Talk:Western pattern diet

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pand0, Kidneuro777, Baconfry, Ericheilmann, Science428, Deetsbeets, Infocuration.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sherry72.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Needs new graph image

The image of the obesity graph has no year and no source. Yet it is pretty and believable, but not giving a full and accurate picture. And stats change. How will we know when this was valid? Upload date is no proof of creation date or year Kristinwt (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC) ....reply: the chart is inaccurate. mexico is the most obese country now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D173:BAA0:C992:A393:7B12:1F29 (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed this merge based on the similar content of the two articles. The scope of each article is the same. Standard American Diet is a weak article, but contains information that could benefit and expand The Western Pattern Diet article significantly. These two weak articles should be made into one strong article. Since Western Standard diet is the term used in medical texts, and is less America-centric, it should be the merge-to article. F-451 (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the standard American diet should be a SECTION of the western pattern diet (South America doesn't eat like North America) perhaps we should also move western pattern diet to North American pattern diet or something...Wubrgamer (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the merge into Standard American diet (that article should be moved to follow WP naming conventions by the way), Support Wubrgamer proposal. Western refers to America Canada and Western Europe, including the UK and Ireland. The pattern of these countries/regions varies somewhat.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose (both) as Standard American Diet is more of an essay about American obesity, while this is an article on a specific dietary habit. So there's little content to merge. Perhaps if Standard American Diet were a stronger article they might be something to take from it. Also oppose moving, as Western Pattern Diet is the term used in scientific literature, it's not made up for the article. —Pengo 08:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What?

The name "Western pattern diet" makes it appear as though a fast-food diet is the Western diet, which it patently is not. The term has a very neutral, scientific connotation, but the content of the article itself is strongly negative. It is especially disappointing to see the article linked from Fast food restaurant as "Western-style diet," further promoting this misconception. I propose changing the name of this article, removing it entirely, or combining it with the much better European cuisine. At the very least, a search for "Western diet" should not redirect to this page, but rather to European cuisine. aristotle1990 (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you proposing a merge? Then please do so, and be more concise in the wording to avoid confusion. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am proposing a merge with European cuisine. This article would be a section of that page under the name "fast food diet" (such a diet did, after all, originate in the West). All pages that now link to this one would link to that proposed section. A search for "Western diet" would link to the main European cuisine page, not to the fast food section. Again, I would not be averse to simply changing the name of this article. aristotle1990 (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The article does not mention fast food apart for the photo. 2. "Western pattern diet" is the correct name. Googling for "Western pattern diet" gives you a list of medical articles, not European cuisine recipes. —Pengo 09:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hasty reversion

Sorry I reverted this change: [1], but I admit I haven't taken the time to check how valid it is. Only it seems to mess up referenced statements. —Pengo 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Hasty Reversions?

As a modest but regular contributor to Wiki, I am very troubled that several paragraphs added by me yesterday were reverted (also yesterday). Would the person responsible care to clarify why? The material simply emphasized that the standard American diet is a radical departure from our evolutionary pathway diet (in virtually any dietary dimension that one might chose to examine, not simply calories), with a strong likelihood that this is a major factor in the genesis of diseases of aging. In case someone questions my credentials, I teach this material at two medical schools, have a PhD and am not shooting from the hip. Please explain your deletion. Dr Douglas Watt, Harvard Medical School —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.128.8 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are you edits to this article. Firstly, can I suggest you sign up for an account on Wikipedia. It requires no personal information, and would allow other editors to contact you, which I attempted to do. But as you don't have an account (and you appear to have a dynamic IP address), it's difficult to do so. This is what I attempted to contact you with:

Thanks for your contributions to Western pattern diet, but I'm afraid your contribs might need to be deleted. Wikipedia really needs stuff that's written from a neutral point of view, whereas what you've written reads as an essay from one viewpoint, with no references to back it up. Also what you've written goes off topic a bit — there's already an article on the Paleolithic diet. (Pengo 02:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC))

I.e. you've written a bunch of off-topic dot points which would be appropriate as lecture notes but that don't fit in with Wikipedia's style. A comparison with other diets is welcome, but please try to write in a more encyclopedic tone, and remember that Wikipedia is not for original research, and as such "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Having a PhD is nice, but it's not substitute for references. In summary: State your sources. Write in prose. Stay on topic. I look forward to your future contributions. How to reference is covered here: Wikipedia:Cite —Pengo 00:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well Peter, since you reverted the contribution in literally a matter of a few hours, there actually wasn't time to add any references, which was my intent. Further, I am not really convinced Peter that you are qualified (as a computer programmer!) to offer a professional opinion on research into the effects of the standard American diet, which actually is an area of expertize for me. While responding dismissively to a brief summary of the differences between modern and ancient diets as showing a "non-neutral point of view" you use acronyms such as "SAD" and "CRAPS" in your "neutral" and encyclopedic review of the subject? Really!?! That hardly seems to meet even a loose standard for neutrality. I would ask that you return the material you deleted, allow me the courtesy of a reasonable time period to finish referencing, and we'll call it even. If you don't, I may pursue a formal complaint against you. Your response here suggests that you see yourself as acting as senior editor and authority in a subject in which you clearly have no formal credentials. That's troubling in all honesty Peter, and the somewhat patronizing tone frankly doesn't help your case. 207.180.128.8 (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Dr Watt, Cambridge City Hospital —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.128.8 (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that having content removed can be discouraging. But personal attacks and appeals to your apparent authority are not helping your case. The style of your contribution simply was not written like an encyclopedia article — regardless of POV issues and lack of referencing. By all means add it again in referenced, on-topic proses and try not to take things so personally. Everyone has an opinion about diet, and your terse bullet points appeared to be just opinion of someone who had just discovered a fad diet. Your job as an editor is to convince the reader otherwise. If you wish to make a complaint, you can read about the process here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Sorry if I sound condescending but you appear to be new to editing Wikipedia. Please sign your posts. By the way, the SAD / CRAPS content was not added by myself. —Pengo 14:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You have the choice of taking the deletion of your edits as a personal attack on your ego and your status, or you can work to improve your style so your edits are acceptable on Wikipedia. I'm happy to point out what could be improved with your writing if you're willing to listen. You're absolutely correct that I am not a subject matter expert in the area of diet. I started this article with the hope that others could add to it and improve it. But I'm not going to bother with someone who's not going to listen to other editors and ignore Wikipedia's guidelines. If you'd like I'll go through your edits line by line with criticism, but I'm not going to do it just for an argument. I'll do it if you want to actually want to become a contributor to Wikipedia. If you want to continue being upset and indignant, then sorry I've made all the points I can be bothered to make in that context. —Pengo 00:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You really need a reality check Peter. Actually, you are the person who appears not to be listening and who is engaging in attack, from the beginning (your view of the contribution was framed in condescending terms ("bunch of off-topic dot points about a 'fad diet'" - - a really wild statement frankly). Here's the issue from my point of view. If someone simply has trouble with what you have done, and you immediately 'pathologize' that as a sign that someone is pathologically narcissistic (it's just their 'ego' is getting in the way), most people tend to experience that as really offensive.

If you believe that I am concerned more about my 'status' than the actual subject matter (which of course would fit with your pathologizing of me), then you clearly have misjudged me. All this suggests to me that you may rush to judgment Peter. You might consider how you might deal with differences more respectfully and with fewer assumptions of pathology on the part of the other person. I suspect that you will simply dismiss this feedback, but I am confident that you have heard similar feedback from others at some point. Please try to hear it here, not as a 'personal attack' but as something else. At this point Peter, I think you have lost any potential position as teacher or mentor about Wiki ways. Like I said, you REALLY need a reality check. 70.14.16.22 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)DW

Sorry for being as ass. I did not use that phrase you quote. You attacked me on how qualified I am and on my "loose standards" and threatened me with a formal complaint. I was honest and clear about how your edits appeared to me at the time I deleted them, which was answering your original question: "Would the person responsible care to clarify why" I gave you reasons, and why I believe any reasonable editor would have done the same. I was not acting as a sysop/administrator in deleting. I never said you act narcissistically, only that you have the choice to continue this conversation in that way or not. That is, I was asking you to take what I've said about your edits as honest constructive criticism and not as "disrespect". Sorry if it came across differently and that you feel I am not respecting you by saying that. The reason I asked you to do so was so that I could tell you things like that sentence fragment like "Periodic binging (too much tasty food available all the time)" may have merit and be completely true and valid, but is simply not written in the style of this encyclopedia. I would have much preferred to tell you that without couching it in this ridiculously pompous apologetic format. Sorry if I deleted your edits while you were still working on them. If you wish to continue working on it, they can be copied out from the edit history, or from the link I posted above (twice). That's the reason I keep posting that link, by the way. So you can keep editing it. Now do some editing already or fuck off. —Pengo 03:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A serious illness in the family has prevented me from responding until now. You were doing fine, mostly staying on your own territory, until the last sentence. It is clear to me that you can't handle much in the way of formal challenges without losing it, so I think it is best that I recuse myself from any page you are editing, and it might be best if you do the same. You clearly have some problems with managing conflicts and anger respectfully, so I plan on working somewhere else. 209.6.180.11 (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC) DW

Prudent diet?

What is this prudent diet talked about in the article? There is no clear definition. Is it referring to the American Heart Association's prudent diet? The one that failed miserably against the higher in fat Mediterranean diet? Lambanog (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No idea. Here's the edit which first added the term (via WikiBlame): [2] —Pengo 19:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Fung et al. defined a specific "prudent pattern diet" in their article and I have rewritten that paragraph to actually correspond to what the journals read. 9³ (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous section

I just want to say something what has been described in thsi wikipedia article is NOT THE WESTERN DIET.The Western Diet is based on natural non- processed,non-modified foods,like fish,vegetible,fruits etc, What this article is showing the the modern Industrial Diet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.110.116 (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I propose this article be changed to THE INDUSTRIAL DIET i'll tell you why:

I hope I have given good reasons to change this artilce form the Western pattern diet to the Industrial Pattern diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.110.116 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the title is misleading as the Mediterranean diet is no less Western, and this type of diet would probably better be described as "Modern Western (urban?) diet", but we need to use the term most frequently used in sources. My suspicion is that "Standard American Diet" would be a better title, as this is what the article is mostly about. Even a typical modern German diet is, I believe, at least slightly more prudent and less extreme. For example, Germans who visit the US often remark how overly sugary sweet foods are there. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are there vegan messages in the article?

Why does this article include anecdote from vegan doctors about animal fat, animal protein and vegan diets? This doesn't belong here. The references cited do not support the claims and include mostly anecdote (including a book written by a layperson). The studies they cite are small, cherry picked and certainly do not support the claims. Also, there are many studies of a higher methodological quality that say otherwise. There is a discussion about this here: http://authoritynutrition.com/wikipedia-tainted-with-vegan-propaganda/

There are several pages that include these same vegan messages. It looks like someone just went all over a bunch of nutrition pages and copy-pasted the same claims, with the same references. This looks like propaganda written to promote the vegan message, definitely not scientific or objective. It certainly doesn't belong on this page, so I'm removing it. Krassssi (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Good call; I agree that The China Study is pure pseudoscience, but have you ever tried to get some real criticism in there, if only as an external link? Fuhgeddaboutit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Western pattern diet

The Western diet has positive impacts on health which are not mentioned here at all. Increased height, muscle mass, bone health, lifespan, among other things. The positive influences need to be mentioned.

Also, the definition needs to be refined or expanded:

The diet is changing with Americans taking in more fruits and vegetables and perhaps eating better than European counterparts. Which diet is present in formerly eastern diet areas? e.g., A section in Obesity in Mexico finds Mexico is moving from agrarian diets to Western 1950s and '60s diets as part of a progression to current American diets.

Temporal changes: Americans eat less processed food and more fresh fruits and vegetables than they did 30 years ago, due to nutritional research and education, falling food cost and seasonal variations being abolished. And 30 years before that, their diet was different as well.

Regional differences: American diets vary by whether they live in the city, Midwest, coast, etc. and in Food deserts.Skingski (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)(talk)

This is some logic but Wikipedia is based on reliable sources (and in this case, WP:MEDRS sources). We follow what they say. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Health Concerns

There are several other health concerns not addressed here, such as higher risks of asthma attacks, decreased fertility neurological dysfunction and oral cancer.Sherry72 (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Editathon June 17

Just a heads-up that as part of an editathon I'm leading on June 17, new editors might be making some edits to this article. I'll be following up shortly afterwards to check for copyright compliance and other quality issues and will clean up stuff if needed. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Conversion of Units

The Calorie correctly called kilocalorie is mostly used in the U.S. this article does not appear to have any kilojoule units which are used for the remainder of the planet. Avi8tor (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)