Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guy Macon (talk | contribs) at 05:53, 7 January 2017 (→Should mention why some people are using these wrap-around foot rests: I don't believe that a new section on the squatty potty would improve the article.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Health and fitness Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sanitation Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Health Benefits of the Natural Squatting Position

I added an external link to Health Benefits of the Natural Squatting Position. It elaborates on most of the points discussed in the article, and seems to be the prime reference used in its creation. Someone deleted the link, citing WP:LINKS. I would respectfully request some more opinions on this. --Jonathan108 (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is kind of sketchy. That website is selling a product, and contains purported health benefits, which is an obvious conflict of interests. If you could track down their references, it would be much better.70.179.20.157 (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There are 41 references listed at the end, plus many more embedded in the article. I suggest you check enough of them to satisfy yourself as to the article's reliability and legitimacy.--Jonathan108 (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Biased

This article seems biased against the sitting method. The picture indicates that Romans "squatted" on the toilets, but even looking at the picture, it seems unlikely. Everything I had seen (including a "demonstration" by Michael Palin in "Sahara") describes the little trough in front as flowing with water for washing hands while sitting on the opening; this would be impossible in the diagram shown with the person all the way up. One reference that states that sitting began in the 19th Century with indoor plumbing seems to ignore that people sat in outhouses, can't see someone squatting over one of those; the reference cited goes back to the mentioned doctor which claims benefits from squatting, so I question the authority of the citation.75.88.41.182 (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the reference to cite the original source used by Sikirov. --Jonathan108 (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The writing in this article is overblown and biased, and the sources cited are quite weak. Unless more evidence can be brought to bear, this article should be significantly reduced in length.

76.182.88.119 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Style

Just a reminder that encyclopedic style asserts facts, without a lot of fol-de-rol in the text to hype the sources. It's "the Earth is approximately round", followed by a proper footnote, not "Dr Hy Anmighty, MD, wrote a peer-reviewed journal article in 2005 in which he indicated that his extensive research led him to conclude that the Earth is approximately round." Please make an effort to omit needless words and reduce redundancy between the text and the footnotes.

Almost the only time you really need to identify or describe authors/dates/etc is if the view is so far outside of current mainstream thought as to be pseudoscience (e.g., "The Flat Earth Society says that the Earth isn't approximately round") or seriously outdated history ("Ancient Greeks thought the Earth was flat.") WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sitting position and defecation

Use of the sitting position for defecation may play a role in the development of a hiatus hernia.
--User:Brenont (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

References

1. Burkitt DP (1981). "Hiatus hernia: is it preventable?" (PDF). Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 34 (3): 428–31. PMID 6259926.

Merck reference

Someone added a disadvantage of squatting, saying that it "can lead to deposition of feces on the clothing or ankles, which is both unsanitary, and dangerous, as feces can contain many pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and parasites." They cited The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, Section: Gastrointestinal disorders. I can't access that reference online, and doubt very much that it talks about deposition of feces on clothing or ankles, so I'm going to delete the claim. If the reference is pertinent and not just a description of pathogens in feces, then it can be restored. --Jonathan108 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that particular reference can be easily accessed online: http://www.merckmanuals.com. The bit about deposition of feces on clothing was a carryover from another portion of the article. I will not restore until a comment is made here, or one week has passed without comment. Ronk01 talk 22:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a slow dialup connection and can't access that reference. Anyway, you haven't given a page number or anything specific. I shouldn't have to search an entire reference book to figure out what you're referring to. Quote the relevant passage here if you think it's relevant. If it just talks about pathogens, then you're doing original research to infer that this is a disadvantage of squatting.--Jonathan108 (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll post the quote when I get the time, which does contain a specific reference to squatting. Ronk01 talk 15:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this article could be a copyvio

Almost word-for word from this source:http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/11432917. It looks like this article was based almost exclusively on that source. Ronk01 talk 15:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Or, vice versa.--Jonathan108 (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The article contains less information than the source, a classic example of redaction to avoid similarity. Ronk01 talk 21:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That link is obviously a mirror, as evidenced by 1. the "enwiki" in its url, 2. the "Wikimedia Foundation. 2010" at the bottom of its article text, and 3. stray wikimarkup in the middle of the text. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Some sources that might be useful

A Slate magazine feature, not a MEDRS, but a nice overview. It linked to this study (primary, n=6, 'Conclusion: The results of the present study suggest that the greater the hip flexion achieved by squatting, the straighter the rectoanal canal will be, and accordingly, less strain will be required for defecation'). There's some natural health movement advocacy such as this and this. Suggested medical issues involve better muscular support for the pelvic floor, less stretching of the pudendal nerves, better sealing of the ileocecal valve, alignment of the rectoanal canal, relaxation of the puborectalis and anal sphincter muscles, and increased intra-abdominal pressure to aid in full elimination. Not sure about any of that, but at least it's a proposed mechanism. And a few more (pubmed)... On point: , , , , , , , , , ; and background , , , . Ocaasi (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Med Hypotheses is quite famous for being an unreliable source (the hint is in the name), most of these appear unreliable and non-MEDRS. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Image

Why is the image in the lead section such a very minimalistic drawing? Is it that difficult to get a photograph of a real toilet? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. And yes, a generic article can be created if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Defecation postures → Human defecation postures – As for anatomy pages like Human eye or Human brain, also animals defecate in different positions, see for example File:Dog_defecation.JPG or File:Furet-position-defecation.jpg. --Superchilum 07:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We can still get a generic Defecation postures going after the move right? There should also be a parent article for Human defecation. Marcus Qwertyus 01:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support WP:Systematic bias 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

anorectal angle blockquote

The quote is of someone summarizing an article. Why don't we reference the article in question rather than this "metaquote"? Anybody have access to this "classic" Taggart article? Cliff (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Damned if you doo doo

So let me get this straight. Sitting can overload the cardiovascular system and cause defecation syncope, while squatting can increase the risk of stroke? Talk about your biological design flaws. God may be all powerful but his quality control sucks. 216.67.35.3 (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The squatting-stroke study is quite bogus and never should have been published. God designed us, like all primates, for squatting. Strokes resulting from blood clots usually occur in the morning, because a full night of inactivity allows blood to coagulate and form clots. Squatting raises blood pressure and can shake clots loose, but so does straining in the sitting position. The problem is the clots, not the squatting. Also, the study didn't compare blood pressure when squatting to blood pressure when using the Valsalva maneuver in the sitting position. So their conclusion that squatting causes strokes is completely unwarranted. --Jonathan108 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible further reference regarding health aspects

I am looking for further references to add regarding the health aspects. I added one German book but this is not ideal. I removed these two from the article, the second one could possibly be worth citing?

• Balukian, L. (2002): In praise of squatting in Altern-Ther-Health-Med, 2002 Jan-Feb; 8(1): 26
• http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/68502379/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

EvM-Susana (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a newspaper article that might be possible to cite: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/08/toilet-squat-video_n_7511706.html?utm_hp_ref=weird-news EvM-Susana (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note any sources for health information must comply with WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE probably also applies to this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a pity that you have now removed all information relating to health aspects, Alexbrn. I haven't got time right now to search for review articles, and perhaps they don't even exist for this kind of topic which is probably not very well researched. But for example that book that I had added quite possibly contains additional sources (I haven't read it yet, only the parts that are available for free online). I have seen it mentioned time and time again that squatting is better against constipation than sitting, so it seems wrong to me to not mentioned this at all in an article that is about defecation postures. Wouldn't it be much better to add the tag "additional citations needed" rather than deleting everything? Can we not give people at least a hint about this aspect? EvM-Susana (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I searched for good sources and drew a blank; could be an appeal to nature fallacy so caution is warranted. Alexbrn (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for searching. I will keep an eye open for it. I have recently seen popular articles in the Guardian where it was mentioned so I started to assume it's a fact... If I find anything reputable about these health benefits I will add it. EvM-Susana (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please also take a look at the talk page of the squat toilet page. A sentence about health benefits is still on that page. Is it OK there because the page is not dealing with a medical topic? Or should it be deleted there as well? Just wondering. EvM-Susana (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good catch - yes that was problematic too ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Dov Sirikov source: "Comparison of Straining During Defecation in Three Positions: Results and Implications for Human Health"

@EvM-Susana:

This section concerns the removal of a link to a Dov Sirikov source. I did a text search and haven't found a reference to this journal article. I'm assuming this is the first talk page section.

• Sikirov, Dov. "Comparison of Straining During Defecation in Three Positions: Results and Implications for Human Health." Digestive Diseases and Sciences. July 2003, Volume 48, Issue 7, pp 1201-120. - Available from SpringerLink

In my opinion this article should have a further reading section: it is obviously in an undeveloped, undercited state. The article needs more reliable sources that discuss this topic. That way people can use them and build the article.

Now, my specialty is the social sciences. I don't know exactly what citation index whatever journal needs to meet MedRS, but the justification for removal doesn't mention any particular aspect of MEDRS. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a WP:MEDRS. We shouldn't bother with it. Alexbrn (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Is it the # of citations, or is it one of the "original experiments" as described in Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Biomedical_journals? If it's the latter MEDRS says that these sources can still be used, but with care. I notice from the current citations of this article that we are already citing another article by the same author WhisperToMe (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's original research (a primary source) and so would not be acceptable for biomedical content other than under exceptional conditions (which wouldn't apply in this case). The fact it's so old and this material hasn't permeated the mainstream suggests this is not a field where we can "summarize accepted knowledge". Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Should mention why some people are using these wrap-around foot rests

Hi Alexbrn, I agree with you that there is no medical evidence for squatting being healthier than sitting. But I do think we should mention why some people are buying these devices that let them take on a squatting position on a sitting toilet. I had worded it like this: "if they believe that the squatting posture is healthier for them (no reliable medical evidence for this belief is however available)" - You have deleted that. But I think it would be good to point out that some people do believe this even if there is no reliable medical evidence? Else people are left wondering why these devices are being bought. EvMsmile (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Does a source say this? If so which? Alexbrn (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Huffington post article that we've cited there says that. It says that people buy these things because they think it is healther for them (doesn't it?). It says "Squatting, Edwards says, can end hemorrhoids, prevent colon disease and offer numerous other health benefits." You and I know that there is no reliable medical evidence for this, but I think it's worth mentioning that there is a widely held belief about this which has not been proven by medical literature at this stage. Or? EvMsmile (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The bit you quoted doesn't say "people buy these things because people think they're healthier". It just relays an unreliable opinion. We should state, imply, or lend credence to such nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Why else do you think people buy these things? My sentence proposal makes it explicit that this is an unreliable opinion. I don't think it is lending any credence to this hypothesis if we state: "no reliable medical evidence for this belief is however available" ?? EvMsmile (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Our job is to reflect accepted knowledge, as found in good sources. If some piece of information isn't to be found there is it probably WP:OR / WP:SYNTH which we need to avoid. Alexbrn (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a video on this on youtube that I found to be hilarious. Also see

But enough of the silliness. What do the sources say?

• "Conclusion: The results of the present study suggest that the greater the hip flexion achieved by squatting, the straighter the rectoanal canal will be, and accordingly, less strain will be required for defecation." --Influence of Body Position on Defecation in Humans (Full text here:)
• "The patients were instructed to defecate using two types of toilet: an unraised, ground-level style (common in Iran), and a bowl with attached tank style (common in Western countries) ... Use of the Iranian-style toilet yielded a much wider anorectal angle, and a larger distance between the perineum and the horizontal plane of the pelvic floor than the European style. Bowel evacuation was also more complete using the Iranian-style toilet" --Impact of ethnic habits on defecographic measurements
• "The magnitude of straining during habitual bowel emptying in a sitting posture is at least three-fold more than in a squatting posture and upon urge. The latter defecation posture is typical of latrine pit users in underdeveloped nations. The bowels of Western man are subjected to lifelong excessive pressures which result in protrusions of mucosa through the bowel wall at points of least resistance." --Etiology and pathogenesis of diverticulosis coli: a new approach.
• "In conclusion, the present study confirmed that sensation of satisfactory bowel emptying in sitting defecation posture necessitates excessive expulsive effort compared to the squatting posture." --Comparison of Straining During Defecation in Three Positions: Results and Implications for Human Health (Full text here:)
• "Cardio-vascular events at defecation are to a considerable degree the consequence of an unnatural (for a human being) seating defecation posture on a common toilet bowl or bed pan. The excessive straining expressed in intensively repeated Valsalva maneuvers ... adversely affecting the cardio-vascular system is the causative factor of defecation syncope and death. The squatting defecation posture is associated with reduced amounts of straining and may prevent many of these tragic cases." --Cardio-vascular events at defecation: are they unavoidable?
• "A considerable proportion of the population with normal bowel movement frequency has difficulty emptying their bowels, the principal cause of which is the obstructive nature of the recto-anal angle and its association with the sitting posture normally used in defecation. The only natural defecation posture for a human being is squatting. The alignment of the recto-anal angle associated with squatting permits smooth bowel elimination. This prevents excessive straining with the potential for resultant damage to the recto-anal region and, possibly, to the colon and other organs." --Primary constipation: an underlying mechanism.
• "Our result clearly shows that modified commode squatting posture has the highest success rate for the treatment of chronic anal fissure." --Role of defecation postures on the outcome of chronic anal fissure

I can't help but wonder whether it makes a difference whether you squat with a toilet seat supporting your body, as seen in the Squatty Potty video above, or whether you support your weight with your legs/feet, as is done in Japan. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all this research! That video advertising the squatty potty is really very well done! Not easy to make this topic appealing but they managed! ;-) About the publications that you cited, I suspect (but am not sure) that none of them are good enough in the sense of WP:MEDRS - which stipulates a very high standard, not primary research and individual studies. Please correct me if I am wrong. And I also wonder about what you asked: "wonder whether it makes a difference whether you squat with a toilet seat supporting your body, as seen in the Squatty Potty video above, or whether you support your weight with your legs/feet, as is done in Japan". Would be great to see some solid research on this! EvMsmile (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses clearly fails WP:MEDRS. LUTS seems like it passes: Digestive Diseases and Sciences and Archives of Iranian Medicine seem to pass MEDRS. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

How do you know? It's not just the journal name but it also needs to be not primary research, right? But you are an experienced Wikipedian, I suggest you go ahead and add that content for which you are confident that it passes MEDRS. (I was under the impression that so far, none of it passes - even though there seems to be plenty of anecdotal evidence but that's not good enough) EvMsmile (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Biomedical journals for guidance on using combinations of primary and secondary sources that are published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

As for editing the article, I don't believe that a new section on the squatty potty would improve the article. and we already have extensive coverage and many good sources on the general topic of defecation postures. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Health and fitness articles
• Low-importance Health and fitness articles
• WikiProject Health and fitness articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Anthropology articles
• Low-importance Anthropology articles
• C-Class sanitation articles
• Low-importance sanitation articles
• WikiProject Sanitation articles