Talk:Nutritional rating systems

Hype
I tagged a couple of sections that had been previously edited with promotional-type language.

The following edit deleted some information and replaced it with promotional material: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nutritional_rating_systems&diff=prev&oldid=367703565

And there are others.  Sparkie82 ( t • c ) 03:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete protein - Under Section - Protein - link fails OR directed to "Protein combining" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.77.254.81 (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think systems which haven't been researched by an independent source should honestly be removed. Everything besides ANDI and Glycemic Index, seems too disingenuous. 12.168.201.132 (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)eaterjolly1

Healthful Plant-Based Diet Index (hPDI) developed by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
The healthful plant-based diet index (hPDI) was used in a huge new study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. We also created a healthful plant-based diet index (hPDI) where healthy plant foods (whole grains, fruits/vegetables, nuts/legumes, oils, tea/coffee) received positive scores, whereas less-healthy plant foods (juices/sweetened beverages, refined grains, potatoes/fries, sweets) and animal foods received reverse scores. To create an unhealthful PDI (uPDI), we gave positive scores to less-healthy plant foods and reverse scores to animal and healthy plant foods.

Journal articles in refereed journals were co-authored by Harvard Faculty Walter Willett, JoAnn E. Manson, Eric Rimm, and Frank B. Hu. PubMed Health reviewed it. The study was carried out by researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, AbbVie (a pharmaceutical company), and Brigham and Women's Hospital, all in the US. It was funded by the US National Institutes of Health, US Department of Agriculture/Blueberry Highbush Council and the California Walnut Commission, and Metagenic. One author has served on the Scientific Advisory Committees of IKEA, Take C/O, and SPE, and another is also an employee of AbbVie.

"Nutritional value" isn't explained
Please do! I'm not a native English speaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.13.253.82 (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm a native English speaker, and I do not see any definition of nutritional value that can distinguish good food from junk food. The definition of "junk food" is:


 * food that is of little nutritional value and often high in fat, sugar, salt, and calories.


 * However, this doesn't help the reader because the Nutritional value article redirects to Nutritional rating systems without giving any sort of explanation of why "junk food" is bad for us, or why something else is better. There are only warnings that too much sugar, salt or calories can lead to problems. But that is true of eating too much of any kind of food (see Overeating).


 * I'd like to read an article that explains what is valuable in the food I eat, and why I need more "healthy" food like roughage.


 * I'd also like to see some evidence that eating at McDonald's is always going to be bad for me. Is their double cheeseburger too low in protein, or what? Uncle Ed (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe that it is a principle of their pricing model to reuse oil and use high sodium. Over cooking the oil in sodium, increases the savoriness of the food, so I don't think it's a stretch to say it increases the bio-availability of both: I personally haven't noticed any differences in the effect http://www.foodliabilitylaw.com/2010/03/articles/legislation-and-regulation/pepsico-developing-designer-salt-in-effort-to-reduce-sodium-content/ has on my blood pressure from the generic. But, I'm not qualified to make that assertion, so someone should do the research to make sure. 12.168.201.132 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)eaterjolly1

Claimed Rigor Section Has No Reference, Reads Like Promotion
The last section of the article, "claimed rigor," has no references to support the claim, nor any references at all. Recommend the addition of a source for the information or deletion of the section.

A cursory search on search engines reveals a number of Websites with the identical wording of the paragraph.

I do not edit articles; I leave that to those who understand Wikipedia's rules. 76.0.13.242 (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)