Talk:Dietitian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorrect classification and Redirect[edit]

I dietitian is NOT dietetics. Dietetics is the practice of dietary techniques. Just as History is not a "Historian", this is NOT Dietetics. Reccomended that Dietetics be moved back to an article and not a redirect. Spum 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may... I think that fits under 'diet' or 'nutrition' already, right? Dietetics is just the nice word for it used for dietitians. Perhaps you could redirect it to the diet page and make sure that page has a link to dietitians? Tyciol 17:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To surmise; no. Dietetics is a large medical field which encompasses practices of a person's dietary intake. Even in it's simplest instance, in terms of how it is classified in the english language, a dietician is a profession; and therefore that profession should be covered in an article. However, Dietetics is not a nice name, or in fact any name for a dietician, it is a field of study. The magical Spum-dandy 11:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I do pageWatch, no need for my UserPage) What I mean, is currently Dietetics redirects here because there is no Dietetics page. You could make one to replace the redirect, but until then it makes sense to have it link here. The major associations that give the designation 'Registered Dietitian' (the only people authorized to make nutritional decisions at hospitals) use 'Dietetics as their label. If you make the page, I'm uncertain what would happen, but since Dietetics is the study of diet, someone may just say it should merge with diet, or have it redirect there. Tyciol 20:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This scope of the article is very unmerited and poorly defined. I've been researching and writing medieval cuisine for a while, and I was checking out dietetics to scout for a future article on medieval dietetics, but instead wound up here. That it should be merged with diet (nutrition) (which is already being proposed to merge with nutrition) is like suggesting that linguistics be merged with language. The history of the topic alone is reason to keep it separate.
I can't see that there is either consensus or good arguments to support the current format. The article should be cleaned up from all the modern professional dietitan-cruft and moved back to dietetics.
Peter Isotalo 14:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Classical and medieval dietetics - which address a full range of life practices, including bathing, sexual behavior, exercise, etc - are NOT the same as the modern understanding of a theory limited to food. So, no, dietetics in the classic sense is not the study of food; it might more precisely be defined as the study of healthy living. It typically goes along with humoral theory, Galen and other classical/medieval concepts.

69.228.36.198 (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one source that gives a good overview of what dietetics meant in Hippocratic terms:

Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen: Selected Papers 

By Jacques Jouanna

p 138 ff http://books.google.com/books?id=h3W2lK3gZ7YC&lpg=PA17&dq=dietetics%20galen&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q&f=false 69.228.36.198 (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a criticism section[edit]

Recently this was deleted:

Other sources of Dietetics are links to conglomerate companies who try to persuade their products. One must be careful of dietetics as a reliable profession.

I agree it was a crude and obviously somewhat biased and over-inferring addition. Even so, I have heard stuff to this degree, in that people feel suspicious of dietetic institutions, their teachings, and what dietitians are required to teach and not teach to keep their licenses. Since they do receive funding from food companies, some feel it's a conflict of interest. Is there a way to introduce this while reflecting NPOV? Tyciol 17:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

70.31.27.32 07:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC) I am inclined to agree with this statement. This article should emphasize that RDs are the only ones legally obligated to provide accurate information and advice on nutrition, as anyone can call themselves a "nutritionist". It is the choice of individual dietitians to make the call as to whether or not they have ties with industry - which is an absolute conflict on interest, just as it would be a MD promoting a multivitamin.[reply]
However, realize that the governing body (the ADA in the US, DC in Canada, etc) requires its members be cautious of all conflicts of interest, so ALL RDs are required to practice and only supply accurate scientifically based information. You will not see an RD affiliate themselves with a fringe supplement company (in that case, the title would be revoked), but you may see and RD promoting a high fibre cereal for instance.
I think the article really needs to highlight the protected title of an RD, for one. Dietetics is absolutely a reliable profession. It is people who claim to be "nutrition experts" who give the profession a bad name and fuel any such "suspicion" (e.g. Dr. Atkins who had no nutritional background). RDs must receive a thorough education at the university level, complete a full hospital internship, and finally, pass an examination to receive their designation.
Many nutritionists are obligated to provide quality information, not just RDs. Do you mean that if they do it in a hospital setting, they can be prosecuted? Yes, but only in extreme cases of malpractise, like conflicting with medication.
The Dietetic regulatory organizations receive donations from food industries. That potential for bias in influencing the decisions made in the regulatory body and the potential for influence upon the teachings should be taken into account. My concern is not so much with personal bias (though possible, they're not exceptional in that), but that of the regulatory body supposedly avoiding it. What constitutes a scientific base can be altered in recognition by the body, as they interpret it.
Dietetics are not necessarily a reliable profession, as no profession is absolutely reliable. They are likely less biased by any kind of spiritual views though. They also can't get away with any major deviation from established scientific basis. There is still potential for corporate bias and selective scientific evidencing though. Furthermore, whether or not someone is certified is irrelevant. They can still write books and give good advice. Many people making alternative diet plans, while not studying food sciences (as RDs do), instead study physiology, chemistry, biochemistry, etc. and have just as good if not potentially better understanding of the microeffects of food consumptions and nutrient chemical compounds. Tyciol 09:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

70.31.27.32 07:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Absolutely good points - "reliability" can be a vague term, but consider that RDs must adhere to the profession's code of ethics and standards of practice, so in that sense, they may have a different level of obligation than nutritionists (apart from being legally accountable for malpractice). I do not dispute the fact that there are RDs who work in industry to promote the interests of food industry (in fact, if you are examining the influence of the food industry, you simply need to examine the development of the USDA's Food Pyramid itself in Marion Nestle's brilliant book "Food Politics"). Much research done is industry driven and sponsored as well, it is the prerogative of those in the field to discriminate the mediocre from the strong research. Although many others with alternative nutritional advice have good intentions, the trend really has been for these individuals (although intelligent in their own right) to leap too quickly into promoting fringe studies into diet fads. I think perhaps you could call the approach of RDs more conservative - before promoting certain food choices, research is thoroughly reviewed (e.g. numerous large population based prospective cohort studies are examined which all support the same hypothesis rather than one poorly designed study of a small sample size). What drives the multi-billion dollar diet industry is that the public craves the quick fix while the fact of the matter is that eating in moderation well balance nutrient dense meals as a lifestyle is key, and not phases of dieting or supplements with heavily inflated price tags (few people would like to hear this, trust me! wouldn't we love to simply take a pill and eat whatever we wanted?). In my experience, the research cited by those who promote alternate nutritional therapies is not necessarily bad research, but it is simply not strong enough or too preliminary and merely hypothesis generating (e.g. small cohort size, poor study design, poor data collection such as unvalidated food frequency questionnaires or the examination of a single compound in isolation outside of a human subject - issues which will always plague new areas of research in their infancy). Another thing to note is that there are RDs who work within industry because industry can serve as a strong vehicle to promote good nutrition, which is essentually fufilling their mandate as RDs to promote good nutrition (e.g. children's education or breakfast programs, research funding), but this is a large and important issue with all healthcare professionals/researchers; by that same token, there are rediculous nutrition based marketing campaigns out there as well, some which may or may not involve RDs, which I beleive had impact on RD credibility. So then, I suppose the best way to express the NPOV is to highlight the "job requirements" of the profession rather than to state opinions.[reply]

Also I suggest a revision of the "Type of Dietitan" section. Yes, not all RDs "practice" in hospitals (i.e. clinical dietetics) - RDs have thriving careers in private practice, industry, public health, government, education and research to name a few. Diet clerks, diet managers/hosts/workers are not necessarily RDs (and usually aren't in fact, as being an RD is not a prerequisite). I would also suggest a mention of the crudentials a RD must aquire before being given the right to the title of RD.


I, a clinical dietitian, must add a correction to the following comment: "Many people making alternative diet plans, while not studying food sciences (as RDs do), instead study physiology, chemistry, biochemistry, etc. and have just as good if not potentially better understanding of the microeffects of food consumptions and nutrient chemical compounds. Tyciol 09:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)" Dietitians study all the previously-mentioned courses. The whole basis of our courses are to understand the biochemical components of the body and of food components, and to understand the behaviour of these in the context of pathophysiology. All you needed to have done is to check university course outlines. The entries that define dietitians also need verifying. A dietitian is concerned with nutrition and disease, while a nutritionist is concerned with the nutrition of healthy populations. We do not merely 'teach people healthy eating'.[reply]

I also would like to see a criticism section. The "dietetics" degree offered at the University I attend and TA at is just about the least rigorous degree. It requires virtually no math and minimal science. How it's a B.S., I have no idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.99.161.35 (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Country specific & muddled[edit]

In my opinion this article needs a significant rewrite to isolate and make clear the country-specific sections. For example the sections on "RD" & "DTR" are presumably US-specific only as is the entire section on types of dietitian and other nutrition workers. Likewise the qualifications of dietitians and the periods of study vary between countries with the profession not even recognised in some areas. The "professional associations" section makes reference to this and attempts to intruduce some country balance with references to the UK and Australia but this balance needs to be spread across the whole article. Aop27 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RD's not the only credentials to practice dietetics; furthermore, RD's have entry level training because there training is undergraduate. An individual with a masters of doctorate is entitled to license based on their advanced graduate nutrition training. States license dietitians and the RD is not a license it's a credential. The article is inacurate on the routes to dietetic practice. USER?

There are many possible routes to practice dietetics but these depend on the country in which you practice. The English version of wikipedia covers the whole of the english-speaking word so perhaps we need a section on qualifications broken down by each and have dietitians from each of the countries concerned edit those. Certainly it needs to consider the US, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and no-doubt other jurisdictions as well. Aop27 15:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created some appropriate country sub-headings which will permit users to completed details for their own countries without having to continually qualify then with in country X, in country Y. This will allow each country section to be accuarate with the right qualifications, associations etc. In due course though this will lead to the page size growing and a "general dietitics" page with country specific sub-pages.

Any views on this? Is this the right way to go? Aop27 15:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

terminology[edit]

FACTs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietitian (Redirected from Dietetics)

But frWikipedia: (the French word for it) Dietetics = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_diet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietetics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_diet

I'm a little new one in editing Wikipedia, today I've signed in enWikipedia. And the subject is that I'm interested in dietetics, medicine. The other is to learn about enWikipedia structure/hierarchy etc to see it with a wider look. Thanks&Ciao PLA y Grande Covián 06:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dietetics[edit]

Wikipedia needs an article on dietetics! I'm very disturbed to discover that an organization has been given the statutory power to control the usage of the English word "dietitian" (as opposed to "registered dietitian"), but to find myself redirected to this page when seeking information on dietetics is disappointing. Similarly, to find recommendations on how and what to eat in the article "Nutrition" is annoying. Such things are properly considered under the rubric of diet, or dietetics, not nutrition. D021317c 23:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. This is an article primarily about dietetics, not those who practice it. This should be moved, and reworded. An article about dietitians, were one needed, would discuss qualifications needed, career track, and so on, much as the article for physicist does, leaving physics to discuss the dicipline in deapth. I don't have time to go through this article, revising it to the point where it can be moved to dietetics, but if no-one else is inclined to do so, I shall try to return and do that.
Also, the suggestion that there is an "official spelling", as at worst absurd. At best, it describes a non-worldwide view. It may be suitable to say that the spelling "dietitian" is used by certain professional bodies. In fact, I'll edit along those lines. --Che Gannarelli (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Dietician and Diet Consultants122.162.242.87 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more. Being redirected to an article about dieticians when looking for (historical) information on dietetics in the sense of more general regulation of one's way of life is insufficient and misleading. It dismisses the fact that dietetics used to be understood in much broader terms than its current narrow focus on food and nutrients.
To mention just one, i.e. Abū Zaid Hunain ibn Ishāq al-ʿIbādī (808 - 873) was an Arab scholar, who is credited for the sex res non naturales (six non naturals) such as

Food and drink, Air and light, Exercise and rest, Mental stimulation, Sleep and waking, Secretions and excretions

And even Hippocrates (460 - 370 v. Chr.) advocated therapeutic measures such as life style changes, diet, exercise, etc.

Profession versus field[edit]

Agree that the field of "dietetics" should not be synomymous with the profession of "dietitian". Moreover, the article seems biased towards the American perspective, and against the term "nutritionist". Revisions have been made with international/scientific references on the profession of dietitian. Hopefully someone will soon create a new article on the field (and add the link here).Guptan99 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Types of dietitians[edit]

I find the current section "types of dietitians" needs serious revision. It does not really address different types of practitioners in this field, rather they are addressed in the following section on "dietitians in practice". I have added some references here where I could find them. But the "types" section remains unreferenced and unsubstantiated from a worldwide perspective, only focuses on one type of dietitian, and should probably be merged under practicing clinical dietitians. Guptan99 (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the "other nutrition personnel" section with more references and country examples for worldwide perspective. Greater clarity throughout the article between general perspective versus country-specific (mostly US-focused) perspective. Guptan99 (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition (overall) of dietitian[edit]

I am a registered dietitian. I believe the previous definition was not descriptive enough to explain our profession. KimKirchherr (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Usually, unless someone opposes your edits, we have a guideline here called be bold: if you find something lacking, go ahead and fix it. You don't need to inform us on the talk page unless someone disagrees with you, in which case, the talk page here is where you can discuss and reach a consensus. I've taken a look at what you've added, and I tried to make it more objective (by cutting out subjective words like "extensive", or "rigourous", because those are matters of opinion) and cutting down on the repetition (you mentioned places where RDs work around 3 times). Finally, I tried to maintain a distinction between dietitian as a general term, and the actual designation as a Registered Dietitian. Have my changes affected the effectiveness of the definition in your opinion? Brambleclawx 20:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the guidance! Your edits are great. KimKirchherr (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

The majority of RDs work in the treatment and prevention of disease (administering medical nutrition therapy, as part of medical teams), often in hospitals, health maintenance organizations, private practices or other health care facilities.

I find the above misleading and actually false in a lot of ways.

For one hospitals (where majority of Dietitians work) do NOT work in the prevention of disease, more the treatment, such as menu's for specific patient types with diabetes etc.

As a whole people are confused Dietitians vs Nutritionists, it all may be well said that all Dietitians are Nutritionists but not all Nutritionists are Dietitians, but where they specialize is COMPLETELY different. You only have to ring a university that teaches both which I have and they will tell you flat out that a Nutritionist specializes in PREVENTION AND treatment whilst a Dietitian specializes in treatment of diseases. This is why in Australia a Dietitian for example can claim patients under medicare because it is a TREATMENT that is subsidized by the government where a NUTRITIONIST can only be subsidized by a private health fund for future PREVENTION and treatment. I am actually qualified in both but practice a LOT more in prevention rather than what I learnt in my Dietitian ways to treat already existing conditions as I am a strong believer of prevention is the best cure. Either way I want to just clarify the above is the major difference between Nutritionist and a Dietitian so can you please remove they work in the prevention of disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.147.153.94 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

It would be interesting to know the history of how dietitians come about. Is there somewhere on wiki that already talks about this or should I add a section to this page. Blackash (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a couple of links about the history so I don't lose them
Blackash (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note[edit]

Guys - please "sign" your comments. Just type four tildas after your comment - a tilda is the ~ symbol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimadick (talk • contribs) 06:55, 19 April 2017 {UTC) (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Dietitian. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl von Voit, the ‘father of dietetics’ ?[edit]

"The science can be traced back to the early work of Professor Carl von Voit, the ‘father of dietetics’ (1831-1908) who characterised the concept of energy homeostasis and protein turnover, which form the basis of dietetics and medical nutrition today. "

Rm'ing this added claim to talk because I am not finding this to be a cut and dry blanket claim we can put in Wikipedia's voice re:[1][2][3]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What ‘diatetics’ means depends on the context[edit]

Dietetics is still redirecting to Dietitian in 2023, which means that, de facto, Dietitian remains English-language Wikipedia’s article on the subject of dietetics. However, the article currently offers few indications of the historical and cultural diversity of ways of understanding what counts as dietetics.

To only begin to illustrate this diversity, two examples: according to Michael Kent’s Food and Fitness: A Dictionary of Diet and Exercise (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 2016), dietetics is a “branch of knowledge” concerned with “how diet affects health” (this is the view represented in the present wiki article). From a different point in historico-cultural space, meanwhile, Immanuel Kant appeals to a definition of dietetics as an “art” concerned quite generally with “the prevention of illness” (Conflict of the Faculties, 1798, sec. III). From this point of view, dietetics is certainly concerned with eating well, but not to the exclusion of other possible techniques of illness-prevention. What Kant presents as dietetics includes considerations about whether to keep one’s feet warm or cold, whether to sleep a little or a lot, and whether to read or think hard about an intellectual problem while eating (Kant suggests that one should avoid belabouring head and stomach at the same time).

Several editors of this page have already pointed out that the extra-dietary issues that Kant takes up are by no means outliers in relation to the historical and cultural variety of discourses on dietetics. But while English-language Wikipedia presently does an okay job of talking about dietetics in the sense defined in Michael Kent's Food and Fitness, it seems to offer little to those interested in the histories of dietetics, and in how its concerns might have been articulated by Kant, or Hunayn ibn Ishaq, or the Hippocratic tradition – not to mention anyone falling outside the circle of relevance drawn by prominent genealogies of “Western civilization”.

German-language WP offers one example of doing it better. It has separate articles for dietitian (de:Diätassistent) and dietetics (de:Diätetik). Diätetik, while by no means a long article, indicates fairly clearly that what counts as dietetics varies depending on the context, and attempts to do justice to this fact by including a historical survey of European approaches to dietetics (Ancient Greek, medieval, humanist, later modern) and briefer pointers to Ayurvedic, Chinese, and Anthroposophical dietetical knowledges. Yet unfortunately, while the contents of Diätassistent and Diätetik diverge widely, both of them are obliged to link to Dietitian as their equivalent article on English-language WP. — Aingotno (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dietitian&oldid=1200621316"