Talk:Dieting/Archive 2

Can anyone verify or clarify the claim that one pound of muscle burns 14 kilocalories per pound per hour? This seems rather odd, as that would mean that a person with only 10 pounds of muscle in their whole body would be burning 14 X 24 (hours) X 10 (pounds) = 3360 kilocalories per day. And that is without even getting out of bed. Since most people burn in the vicinity of 2000 - 3000 kilocalories per day total, this figure seems improbable. Is the proper figure 14 calories (not kilocalories) perhaps? Is there a source available for this information? Boxter1977 (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick googling gives two ([1],[2]) reliable-ish links that both claim muscle burns about 6 (kilo)calories per pound per day. Those links also note that the common wisdom was about 50-60 (kilo)calories per pound per day. Even though the difference is 10x, they are still far from 14 kilocalories per pound per hour. Maybe someone by accident added 'per hour'?

Using these figures, we can estimate that 10 pounds of muscle (4.6kg) would consume somewhere between 60 and 600 kilocalories per day. Based on my own personal experience, I'm inclined to trust the lower end of the scale, but conventional wisdom (born out of a possible desire to sell books?) usually goes with the higher end. Baeksu (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This Talk section and the related section of the main page are on the wrong page. These issues are discussed in Basal_metabolic_rate.

This (and all other English language articles) should use the metric system with (Kg and joules) with the USCS units (pounds and kcal) in parentheses. Articles that are not in English should only use metric units.

There is no simple answer to Joules/Kg per hour (kcal per pound each hour) used by a muscle. All muscle cells contract periodically (often referred to as muscle tone). The rate at which the cells contract varies greatly so the energy used by a resting muscle over time is not easily estimated. The contraction rate of a resting muscle cell depends on the amount of use of the muscle cell in the past few hours. Each muscle cell also uses energy for basic cellular functions. Muscle cell metabolism depends on hormone levels, oxygen saturation, blood electrolytes, blood glucose levels, blood CO₂ levels and the levels of toxins and metabolic byproducts (such as lactic acid). The mass (weight) of a muscle includes fascia (connective tissue) and scar tissue which use little or no energy. Heavy weight lifting increases the number of muscle cells, the thickness of the cells, and the amount of scar tissue in the muscle (excessive strain on a muscle damages muscle cells, which triggers the growth of new muscle cells and often creates scar tissue). Drbits (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dieting. 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://web.archive.org/web/20100527093414/http://www.mypyramid.gov/guidelines/index.html to http://www.mypyramid.gov/guidelines/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dieting. 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://web.archive.org/web/20141227090756/http://www.al-mawrid.org/pages/articles_english_detail.php?rid=196&cid=330&search=fasting to http://www.al-mawrid.org/pages/articles_english_detail.php?rid=196&cid=330&search=fasting

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How the body behaves to different types of food is also genetically determined. So the question arises on whether we shouldn't mention this, and the fact that some people may decide to pick a diet based on their genetic makeup. See https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/could-a-dna-test-help-you-get-fitter/ KVDP (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest to update this entry given the extensive details given in the AHA/ACC/TOS 2013 guidelines for obese and diabetic individuals[3]. I already added a succinct description in the intro, but it should supercede a lot of the outdated info currently present in other sections IMHO. --Signimu (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Hello, I remind you the discussion on intermittent fasting, the NIA sourced sentence you reverted[4] is valid, the article warns non-obese individuals that would like to undertake such diets. This is to be put in the context of the official US guidelines of recommended continuous dieting for obese individuals[5]. --Signimu (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEDE. Ledes are meant only to summarize bodies, so parachuting content in there is not good, especially when it is not good. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I honestly fail to understand how writing that the NIA does not recommend dieting for non-pathological conditions may not be good nor fit for the lede. --Signimu (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, here is a great review PMID 25293593 with some interesting content to add, if someone would like to have a closer look. Here are some excerpts:

• "Whether to select a low-carbohydrate or a low-fat diet may be based on whether the patient is insulin resistant or insulin sensitive."
• "Achievement and maintenance of a healthy body weight is not easy. There are numerous factors that impact metabolism. A “calorie” is not always a “calorie.” Calories from foods that are less satiating can lead to overconsumption. Macronutrient distribution can affect satiety and therefore intake and resultant weight loss. With regard to energy balance, “isocaloric” is not necessarily “isometabolic.” Low–glycemic index and low-carbohydrate diets can beneficially affect REE and TEE. Individuals who are insulin resistant may have better weight loss and maintenance with a low-carbohydrate diet compared with a low-fat diet, but a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet may be more effective for insulin-sensitive individuals. High-risk patients should be medically supervised and carefully monitored. Ultimately, the best diet is the one the patient will follow and incorporate into his or her daily life for lifelong maintenance of a healthy body weight." --Signimu (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the introduction begins with a sentence that is garbled and makes no sense. Normally I would rewrite it to express the thought more clearly, but this one is so badly garbled that I can't figure out what thought it originally was meant to express. How should this problem be handled? The sentence is: "Short-term dieting result on average in a meaningful long-term weight-loss, although more limited because of gradual 1 to 2 kg/year weight regain." ((Thanks in advance for any help/advice.)) Stephen.R.Ferg (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think most people need any vitamin pills. Such may be useful to people living on an unbalanced diet. Vegans also need dietary supplements containing certain B-vitamins. But for the majority of people vitamin pills are probably more harmful than beneficial. This is due to the different ways the body absorbs vitamins form food and pills. The digestive system only absorbs as much vitamins from food as the body needs. If the vitamins comes in pills the digestive system absorbs all of it regardless if the body needs it or not. Since excess vitamins can be harmful you should not take any vitamin pills if your diet is already balanced. I eat a balanced diet myself and I don't think I have taken any vitamin pills since the onset of puberty.

2009-09-25 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

While I do agree that vitamin pills may not be needed if someone has a healthy diet, one of these diets may cause people to gain an unbalanced diet. I

would like to add information under the adverse effects topic explaining that creating an unbalanced diet may also cause the need for dietary supplements or other medicines. Most information added will be from <https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/WYNTK-Consumer/></https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/WYNTK-Consumer/> Poryfruit (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I added a small paragraph about Dietary Supplements under the Adverse Effects category . I thought supplements should be mentioned since they could be used if a diet is unbalanced. If it doesn't really work or if we can make it fit more cohesively into the article, I am always ready for solutionsPoryfruit (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that this Wikipedia article seems to have a problem with the overpopulation of references. I was wondering what was the need for so many references and is it possible to take some of them out?Poryfruit (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Poryfruit - I reformatted your comment slightly, we don't start with a space. See WP:TPG for more on using talk page effectively.

Can you be specific about what you mean by 'overpopulation of references'? Perhaps provide some examples of what you mean? Generally speaking, our verifiability policy requires that every assertion of fact requires a citation to a reliable source to support it, although a certain amount of leeway is given for exceedingly obvious statements like 'the sky is blue'. In some cases however, it can be desirable to remove references - for example, if a fairly straightforward and uncontroversial assertion is supported by a reliable academic source, it might be better to remove additional cites if they are going to less reliable sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Girth Summit, Thank you for responding! I wouldn't say it's a problem but at the top of the wiki article it says that this article relies too much on references. While they are helpful I don't think all of them are needed. One example of a reference that may not be needed is in the first sentence of the article where someone referenced the action of "eating. We all know what eating is so I don t think it needs to be referenced. Poryfruit (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Poryfruit The note at the top of the article says that it relies to much on primary sources. The problem with that is that, as an encyclopedia, we prefer to use secondary sources. So, for example, instead of referencing a research paper written by the person who performed the research, we prefer to use things like meta-analyses or review papers. I haven't read through the sources to see which ones are primary, but if that's something you'd be interested in doing, and looking for alternative ones, that would be great. It would be worth taking time to read WP:MEDRS, which are the guidelines for identifying good sources for biomedical assertions. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure!Girth Summit I think I could look over it and if I have any questions or concerns, I will come back and we can discuss.Poryfruit (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Poryfruit. Hello friend. WP:MEDRS is quite complicated. For medical sources, here's a quick summary: any study or clinical trial is going to be a primary source (the kind of sources we want to avoid). Any review article, systematic review, or meta-analysis is going to be a secondary source (the kind of sources we want). The quickest way to find good medical secondary sources is to use PubMed and tick the following 4 filters: meta-analysis, review, systematic review, MEDLINE. Writing good medical articles is a lot of work and very technical. But I hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Novem Linguae! Thankyou, this will definitely help me for the search of secondary sources. I wanted to ask if the source I added in is a primary source or secondary source. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/WYNTK-Consumer/ .Poryfruit (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Poryfruit, that one looks good. If you read the nutshell for WP:MEDRS, it describes the 3 types of MEDRS sources. In my opinion, this one falls under "medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies". Keep up the good work my friend. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Novem Linguae and Girth Summit! I have come across a problem with three sources 10,12, and 14:

10. Jennifer Petrelli; Kathleen Y. Wolin (2009). Obesity (Biographies of Disease). Westport, Conn: Greenwood. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-313-35275-1. 12.Foxcroft, Louise (2014). Calories & corsets : a history of dieting over 2,000 years (Highly cited book). Profile Books. ISBN 978-1847654588. Lay summary 14. Elliott Proctor Joslin (2005). Joslin's Diabetes Mellitus: Edited by C. Ronald Kahn ... [et Al.]. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-7817-2796-9. Retrieved 20 June2013.

I am not sure if these are all secondary sources. Specifically Citation 12. From my view, it looks like citation 12 references both the original source and a secondary source. The link, Lay Summary, goes to the secondary source and the other link within the citation goes to a primary source. I wanted to discuss with you guys so I can further grasp what can be done to better this article and if my intuition was right on this citation.Poryfruit (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Poryfruit. 12) looks fine. Analysis by historians is usually secondary, unless they're publishing a source document word-for-word. Please see WP:PRIMARY for the detailed definition. Historians aren't usually going to be "closely connected to the event" so it's hard for them to be primary. 10) also looks fine. 11) does look primary, but is not making a medical claim, so doesn't need strict enforcement of MEDRS. You could remove it for being WP:UNDUE and USA-centric though. Or you could improve the citation... maybe this survey's results are mentioned in a secondary source. 14) looks okay. The name of the chapter is "the history of diabetes", so that sounds secondary. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright I think I am starting to get the hang of this. I wanted to point out that citation #24 and #35 seem to have outdated links. If links are outdated, should they and the information they added to the article be taken out? I also noticed a few citations were book links. An example of such would be citation #18. Are those considered to be accepted citations?Poryfruit (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Poryfruit, good questions as usual. Nope, you can go ahead and leave the dead links in. I think the best way to handle these is to add {{Dead link}}. This will signal to our bots that these citations need to have an archive-url= added to them. I wouldn't worry about the book links. I don't know if it's technically correct to link directly to a book website instead of using the link in the ISBN field, but it should be OK for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)