Novangelis (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for my mistake, and thank you for pointing out the facts.  I'm going to look on other pages for pictures of vegetables, especially leafy greens, allium, and cruciferous.  How about saying "fruits and vegetables" in the meantime?32cllou (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There, hope that's OK using a picture from vegetables.32cllou (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the tomato/pepper photo is excessive after the fruit and vegetable photos.Novangelis (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First image caption 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: seconding thisFennfoot (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Why does anyone think it belongs? Seems like an overly promotional, self-published website by a non-notable person. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ronz: I agree it has no value = WP:ELNO. --Zefr (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: nutritionfacts.org

message: Just out of interest, if someone complained that the WHO guidelines were given before the American Heart Association or Harvard University, that the writer is "one upping" WHO for no reason, what would the response be? Is there a method for the way in which we decide what is included first or later in Wiki? 182.255.99.214 (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's common in medicine for different organizations to issue their own guideliness even though they are aware of the others in the specialty. The usual reason is that although they overlap substantially, everyone has their own portion of details that they want to give more emphasis to, or a particular recommendation that someone else didn't make. Comparing all these largely-overlapping-but-slightly-different guidelines keeps people like the National Guideline Clearinghouse, and the evidence-based medicine academic physicians who use it, perennially plugging away. And then there's the challenge that, for many health care topics, you can do systematic reviews on a topic today to build a new guideline, and 5 or 10 years from now, it could stand to be done again. For example, you could do one for diabetes mellitus in 1995 and you think you're all set, and then someone goes and invents a whole new class of drugs—10 years later, back to the literature for another round! Quercus solaris (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One upping" other health organisations (e.g. WHO "one upping" Harvard or Heart Association) 

message: intake of what ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwalvekar (talk • contribs) 10:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "WHO recommends few standards such as an intake of less than 5 grams per person per day so as to prevent one from cardiovascular disease. "

message: I am new to editing. Do you think this website would be a good resource to reference to on the actual healthy diet article itself: spiralizer.com.au? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausnz (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the spam link. And no.  WIkipedia is not a vehicle for advertising anything. Jytdog (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: question

message: Healthy diet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leafy green, allium, and cruciferous vegetables are key components of a healthy diet
Common colorful culinary fruits. Apples, pears, strawberries, oranges, bananas, grapes, canary melons, watermelon, cantaloupe, pineapple and mango.
A healthy diet is one that helps to maintain or improve overall health.
A healthy diet provides the body with essential nutrition: fluid, adequate essential amino acids from protein,[1] essential fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, and adequate calories. The requirements for a healthy diet can be met from a variety of plant-based and animal-based foods. A healthy diet supports energy needs and provides for human nutrition without exposure to toxicity or excessive weight gain from consuming excessive amounts. Where lack of calories is not an issue, a properly balanced diet (in addition to exercise) is also thought to be important for lowering health risks, such as obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cancer.[2]
Various nutrition guides are published by medical and governmental institutions to educate the public on what they should be eating to promote health. Nutrition facts labels are also mandatory in some countries to allow consumers to choose between foods based on the components relevant to health.
The idea of dietary therapy (using dietary choices to maintain health and improve poor health) is quite old and thus has both modern scientific forms (medical nutrition therapy) and prescientific forms (such as dietary therapy in traditional Chinese medicine).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.85.238 (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: unclear what the remark above is about....Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: This is a very informative article about healthy diet. I would recommend more neutrality on the "Recommendations" section since it currently looks like it is written from a personal point of view.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangtruong (talk • contribs) 04:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the article 

message: The assertion "The Western pattern diet... is unhealthy" is not scientific.  The Western diet (and steady supplies of food) is generally agreed by researchers to have led to increases in height, muscle mass, better bone health and longevity and earlier puberty (for good or bad), among other things.  There are drawbacks of course, but the positive influences need to be mentioned.  At the same time the diet is changing with Americans taking in more fruits and vegetables and perhaps eating better than European counterparts -- which should be addressed in the main article, Western pattern diet.Skingski (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unhealthy diets 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Healthy diet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69bS0fblI?url=http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/index.html to http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707013735/http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates/index.html to http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024100927/http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/calcium-and-milk/index.html to http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/calcium-and-milk/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121216061255/http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2007&chid=71&coid=707&mid= to http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2007&chid=71&coid=707&mid=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: More diets to facilitate searches who are looking for their specific conditions. specific conditions should have links liked to the explanation of their condition and tips for proper eating according to health condition. Paogc1 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific Conditions  

message: User: Doc James, in these diffs you removed reference to Marion Nestle altogether. I restored what she said in the "other" section, but I kind of think that what she says should go first.  it is entirely mainstream and most importantly, a healthy diet is not a complicated thing and she states this really simply. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marion Nestle 

message: This idea that there's one "healthy diet" is not only controversial, but clearly wrong. You could easily pick 10 different diets from "authorities," all of which say they're "healthy," and all of which are different. Thus, even the existence of this topic is "pseudo-intellectial" and unhelpful. We're perpetually finding that things which were considered healthy are not healthy, and things which were considered unhealthy are considered healthy, and everyone seems to disagree on almost every detail.
Worse yet, such an article is obviously bound to be perpetually out of date, due to variations in "expert" consensus. For example, diets that clearly reverse diabetes are ignorantly disregarded—even outright rejected—by the establishment, and corresponding advice about saturated fats and cholesterol are absurd, as is advice about "healthy grains." Thus, the "healthy diet," in this person's opinion is an outright LIE. 
I propose it's either removed or goes to a page which disambiguates to different diets. 75.166.37.37 (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Article seems fine, and well-sourced. We aren't driven by random editors' opinions. Alexbrn (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embedded controversy in this topic 

message: The only comment I have is in regards to why there isn't there any images to support the article? Nul90 (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Good point. Perhaps you can find some to add. FULBERT (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluating article/Nul90  

message: Wikipedia has an article on Diabetic diet so should this be included under the list of diets for specific conditions? Vorbee (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Diabetic diet

message: This section uses two W.H.O sources which contradict each other. the first ( "WHO and FAO announce global initiative to promote consumption of fruit and vegetables".) attributes 2.7 million deaths to low fruit and vegetables intake, the second one ("Promoting fruit and vegetable consumption around the world") says only 1.7 million Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The original ref was the press release. Changing the ref to point at the conference report itself, it is clear that both sources quote 2.7 million.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Unhealthy diets

message: What should a teenager eat for lunch with a healthy diet? 49.144.108.137 (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a suggestion for this article? This talk page isn't a forum discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  eat for lunch 

message: I will like to see some pics of fruits 207.191.244.145 (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language arts 

message: I think that the transcluded Life extension#Healthy diet section only serves to bloat this article and it also comes with several reference errors because the ref names aren't defined. I would suggest that the section is simply linked to Life extension instead.CV9933 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion reference errors 

message: I think it would be a good idea to provide a bit more diversity among the recommendations and focus on governments or large NGOS - Harvard School of Public Health is well known, but does not make policy, and I don't think the opinion of two individuals is representative (one could fill many pages with individual comments). Wouldn't it be better to haveL
* WHO
* USDA
* EFSA (for Europe) - perhaps also individual countries?
* ideally some other countries as well (e.g. from List of nutrition guides)?
There has been a lot of work in this article, so I don't want to make any changes without discussing it!
Ggck2 (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dietary recommendations 

message: Was looking at this healthy diet article, under section microbiome it says Mechanistically, research suggests that the gut microbiome, which varies per person and changes throughout lifespan, is also involved in the beneficial effects, due to which various diet supplementations with prebiotics, various diverse (multi-strain) probiotics and synbiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation are being investigated for life extension, mainly for prolonging healthspan, with many important questions being unresolved.
The ones who wrote this what do they mean by diet supplementations in this sentence: due to which various diet supplementations with prebiotics, various diverse (multi-strain) probiotics and synbiotics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_diet#Microbiome 118.210.107.193 (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect they mean dietary supplements that contain prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics. ParticipantObserver (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  healthy diet microbiome 

message: Vegan diets do not require eating only plants, and also include fungus and other microbial non-animal life forms, and B-12 supplements / B-12 in fortified foods are created from fermenting bacteria cultures. Therefore I see no reason to include this line. With the "although" at the beginning it is stated as if a contradiction is taking place, but as there is no contradiction, it doesn't seem relevant to make special note of in the into paragraph. Solspide (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the cited source says something like that, but not that the B-12 source must be non-plant. I made a change. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "a non-plant-based source of B-12" line from introduction article.