Talk:List of diets/Archive 1

Diet of Worms
What about the Diet of Worms? --rmhermen


 * Well, you know, they say something about it at Martin Luther and Worms, Germany, but this Diet does not seem edible. :-) -- Juan M. Gonzalez 03:22 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)


 * I dunno, I seem to remember something about roasting a bull? Mmmm, ribs! ;) --Brion 03:27 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)


 * Yes tres amusante, but we cannot have innumerable diets added here for othersto fill in: could you research  the diet beforehand,and then addthe information to  save 0thers the task of doing so?

Breatharian diet
The Breatharian diet entry, while very interesting and notable, is not a serious diet: I try to be open-minded, but hey, this diet would be fatal. So I propose that it is either deleted from here,or renamed to signify that it is not really advanced as a serious diet like the other ones on this page. I think it is better categorised as eccentric, as I tried to do, or more basically as fraud. Any comments?

TonyClarke 19:59 23 May 2003 (UTC)


 * some people believe it is a real diet. You and I may think they are bonkers but I don't think this necesarilly entitles us to invalidate their viewpoint. The link belongs on this page as it points to what purports to be a 'diet', I think the article itself makes it clear that it has little credibility. Who knows, perhaps one day a breatharian wiki contributor may actually be able to write a convincing and substantiated article explaining the benefits of prana ;-) - therefore I vote the link stays... quercus robur 21:07 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Surely if an article isn't credible, it shouldn't be included, at least not here... ah well, I see your argument, so if anyone wants to give a casting vote... TonyClarke 12:23 26 May 2003 (UTC)

It should stay, because it clearly is a diet, and some people claim to practice it. Indeed, some people probably do practice it for short periods. Ashley Y 11:04, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

To the person who added the warrior diet: thanks, great, could you tell us a bit about it so we can fillin an entry for it? Or even better, could you do that? Many thanks TonyClarke 00:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this page looking to see if anyone created a warrior diet page yet. I did not add it to this list, but have compiled enough research to fill an entry for it, which i was going to do in the next week or so. Is this a list i can add that diet to? is this list still up or has it been redirected? Gsimon818 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a list you can add such a diet to, especially if an article (Warrior diet?) is created for it. —EncMstr (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I created the page at the above(Warrior diet?), I was going to do some more on it later, there's some new research on Stress activated foods thats really interesting. But anyway, I added it to this list, but it's being redirected to the Paleo diet page, not sure how to fix the redirect though ;o Gsimon818 (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

So i fixed it, there's a wikipedia entry atWarrior diet and a redirect page at Warrior Diet, but instead of redirecting to /Warrior_diet, it redirects to the Paleo diet. I just changed the link to go to the right Warrior diet page, but still not sure how to fix the redirect on the Warrior Diet page.Gsimon818 (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeast control diet controversy
The Candida control diet is the most controversial diet. It has been believed to cause hypoglycemia. Personally, the diet is very detrimental to me. I condemn endorsement of the yeast-control diet due to heavy and controversial restrictions and the diet's road to hypoglycemia. Tedius Zanarukando, 21 Mar 2005, 01:36 (EST).

Junk Food
Is the junk food diet serious? --MosheA 04:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing Beginning
The beginning of the list appeared to be missing (i.e., Sections 1, A, B, and part of C). I added them back in from a previous revision (Revision as of 03:11, 6 September 2007). The revised version has been posted. - 75.10.114.157 13:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean up
I cleaned this up a bit. I removed anything that was either obvious vandalism (Brett Sux) or anything with fewer than 50,000 Google hits. An arbitrary number of hits perhaps, but it seemed like a good cutoff between diets people made up one day and diets that actually had some merit/popularity to them (their own sites, books written about them, they made it to expert diet review sites, etc). --74.137.224.33 (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The number of Google search results is not a relevant metric as you would expect the most recent scientific research to have the fewest pages. --87.112.141.208 (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

List
Not to be anal but I question the merit of this article. I think articles that primarily list things are appropriate if they are intended to educate on a certain point that supports some other article where inclusion of the list in that other article would make it too long. But a list that simply attempts to capture every "widget" that somebody can think of seems to me to be non-encyclopedic and not particularly valuable for this type of work.

So if there is something specific this article is supposed to be educating the reader about, what is that thing and why is there no explanation of what that thing is? If not, can anybody offer a good reason to keep this (i.e. from the perspective that if Wikipedia started to collect lists of every type of thing out there Wikipedia would soon become rather silly)?

Comments?

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. This list sucks, and is the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad reputation. I changed it to a re-direct page for the Category:Diets Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think dietary recommendations for the prevention of specific diseases should be included. In particular, calcium, milk and garlic are recommended for colon cancer prevention and the avoidance of processed meat would also be helpful. This kind of list would be a potential life saver.--87.112.141.208 (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Was this link deliberate

 * Candida control diet - Leads to the article about yiest infections, not a diet plan. Was this deliberate or the case of a merger article gone awry? 76.185.209.4 (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging repeated topics...???
These can be founded in the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.192.130 (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC) What is the diet of worms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.66.138 (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Red links in the See also section are associated with the following....
--222.67.207.71 (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+%22hospital+diet%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.207.71 (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=diseases&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=hospital+diets&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

--222.67.207.71 (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+illness+hospital+diet&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of diets. 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/20110408135457/http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Hindu%20Primer/nonharming_ahimsa.html to http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Hindu%20Primer/nonharming_ahimsa.html

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) 06:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of diets. 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/20120206111201/http://foodhospital.channel4.com/foods/elemental-diet to http://foodhospital.channel4.com/foods/elemental-diet/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209011044/http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Allergies/Pages/Eliminationdiet.aspx to http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Allergies/Pages/Eliminationdiet.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201104446/http://www.matthewsfriends.org/jh/CurrentNNKossoff.pdf to http://www.matthewsfriends.org/jh/CurrentNNKossoff.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211065956/http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/06/your_friday_dose_of_woo_acid_base_or_woo_2.php to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/06/your_friday_dose_of_woo_acid_base_or_woo_2.php

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) 17:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Whole30
Under what subcategory does the Whole30 diet belong?   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think it would best be listed under List of diets. Peaceray (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Foods low in Potassium...
The doctor called with the lab report. He said that my potassium level was up. He said to eat foods low in potassium, or to watch the potassium intake. I am searching to Low Potassium Foods. Sbehel (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Foods by nutrient content (lowest or highest) can be ordered through this useful site which uses data from a previous version of the USDA National Nutrient Database having a similar search function by nutrient content. I find the Nutritiondata.com site easier to use, and one can narrow the search by a click to an individual food category, if desired. This search tool may be useful to add information to the article for different diets. --Zefr (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Too many links to advertisements
Deleted the Cookie Diet because it linked to a page that did not include any diet information. It read like an advertisement that encourages people to go on the website to learn more. This page needs to be cleaned up to remove ads and focus on information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TangleUSB (talk • contribs) 14:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2019
hi 62.252.201.34 (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Note to future editors of fad diets
According to WP:LABEL, we should add diets in the "fad" category, which is arguably a value-laden label, only if there is a widespread use verifiable with reliable sources. This will prevent adding such things as commercial diets such as weight watchers (diet) that are really not fads despite what some may say and despite sharing some of the characteristics (such as selling products). --Signimu (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The “Other diets” section is reaching a state of redundancy.
There’s seemingly needless repeats and also looks very cluttered but I can’t edit the page myself just yet.

My understanding is that “other diets” should serve the purpose of including diets that are not otherwise specified in the article. Redundant Clutter
 * “Alkaline diet” and “Macrobiotic diet” are already listed in the “Fad diet —> food specific diet” and “Fad diet —> other” sections, respectively. They are just without summaries. Should they be ‘merged’ into that section?
 * “Low-fat diets” is listed in the “other diets” section despite already being included in the “Calorie and weight control diets” section.
 * Additionally, there is a “high carb/low fat” subsection in the “Fad diets —> other” section. The first two listed seem to be for weight loss according to description. Additionally, “low fat diets” for a third time in the “Other Diets” section is listed for a third time.
 * “Smart for Life” links to the cookie diet article. The cookie diet is already listed and described in the “Calorie and weight control diets” section. This seems like an unnecessary repeat.
 * “Sugar Busters” is already listed in the “Fad Diets” —> “low carbohydrate”.
 * To keep organization style consistent with the other sections, “Montignac diet” could be made a bullet point underneath “low-glycemic diets”
 * “The Sonoma diet” doesn’t seem necessary since there’s little to no information on it’s page but if it’s kept it could be made a bullet point underneath “Mediterranean diet”.

DietCokeFeast (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

OTHERS Is there anything on "LECTIN FREE" diet? Gordy

The merit of cleaning up the slapdash “Other Diets” section.
Sorry to be so anal but I feel like this section isn’t being utilized properly and it looks unkempt but I cannot edit it myself

” is warranted.
 * I’m perplexed by “Western Dietary Pattern“ being in the “Crash Diet” section. Shouldn’t it be in “Other Diets” since that would put it along with diets such as “clean eating”, “Mediterranean”, “organic foods”, “locavore”, “Okinawa” and “Inuit”? Those are all also eating philosophies/lifestyles and ways of eating that aren’t low calorie diets or otherwise intended for weight loss.
 * this also leads to the question on whether a separate section for “Socio-cultural diet patterns

The “other diets” section should serve as a miscellaneous section but many of the inclusion fit flawlessly or relatively well into above categories.


 * “Slimming world”, “Sparkpeople”, and “Jenny Craig” are commercial weight loss programs much like “weight watchers” and “nutrisystem”, thus they and would fit in with it in the “low calorie diets” subsection.


 * “Negative calorie diets” and “The Shangri-La Diet” are other diets for hunger, calorie, & weight control. If they do not fit in perfectly in the “low calorie” subsection perhaps they could better fit in an “other” subsection within the “weight control diets” section.


 * “Tounge patch diet” fits seamlessly into the “VLCD” and “crash diets” section.


 * I believe “Hay Diet” should be listed under the “food combining” bullet point in the “Fad Diet” section along with “fit for life”.


 * Does anyone else think “MIND” (DASH + Mediterranean) might be better suited in the “Medical diets” section since it was invented for to mitigate and slow neurodegeneration (e.g Alzheimers)? It could stand alone or be a bullet point underneath DASH.


 * If there is a need for “macrobiotics” to be specified as sometimes not being a fad diet wouldn’t it be more fittingly placed in the “Vegetarian diets” or “Semi-Vegetarian diets” rather than “Other diets”? U.S News & Reports describes most variations as “essentially vegetarian” and sometimes “nearly vegan”. The macrobiotic diet article also describes variations permitting occasional fish consumption throughout a week in an otherwise vegetarian diet.

I’m not sure if others would agree but to me there also seems to be inclusions that don’t seem to even be diet patterns. I don’t think they should be included in any section. The macrobiotics article


 * I question if Prison Loaf is a necessary for this page. It isn’t even a diet article it’s an article about one specific meal served in specific circumstances.


 * I’m having trouble figuring out why the person who added “Omnivore” deemed this necessary? It doesn’t link to an article describing a diet pattern. It links to the article on animals physiologically and anatomically adapted to survive on plant matter and animal sourced foods, which applies to all humans. Including it as a “diet” it would be like including This would be like including “carnivore”, “herbivore” “piscivore” “Ovivore” etc because someone chooses to eat that way. It’s also just the normative, default, and conventional way for any diet that isn’t vegan, “carnivore” or fasting so it seems redundant since it describes the large majority of of diets already listed.

DietCokeFeast (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Does not meet Wikipedia's editing standards
This page does not meet Wikipedia's editing standards. It is heavily biased and lists several diets in the fad diet section that are proven diets.

Keto, for example, is proven as a weight loss/control diet, as well as a diet that can control Type 2 diabetes.

Personally, I suggest removing the fad diet section altogether, as I do not believe such a section can ever be 100% objective.

This site is supposed to be unbiased, and it is extremely disappointing to see such poor quality control on this article.

Thank you. --Bomyne (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you have a look at Identifying reliable sources (medicine), then find the type of WP:MEDRS references so that you can add those citations then move the Keto diet to the appropriate location in the article.
 * The way we get better around here is if you see something that is not up to snuff, then fix it.
 * Peaceray (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020
I have found a citation for the "citation needed" in the hacker's diet. It is a short sample from the original work, however I do not know if it was copyright infringement or not... Anyway here's the URL:
 * https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/

The exact copy I want changed is (Citation Needed|date=March 04) to Wikimeedian (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a copyvio, is from the author himself. But I've removed the Citation Needed tag as it is not needed there, the sentence was already citing the book itself by describing it. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: "Proprietary diets" category
Every diet that exists, present or past, already fits into a category, because there just aren't that many possible categories. "Other diets" is currently nothing but a hiding place for items that belong in the fad section, and for a few diets that some particular person has been reluctant to categorize. (For example, the diet of Inuit peoples living in northern areas is either a regional diet or a cultural diet, or perhaps belongs in both categories, but certainly no one can claim that it's neither of those.)

The vast majority of the entries in "Other diets" are fad diets, some perhaps not yet recognized as such because the fads behind them are still current.

Perhaps a category "Proprietary diets" - requiring all diets that have (or had) any ongoing consumer cost associated with them to remain part of that category - would clean up most of the mess, and make the remainder relatively simple to deal with?

Pretending that all diets are self-contained free-floating entities, and that there's no such thing as a for-profit diet industry, is a disservice to readers.

Should the author of a single cookbook automatically be put into the "proprietary" category? I don't think so. Should Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig be put there? Absolutely. In my opinion, for-profit, diet-industry diets need a category. They don't belong in the existing categories. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think "proprietary" is the wrong term. Proprietary means the diet is owned by someone, and implies copyright or exclusive use or permission is required. No diet fits that description.


 * It should be enough simply to consolidate the fad diets in the "Other diets" section into an appropriate subsection in the "Fad diets" section. I note that there are duplicates; for example "Alkaline diet" is listed twice, once in Fad, and once in Other. Whatever remains in the "Other diets" section can simply stay there. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Vegan diet in belief based section?
Shouldn't the Vegan diet be added to, or at least mentioned in, the section on 'Belief based diets', since it's often followed for ethical/ideological reasons?--AwaweWiki (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"See food diet" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect See food diet. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 20:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)