Talk:Alkaline diet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The idea

The idea that an optimal diet should be 80% alkaline and 20% acid is common in alternative medicine. Edgar Cayce advocated this; I do not know if the idea originated with him. The terms alkaline diet and acid-alkaline diet are more common than alkalarianism, however. Perhaps this page should be moved to Alkaline diet. At any rate I have removed the page from proposed deletion candidates. Spacepotato 07:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Origin

Who first developed this idea? Was it Edgar Cayce? It would seem a crucially important bit of information for the article. Badagnani (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally disputed

I started some cleanup of the article, but stopped when I read the three references for the first sentence. We need far better sources than these, and we need to present such information per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. I decided to tag the article rather than continuing further without discussion. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

medical experience

I think Gabriel Cousens has some 30 years of experience on alkaline diet, but I am not sure if he cares about alkaline or acid theory, but he cares about the effects that live food has on human body, food that just happens to be alkalizing by this theory. This theory might correlate with the truth even if it's scientifically false. Artturi Laitakari (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

There have been numerous issues with neutrality in this article due to varying opinions and a distinct lack of REAL and NEUTRAL scientific research. If you are going to edit this page, you should be neither for nor against the use of an alkaline-balanced diet for health and nutrition. Right now the article seems to explain one argument semi-neutrally, then completely skim over the countering opinions. As we all (should) know, intelligent readers are put off by obviously biased articles with sketchy references. Thanks. Faiora (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely POV. They basically skipped right over the criticisms. 71.142.143.249 (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem source

Other than some minor quibbles with the wording, I found the science at the beginning of "The Acid / Alkaline Mystery Solved" to be surprisingly good. It does sound like Mr. Cherniske's M.S. degree was in something that involved basic chemistry courses. However, I think we should find an equally good source that is not an advertisement for the Oasis multi-level-marketing company (which has since changed its name to Univera, anyway). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.70.60 (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Where should I put these?

I have two lists of interest to those reading a wiki page of acid-alkaline diet. A list of [ALKALINE-FORMING FOODS]www.betterbones.com/alkalinebalance/alkalineformingfoods.aspx and a list of [ACID FORMING FOODS]www.betterbones.com/alkalinebalance/acidformingfoods.aspx. Any ideas? Some wikipedia pages have a links or external resources section at the end of the entry. Not sure if it is appropriate to add. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.163.101 (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'll add them. Newport Backbay (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

betterbones.com doesn't appear to be a reliable source

See WP:SPS. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Still concerned with possible bias

Each time a reference or statement has been added with links to any positive information it has been deleted. Meanwhile continuus references to non-existent websites and multiple references are used to POV websites all under the care of Stephen Barrett. This person deals with no scientific data, has done no testing,and has been discarded as a reliable source in US Federal Courts. And yet repeated references to this nonsense are replaced by "moderators" here.

If no scientific studies have been perforned for this technology then there is no data to prove critism of this diet technique. The opposition's argument cannot only work one way without the severe bias that is going on.

In view of whathas transpired with severe bias this artiv=cle should removed as it represents an extreme case of wikipedia failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.112.162 (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

These comments border on a WP:BLP violation in themselves, and appear to be simply one editor's personal opinions.

On the WP:BLP issue: Please very carefully review WP:BLP. Continued BLP violations will likely result in a block.

On the matter of personal opinions: They don't matter here when they conflict with relevant policies/guidelines as well as general consensus. If you want to attempt changing consensus, follow WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms

The criticisms stated and referenced in this article are all moot to this diet. Nowhere do the proponents of this diet claim to modify the pH levels of blood and yet the critics all use their so-called scientific evidence to prove one cannot modify the blood's acid / alkaline levels. References to site like Quackwatch where a person with no apparent nutritional qualifications or training state that all claims are quackery only makes this wikipedia article zppear more foolish.

These are classic attcks methods without merit used here. Twist the basis of the method and then attack the twisted facts.

Blood pH levels do not have to change to affect the outcome of tissues, similar to your gardenhose not holding more or less water to deliver water to your lawn. The blood system is only a delivery system that delivers nutrients to body tissues.

Most attempts to correct this bias, to more factual statements, have been thwarted by selective editing by certain moderators. Some edits, reverted by consciencious moderators, have even been reverted only to be reedited to the original edit. This demonstrates severe bias as noted in another section. This bias has been noted, several places elsewhere, online, by many knowledgeable nutritional experts attempting to give another tested view of the diet for public information.

This article cannot even reserve the attacks of notable poeple involved in this diet concept for the "Criticisms" section like most other well written wikipedia articles demonstrating very obvious bias.

How about keeping the negatives "muzzled" t least until the appropriate section?? This article is a disgrace to wikipedia and all it's rules and policies.99.251.112.162 (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions matter little here. Personal attacks are disruptive and may lead to a block or ban. --Ronz (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This also applies to harassing other editors, and especially to WP:BLP violations. --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Has it been established that the pH of selected body tissues can be specifically modified by changing your diet, to produce health benefits in a normal person? No (it is speculative at best, and false at worst). Have the proponents made a strong case for it by testing their theories scientifically? No. Has one of its leading proponents been charged with practising medicine without a licence? Yes. Wiki is an encyclopaedia that tells it how it is. User:Walkabout12 05:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you guys know

There is a thread at the NPOV noticeboard about all the "baised" editors here censoring the article and oppressing those who want the truth known, started by 99.251.114.120. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

'Copied from the above section': It's fair to say that any article titled "[such and such] is nonsense", similar to Gabe Mirkin's Quackwatch article, is probably not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and should be used very cautiously. It's also not surprising that Mirkin's article has zero citations (although it is surprising that he was a teaching fellow at John Hopkins). Quackwatch is off-base in a lot of areas and really should not be used very often (except when necessary due to WP:PARITY); acid-base homeostasis, even related to diet, an area where there is a lot of actual research going back for decades. See, for example, the Journal of Nutrition's (perhaps the top nutrition journal in the world) article "Dietary, Metabolic, Physiologic, and Disease-Related Aspects of Acid-Base Balance: Foreword to the Contributions of the Second International Acid-Base Symposium" (see also Acid-Base Homeostasis: Latent Acidosis as a Cause of Chronic Diseases for a more detailed argument) . That's not to say that the plausible (according to many researchers) hypotheses have necessarily turned out in practice - for example, see Causal assessment of dietary acid load and bone disease: a systematic review & meta-analysis applying Hill's epidemiologic criteria for causality. However, I think it is fair to say that the alkaline diet article totally misrepresents the perspective shown in the scientific literature. II | (t - c) 20:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A previous editor included links to research by MDs and it was reverted as "Primary Research" conflicting with their secondary research in the article. Some impressive reviews and without reading too much, at this time, it seems to meet any WP:criteria. Let's just see how this thing fairs out. The gang hasn't arroved yet. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite all this Ronz continues to display childish tactics for his ownership of this article. Further, personal, discussion needs to be done on this warring individual. Wiki articles need to be more honest and less opinionated than demonstrated ownership attempted by this individual. 201.140.189.34 (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

He's not the only one who opposes pseudoscience being given special treatment in this article, and he's not the one commenting on other editors. His edit summaries include "restore sentence to lede per WP:LEDE, WP:NPOV" and "Undid revision 480239884 by 201.140.189.1 (talk) per LEDE, NPOV." Yours include "Para replaced where it belongs - grow up Ronz" and "revision 480258758 - See WP:Ownership Please discuss in talk page, first, if you could, this time." YOU are the one making this personal matter (which would be the requisite for ownership issues), Ronz is just following guidelines and policies. Per WP:BRD, YOU are the one who needs to start discussion, the article stays at its regular version until discussion is over. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal opinions matter little here. Facts and reliable sources need to be used to support added text and formats. Please observe WP:NPOV policies 201.140.189.1 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Look in the mirror and say that. Your personal opinion is completely trumped by the sources in the article, and this outright LIE right here and here proves you don't belong here. You are nothing but a POV-pushing vandal. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Continued concerns of bias

One of the most hilarious Wikipedia pages yet. Criticism section should just be limited to the fact that no double blind trials have yet proved the efficacy of the diet. Anything non mainstream or new concerning health or spirituality is just hammered on Wikipedia generally. This will not change for a long time because the people doing it are so stuck in their paradigm they will never be aware consciously that they are being biased. There is almost nothing you can do.

It is also possible that paid staff of vested interests are simply terrified that simple adjustments to lifestyle will result in fewer people needing pharmaceutical drugs.

Also I thought the discussion page was for discussion not just for bullying people by threats of blocks.

Total joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.233.151 (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review the edit history of even the Discussion page (here). Comments not inline with the moderators in charge have been removed. It was so bad at one point an editor replaced a dead link I removed twice, with threatening notices about vandalism, only to discover it was a dead link. wikipedia needs a new face and image. People are losing faith in the system due to these tactics. The "in-your-face" advertising telling readers they can participate is a complete turnoff for Mr. Public attempting to add valid links or information that conflicts with the current bias in most articles. Let's see how long this comment lasts.99.251.112.162 (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are not a substitute for evidence and sources. --Ronz (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This occurs a lot with you from your history on wikipedia. Get some related knowledge sources before doing your usual power trip.201.140.189.34 (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it occurs a lot with any editor who sticks to the guidelines and policies no matter how much some delusional idiots want to insert pseudoscience, advertising, and propaganda. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow! We have resorted to name calling and cursing? I believe we have a sock puppet. Now we may have a consensus, according to WP rules. 189.149.63.179 (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding some recent IP behavior

201.140.189.1 and 201.140.189.34 are clearly the same individual. The behavior displayed has gone from tendentious editting, to vandalism, to what I can only believe is either gross incompetence or trolling.

• Telling a Ronz (who gave an appropriate reason to revert) to "grow up" in response to a reversion
• Calling Ronz's reversion (which had reasons given) "childish"
• Accusing Ronz of being on a power trip just for sticking with WP:RS

Up until this point, I was capable of assuming that the editor was just immature, but not fully tendentious.

• "Everybody's truth is different" (in rather start contrast to the verifiability policies) and the admission of edit warring "Editwarring isn't doing it for me."
• Telling others not to edit war while edit warring, then asking for everyone but him to get consensus, and then accusing Yobol of being a sockpuppet

Up until this point, I was capable of assuming that the editor was not a vandal.

• Removing a very important "no convincing," creating a deliberate error which is copied here

Up until this point, I was capable of assuming that the editor was not a troll.

• Restoring the contested edit before reverting it while labeling his own restoration vandalism.

I'm about ready to go to ANI. Anyone else?

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Already asked for semi-protection, let's see what comes of that before jumping to ANI. Yobol (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah let's go to ANI! Let's discuss Ronz and Yobol as sock puppets. Please check WP:DUCK for clarification of this issue. This sock puppetry has gone on too long. People are beginning to talk and he is giving wikipedia a bad reputation. Since he doesn't respond to the usual threats it is a required and natural progress in this situation 201.140.189.34 (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, accusations of sockpuppetry should be directed to WP:SPI, not made on article talk pages. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

201, if you really think that those users not going along with your vandalism proves they are sockpuppets, here's the form to fill out. All you have to do is put "Yobol" in the sock1 field. Hell, go on and put "Ian.thomson" in the Sock2 field. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You guys have let a vandal reduce you to temper tantrums here. He was right. You need to grow up and stop acting like children! Keep the concept in mind to further good articles. Many personalities definitely are performing the same. I would support the sock puppetry accusations. Either way these clowns need to be investigated and got under control to ensure good input and good quality edits here. Where do we discuss this and how do we prove it? 189.149.63.179 (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The sockpuppet report form is linked right in my previous post. If you were serious, you'd file one. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit in continuing this discussion per WP:GRAPES and WP:BAIT. The ip's cannot edit the article, and they obviously aren't interested in developing any consensus for changes. --Ronz (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources for criticism section

Quackwatch is most definitely a reliable source for skeptical viewpoints on medical claims. From a search of wikipedia, scienceblogs.com/insolence is as well. --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This subject matter is not a medical one but rather a matter of nutrition which medical doctors, typically, have no formal training. Despie this fact, Quackwatch and it's multiple subsiduary associated branches are continually referenced throughout the article to discredit all aspects of the article. The refeenences are to one biased POV article froman unqualified source in nutritional studies. Attempts to balance this article have continually been thwarted by what appears to be biased policing of editors attempting to make the article more realistic. By repetitivelt referencing one source this article has become hugely POV of one person involved with Quackwatch.99.251.112.162 (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The matter is a medical one. Pretending it is something else is absolutely absurd. Making arguments based upon such absurdities won't change any minds here. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe spasmodictorticollis.org is though, and the referenced page has been removed from the website as far as I can tell. --Ronz (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Quackwatch is not a source of information at all. Quackwatch does no original primary research, of it's own, and mostly quotes it's own subset websites, selectively. This deception and lack of actual data research makes it not a reference at all. US courts have thrown Stephen Barret's testimonial out and invalidated his opinion as "Self-serving" and "not based on actual data". The man lives off his court testimonial fees and has been accused of creating havoc in the Alternative Health fields for profit. He has attacked many recognized fields, including Chiropractors and Registered Massage Therapists with full accreditation and certiification. AGain, flooding the Internet with multiple websotes supporting each other doesn not make this site worthy of valid mention in a non-biased Wikipedia article.

It seems all attempts by many to neutralize this article's bias have been attacked and the users threatened with severe warnings of punishement or embarrassment 99.251.112.162 (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Before editing this article anymore, I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies such as Wikipedia:Consensus. Currently, the edits that you are trying to make to this article are contrary to consensus. If you persist in edit warring with multiple other editors to try to get your way, you will only end up getting yourself blocked from editing. At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard editors can solicit opinions about whether a particular source is appropriate for Wikipedia. When Quackwatch has been discussed there, editors have concluded that it is considered a reliable source according to guidelines at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Deli nk (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that Quackwatch in this context is definitely reliable. Yobol (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything on spasmodictorticollis.org that verifies the information cited, so I'm removing it. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

When I removed the same reference I received warnings about disruptive editing after you reverted it, each time. Again a severe bias is demonstrated here. The article needs to be deleted as not relavent for information. Crticisms only all based on personal opinions and twisting of the theory.

99.251.112.162 (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above I'd argue that there is significant missing material in regards to the conclusion that Alkaline diets are quakery. Acidic blood allows iron oxide and other agents a free ride to tumours, for which it is feed. It also makes inflammatory illnesses harder to cure (most illnesses, including cancer are inflammatory). More information required, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.171.215 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please present reliable sources (the guidelines for which may be found here) that state that. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the sources do actually deal with this. One reason why these claims are considered quackery because it's virtually impossible to significantly alter your blood pH by ingesting an "alkaline" diet. I'll restrain my curiosity about the mechanism by which "acidic" blood offers iron oxide a "free ride to tumours". MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerns of Bias

The present day version of this article shows no support for the diet, only criticism. While the original version did pose a bias towards supporting the diet, it seems as though the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. Presently, there are no supporting arguments, or even a thorough explanation of the principles behind the alkaline diet. I recommend leaving criticism to be discussed in its designated section. Remove lines such as " One of the most famous proponents of the alkaline diet is Robert Young, who has come under scrutiny from the National Council Against Health Fraud," which is clearly slander.

This article should be expanded as there is a growing body of interest and speculation.

First, I would suggest redacting the accusation of "slander", as it goes against our policy against making legal threats. Second, the article clearly describes what the diet is supposed to do. The fact that there is only criticism of the diet reflects the fact that the only reliable sources that discuss the topic are critical of it, likely reflecting the bias of reality. Yobol (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable reference to counterbalance the criticism, or if you feel that the "principles behind the alkaline diet" can be better explained, feel free to modify the article accordingly. Otherwise, as Yobol has said, the state of the article likely reflects the reality of the situation: the theory is vague, unscientific and non-factual, the diet is not supported by the scientific community, and both the theory and its proponents have been heavily criticised. Walkabout12 (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If Atkins Diet was also heavily criticized until such time as research was done to test it. That evidence has shown that it has some merit. Also while this diet is not supported by the scientific community that does not give you the right to talk anything down that does not criticize the diet. I have mentioned what the diet says, which contradicts one of the criticism made against the diet and it was removed. Even when I referenced it, it was removed. I did not take out the criticism and I did not take out other unsourced information. I simply stated the FACT of what the diet says, and how this is different to what the article here is saying. That was removed. So while you like to say there is only sourced criticism of the diet, the details of the diet themselves are sourced and should be expressed here. Your desire to remove these sourced facts is BIAS. Please allow the facts on BOTH sides to be presented, not just one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.139.223 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

“Metabolic acidosis promotes muscle wasting, and the net acid load from diets that are rich in net acid–producing protein and cereal grains relative to their content of net alkali–producing fruit and vegetables may therefore contribute to a reduction in lean tissue mass in older adults.” Dawson-Hughes, B., S.S. Harris, and L. Ceglia, Alkaline diets favor lean tissue mass in older adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2008. 87(3): p. 662-665. I will be altering the article in the near future to reflect evidence that more limited claims (than those alledged by the article to be fradulent) do have supporting evidence. This is one example. I'd appreciate general opinion before I put it up, particularly to the use of 'may'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.32.24 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this quote describes a theoretical neutralisation of a medical condition called metabolic acidosis. Furthermore, it relies on a sequence of speculations rather than empirical evidence showing health benefits associated with an alkaline diet. In my opinion, this quote is exactly what the article describes in the last sentence. Walkabout12 (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This article needs a good re-working from a source standpoint. Some of the sources are poor, even if used from a WP:PARITY perspective. We need to find good, high quality secondary sources. Primary sources, such as the one suggested by the IP above, is less than ideal. Yobol (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Some references were provided (check history) however they were reverted by editors concerned with the content, repeatedly without consensus.99.251.112.162 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about criticisms

(Moved 86.93.139.223's comment immediately below from the Talk:Alkaline_diet#Criticisms section above, where I was concerned it would not be noticed given all the subsequent discussion sections. --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC))

I have attempted to make this point and some people keep removing it. I gave a reference to a website that explains the diet and was told this was not OK as it was to "Some Website". When I look at the other references they are also to "some website" so I don't understand the problem. Clearly some people want to pretend this diet is different to what it actually is. Also I linked my comments to the BLOOD wiki page which corroborate my comments, yet that was not enough. What needs to be done to make this clear, the diet does NOT claim to change the blood pH as that kills people. Instead it seeks to help keep it in balance. If I took out all the comments that are not sourced or sourced from "some website" then 90% of this article would not be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.139.223 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Some advocates claim that the diet changes the blood ph, some do not. Best to get this verified and settled with independent, reliable sources if available. Self-published, unreliable sources should not be used. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You do not give any independent reliable sources which describe the diet (not those that criticize it) which say the diet changes blood pH. If you have them then please present them here and now. The actual diet books which promote the diet explain that the blood pH cannot be changed, or you die. Regardless, the criticisms are against the scientific fact that blood pH must remain stable, and explained in the BLOOD wiki page, which I have referenced. Therefore if the diet is criticized for not changing the blood pH then this is no criticism at all, since this cannot be done without killing someone. For an article that criticizes the diet to miss this basic fundamental point, it shows that this article is not based in logic. That is what I am saying. That fact is referenced so leave it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.139.223 (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anon that the statement in the last section "A selectively alkaline diet has not been shown to elicit a sustained change in blood pH levels..." smells like a straw-man argument. If the proponents of this diet don't claim it changes blood pH, then this article has no business making a such a statement in the context of criticism. Perhaps a rephrasing is in order. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's start finding sources, and look at the ones we have.

At a glance this doesn't seem to be a strawman argument, but rather changing claims after the previous claims have been shown to be nonsense. --Ronz (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

#5 hit on Google for "alkaline diet", #6 hit on Google, #7 hit on Google...all discussing how foods change the pH of the body. Are you kidding me? That some supporters of this diet have moved away from complete bullshit doesn't mean that some don't still offer it up on a platter. Yobol (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and your efforts to find references. I have looked at these references and your comments with great care. I believe that there is a slight misunderstanding that is causing the current discord on this talk page. There is a distinction between the pH of blood and the pH of the body. While these article do talk about the pH of the body being changed by the diet, they do not talk about the pH of the blood changing. In fact two state that the pH of the blood cannot change outside of a tight range without the person being sick or dying. It is the inability of the blood pH to change that is the cornerstone of the diet. Therefore while your comments here are correct, they have substituted the statement "blood pH" for "body pH". This is a misunderstanding of these pages and other literature which describes the diet. The criticism on the Article that refers to the diet failing because it does not change the blood pH has made this same mistake. That is my reason for questioning its accuracy. Because it has made this mistake or misunderstanding I question if it is a reliable source. In giving a source which describes the diet in my initial post I attempted to show this misunderstanding. Forgetting my reference, two of the ones provided here also clarify my point. Therefore I wish to include those references you provide here and the one I used as evidence of the description of the diet. That does not say that the diet is right, it merely says that these are examples of the diet. In those examples it states that the diet does not attempt to change the blood pH. Ronz has said that "Some advocates claim that the diet changes the blood ph". If that is the case I am interested to see this in evidence. I have asked and I ask again for Ronz to provide this evidence here that we may be able to review it together and come to a consensus. I hope this explanation is constructive and helps us work to a mutually satisfying solution to this situation.86.93.139.223 (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Post hoc justifications about "blood" and "body" seem like semantic games at this point. Reliable secondary sources say that this is argued by promoters, and a perusal of the above links confirm this; that some of the people who promote this quackery have adjusted the argument to better conform with basic human physiology doesn't change what was originally argued. Yobol (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Having read several of the current books mentioned in this article I am not aware of any adjustment of the argument. In fact they have always stated that the blood pH cannot be altered. If you have specific references that indicate your point I am happy to see them. Regardless this article is not about the history of the diet, it is about the diet as it stands now. In the current article there are references made to the diet as described in books by certain individuals. In your references that you provided they also talk about the diet as it is seen today. In all of these references there is a clear distinction between the blood pH and the body pH. This is not a semantic game. To understand the diet is to know that it is built around the inability of the blood pH to vary widely and the ability of the body pH to vary widely. The stomach for example has a very different pH to the rest of the body. That is necessary. One is not the same as the other. Since the criticism of the diet is made in light of the current definitions of the diet in the literature, and since it speaks with no understanding of the mechanics of the diet, I once again suggest that it is not a reliable source. If you are able to show me any references that refer to the diet significantly altering the blood pH I would be interested in seeing them. If the diet is now in line with basic human biology as you say, then the particular criticism which is not inline with the diet may also no longer be valid. Thank you for your consideration.86.93.139.223 (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss what you or I think of the topic, but what independent reliable sources say. You and I clearly disagree with what advocates of this quackery promote, and that is fine. If you have an independent reliable sources that note that this line of criticism is no longer valid, you are more than welcome to present them. Wikipedia is here to report what independent reliable sources say, not to debunk or rebut every single argument any particular fringe theory has made or morphed into. Yobol (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is clear to me. Both you and I have given reliable sources, which are the descriptions of the diet themselves. Any description of the diet is a reliable source for the description of the diet. Since they all define what the diet is, if they are inconsistent with the criticisms of the diet, that should be noted. I was happy to leave the criticism in there, I was also happy to note that it was inconsistent with the current descriptions of the diet. I am happy to use the sources that you have given, the one that I originally gave, and the current books that are available that describe the diet. Since those are reliable sources for a description of the diet, they are therefore valid and reliable here. This article is happy to present a source that debunks or rebuts the main theory of the diet. I am willing to present many cases of evidence that debunk this debunk.86.93.139.223 (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

While you say that this theory has "morphed into" something else, I am yet to see any references or evidence of that here on this Talk page. Since you have made this statement several times could you please supply those references so that this can be verified? It may be that the criticism is about a former version of the diet and therefore this point could be made. I ask that you and Ronz both provide the references that you speak of that talk of the diet saying that blood pH is altered significantly as I still cannot find any. That would be a great help to read them.86.93.139.223 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is better that I rework the description of the diet section, and explain in detail what the current description of the diet is. There (with the references I am hoping you and Ronz provide) I will be able to discuss how the diet has "morphed" as you say. Then with the current incarnation of the diet I will describe how the blood pH does not vary and this condition is what causes the acid accumulation in the body (as the diet claims). That way any criticism that refers to the blood pH changing will be clearly leveled at the previous incarnation of the diet and not the current incarnation. I will give your references and mine in that section to refer to the description of the diet. Is that a satisfactory solution to you?86.93.139.223 (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me add the No true Scotsman fallacy. Seems that it's now being argued that anyone who says that the diet helps regulate blood ph is simply not discussing the true and current rationalizations for the diet.

Dear Ronz, to bring this discussion back to what I said, there is a criticism on the Article about the diet that says the diet has shown to not alter blood pH. I have never seen any evidence of the diet claiming to do this. Rather I have seen the opposite. Therefore I wanted to make a note to the criticism to refer to the diet as I have found it in the literature. I am asking you once again to provide your evidence to the contrary. You have made comments here about such incarnations of the diet where I know of none. Can you please provide your independent reliable references so that I can understand what it is you are saying? I am happy to get clarity on this matter if you please provide them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.139.223 (talk)

"Regardless this article is not about the history of the diet." Yes, it is, as much as that history is sourced in references. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, I apologize for my untidy words. I meant that the article is not ONLY about the history of the diet. It can refer to the current articles and books and websites that describe it as well as past incarnations of the diet. It is not limited to past incarnations of the diet, as it might have been suggested it should be. As you say, if this history of the diet is sourced in references it should be included. You have made reference to the details of this apparent past history of the diet on this Talk page. While there may have been a past incarnation of the diet, that you and Yobol have both referred to here, which stated that it changes blood pH significantly, I have never seen such a references myself. I have asked you to please provide them and I ask this of you again. Please provide the references that you have formed your knowledge of the diet on so that I can also know about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.139.223 (talk)

Wait, now I'm curious. You said that an alkaline diet doesn't purport to affect blood pH, but instead affects "body pH". Could you please explain what you mean by "body pH"? To my understanding, pH must be measured in a fluid. So it makes sense to talk about blood pH, or urine pH, or the pH of a pleural effusion... but I'm not clear on what you mean by "body pH", as distinct from those. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's apparently an intracellular pH, which is different from blood pH. See for example this academic journal article: http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v23/n2/abs/ki198324a.html

and this one: http://jeb.biologists.org/content/86/1/171.full.pdf (p. 174).

"Body pH" appears to be designated in the literature as pH_i so perhaps a mention of it should be made in the pH article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the literature of the diet, the pH of the stomach acid is different to the pH of the urine and that is different to the pH of the blood. The body is over 70% water so most parts of the body have a pH reading. (You can test the pH of your brain sack fluid if you happen to have your head cut open.) When a food ash that has passed through the digestive system has an acidic residue, that acid has to be dealt with by the body. It is in the body in the small intestine. The normal ways to remove acids from the body are via breath and urine. To get to the lungs and the urine, the acid has to pass through the blood stream. At that point the issue of blood pH matters. Since the blood cannot have more than a slight change in pH the body has to alkalize the acidic residue of the food. To do that it leaches calcium, magnesium, manganese and other minerals from the body. THAT is the negative consequence of an acidic diet, which the Alkaline Diet seeks to prevent. If the body cannot alkalize the acidic residue immediately then it stores it in the body until such time as it has the ability to alkalize this residue and pass it through the blood dream. If the blood COULD change its pH then the acid would pass through the blood stream into the urine and lungs and not be an issue - and then there would be no need for the diet. Therefore the fact that the blood cannot change its pH is the cornerstone of the diet. Therefore I am curious to see any example of the diet that says it changes the blood pH, since this would most likely kill someone. (I am not saying this is all proven science, I am saying that this is the description of the diet in every source I have seen). 86.93.139.223 (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite following your logic; it seems to take a variety of scientific concepts and string them together with fairly dubious or frankly mistaken ideas about human physiology. First of all, blood pH does change all the time; it's maintained within a relatively narrow range by buffers, but that maintenance process is highly dynamic. Acid does not need to "pass through" the bloodstream to get to the urine. Instead, the kidney senses minor changes in blood pH and helps to buffer them by adjusting the urine pH. You seem to view the blood as some sort of impenetrable barrier which keeps "the acid" from getting to the kidney, but that's not how things work. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

In relation to this comment, the diet does not claim that the blood is an "impenetrable barrier which keeps 'the acid' from getting to the kidney". In fact it states the opposite, that the blood is the pathway. I apologize if this is not clear in my statement. How the residue of food in our intestines enters the rest of the body is through the blood stream. That is the point that the pH of the food residue becomes an issue for the blood pH, according to this diet. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave aside my follow-up personal questions - for instance, the intracellular pH is not at all uniform, since the inside of the cell is not homogenous. The pH in the cytoplasm, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, and nucleus are all different, so one has to be careful when generalizing about intracellular pH. But most importantly, intracellular pH in these compartments closely tracks extracellular pH in virtually all circumstances (I can't speak to the freshwater catfish paper you cited, but in humans this is certainly the case). So it's a bit of a stretch to posit that the alkaline diet has zero effect on extracellular pH but somehow significantly impacts intracellular pH.

In any case, sources? Do any reliable sources argue that an alkaline diet "works" by altering intracellular pH? MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear MastCell, I am glad that you made these points. Firstly and most importantly, this is not my logic. I do not follow the diet. I am aware of what it says. I am not questioning the logic of the diet. I am simply stating what the literature says. Therefore while there are some issues here relating to the functioning of the body, and questions over the validity of the diet, that has never been my point. I am not entering into a question of the validity of the diet. I am simply stating the fact that any article that criticizes the diet for not substantially altering the blood pH has missed the point of the diet and is therefore questionable. I never asked for the criticism to be removed. I simply asked for a note to be attached to the criticism that indicated it was contrary to the details of the diet and therefore questionable. That was one reference out of the entire Article. Whatever the validity or not of the diet, the criticism is inconsistent with the details of the diet. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear MastCell, while I will not engage in a debate about the validity or not of the Alkaline diet, I will make one minor point of clarity. The Alkaline Diet does say that blood pH fluctuates, within a very tight band. If you read my point you will see that I said "Since the blood cannot have more than a slight change in pH". Yes you are right it fluctuates. A slight change. The diet agrees with this. I agree with you. If I did not make this clear I am sorry. The point is that the diet does not try to influence the blood pH as the criticism of the diet in the Article has stated. 86.93.139.223 (talk)

As a side note, I once read a criticism of the Atkins Diet in a respected newspaper quoting a person with substantial medical degrees, who said that due to its low carb nature, the diet is lacking in vitamins and minerals. Having read the book about the diet I knew that the diet has three parts: 1. Low Carb, 2. Exercise, 3. Vitamin and Mineral supplements. So to argue that the diet is lacking in vitamins and minerals was to ignore 1/3 of the diet. That showed that the person making the claims had not actually read the book, they had just looked at the idea of a low carb diet. My statement here is that whomever says that the Alkaline Diet does not work as it has been shown to not substantially alter blood pH has not studied the diet, and is therefore questionable as a source of criticism of the diet. 86.93.139.223 (talk)

It is my understanding that this Wikipedia Article construct is not a place to debate the validity or not of diets (or any other matter). It is to present the most valid representation of the subject of the article, using reliable secondary sources. My focus is simply on the validity of one of the sources in this Article. I wish to focus my attention on that point here. Any discussion about the actual validity of the diet is not my purpose, or I thought, the purpose of this Article or this Talk page. As I am new to this if I am wrong them can someone please enlighten me? 86.93.139.223 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear mastCell, please forgive me as I am new to Wikipedia editing. I am finding this discussion a bit confusing. I am discussing the absolute basics of this diet here as some others on this talk page appear to know nothing of the details of the diet. I would have thought that being familiar with the topic material would be a prerequisite for being engaged in this discussion and the formation of this Article. >If this is not the case please enlighten me<. I have read “The Acid-Alkaline Diet for Optimum Health: Restore Your Health by Creating Balance in Your Diet” - Christopher Vasey N.D. Also “The pH Miracle: Balance Your Diet, Reclaim Your Health”- Shelley Redford Young and Robert O. Young. Also one book, but I don't recall the title. It was more in depth than the others and dealt with blood biology at quite a deep level. If I find it I will put the title here. All of these books explain the mechanism of the diet. I suggest if you are unfamiliar with the diet then please read at least one of them so that we can move forward on an even basis. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Yobol and Ronz, I am very interested in your sources showing the diet claiming to change blood pH. When you have them I would be grateful to seeing them here. Thank you in advance. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have already presented them, whether you agree they are adequate examples or not. The independent secondary sources are clear that at least some advocates of this diet say it changes the blood pH, and you have provided no independent secondary sources to challenge that (books by advocates of the diet clearly do not count). Unless you have reviewed every alkaline diet website, pamphlet, book, video, etc that has ever been made since it began to be promoted, it is impossible for you to say that no one has made such claims, so your personal opinion of the secondary source in question does not carry any weight. Yobol (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Great thank you! Can you just put them here now so that I know which ones you are referring to? From my limited research of the current state of the Alkaline Diet there seems to be a view that those debunking the diet in secondary articles actually do not know the details of the diet. Therefore I am keen to know your sources so that I can contact them and determine the validity of their statements. Since some people here are happy to pass judgement on the diet without knowing even the basics of the diet in the current literature, it may be that others have also made this mistake. Therefore I am keen for you to give me your specific sources here. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss your opinion, nor is anyone obligated to prove to you anything. If you have a reliable independent secondary source that contradicts the current sources, please present it. This is not the venue for you to demand anything of anyone. Yobol (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Yobol, it is good to see that you are asking me for sources and not providing them yourself. It is good to see that you have demanded them of me in the same sentence that you say that you are not obliged to provide them. It is good to see that you say no one is obliged to prove anything to me while you require me to prove my statements to you. I will do as Ronz does and quote a Wiki page about my viewpoint of this behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard. I also note that while Ronz was happy to make his comments, when he was asked for sources he went silent. I have learned that Wikipedia is not about facts, it is about consensus. The consensus I have seen on this talk page is that this article is biased. I have enjoyed seeing that people who have no knowledge of the details of a diet are able to pass judgement on that diet. I have enjoyed my time as a Wikipedia editor, and like others before me here I leave you now with your precious Alkaline Diet page which you clearly believe you own. In a sense you do own it between the four of you as you block any opinion here other than your own. You all know how to play the Wiki game to get your own way here. I am fortunate that I do not know how to play these Wiki games. I will now go back to my life... 86.93.139.223 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi IP, I think you might be missing Yobol's point regarding secondary sourcing. The problem is that because we have secondary sources in the article that argue against this blood claim specifically, we rely on them for our definition of the diet. In order for this to be removed or changed we would need an equally reliable source making the claim that no proponents of the alkaline diet make the blood claim, or we would need a retraction by the source we already have. It is unlikely that either of those requirements will be met as most sourcing on this matter from the diet side is likely going to be WP:FRINGE and/or WP:SPS. SÆdon^talk 00:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that this diet arose from non-academic sources. Given that, those sources should be what defines the diet. If an academic journal article misrepresents the diet in order to demonstrate a point about blood pH, that does not in any way mean Wikipedia should use that misrepresentation as the definition. Primary sources are appropriate for referencing what those primary sources claim. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what sources describe this diet as changing blood pH. So far, no one has answered.

There is no problem with stating in this article that the alkaline diet has no effect on blood pH and referencing a reliable source. But to put such a statement in the context of criticism (especially since academic sources generally don't criticize, they merely report) doesn't constitute neutral treatment. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Second link for me on google when searching "alkaline diet blood ph" The Essentials of Blood pH and Acid/Alkaline Balance. SÆdon^talk 06:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As a passing and final note, the link you give here states that acidic food does affect the blood, and the body then balances that out to maintain a neutral pH, which is the whole point of the diet, as described by itself. The diet does affect blood pH, but it does not try to significantly and sustainably alter it. If you look at the secondary sources they all parrot the same line, but none give references to where the diet claims to try to alter blood pH. Alter and affect are two different things. I think that none of you have actually read any book about this diet, just the one page website criticisms because you are all failing to understand the diet. Every site that you put up as evidence that the diet tries to change blood pH actually says the opposite. I'm not sure why you people are even on this page given your lack of basic knowledge. I wrote an article once about film finance (my area of speciality) and in a few weeks my article was being used by a number of secondary sources of great weight as their own words (not quoted). I could find a series of secondary sources parroting the same thing, my words. That does not make them right. If 5 secondary sources say that Harry Potter is a girl, I'd like to be able to say "Read the book!" as a LOGICAL response to that. So while you all like to parrot the same line, you really are missing the point due to your lack of understanding. I suggest you actually go out and buy a book on the diet, read it, and then you will see that these secondary sources, while consistent and official, are also wrong! If truth and reason matter here, that might be important. If consensus and secondary sources that CONTRADICT the primary source are all that matters then stick to what you are doing here. Funny though when I posted such a website about the diet as a source it was removed as being "Some Website" and yet now it is ok to reference such a website a proof against my point. The laugh is that once again the site proves my point. I shall quote some website that discusses the misconception of the diet by those that don't know the details of the diet: (http://acidalkalinediet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3440) 86.93.139.223 (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What you seem to misunderstand about WP is that the WP:TRUTH is not our goal, WP:VERIFIABILITY is. Indeed, if 5 secondary sources say that Harry Potter is a girl and we have no better or equal sources to correct that then we will report that Harry Potter is a girl. This of course is not a good analogy because it is obvious that HP is not a girl and thus would not expect a reliable secondary source to report that HP is a girl. There is a reason, however, that Harvard medical faculty is commenting on blood pH levels wrt the alkaline diet and it would be quite audacious for us to second guess that simply because some proponents of the diet have moved the goalposts. In the first paragraph of WP:V you will see "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement." The alkaline diet is a WP:FRINGE topic with little basis, if any, in science, and so we will of course use mainstream sources as WP is a mainstream encyclopedia. SÆdon^talk 10:58, 9 May 2012

(

What you missed is that I was attempting to VERIFY the accuracy of a secondary source as it was making claims against the logic of the diet. To say that secondary sources prove that the diet claims to alter blood pH is false. They CLAIM it but that does not prove it. If you cannot question the validity of secondary sources then what is the issue of Verifiable sources all about. I was just trying to verify a source and YOU made it a debate about the diet. Which is why I'm leaving here. You all know how to play the Wiki game to achieve your outcome of bias. I am not the only one seeing this.86.93.139.223 (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Now you're misunderstanding verification. Being able to verify a source on WP doesn't mean that you can verify that what a source says is true, only that what is printed in WP can be sourced to a third party. I'm not really interested in continuing this dialogue at this point, I don't find your position convincing and it doesn't seem as though you've been able to convince anyone else either so unless you have something new to bring to the table I don't think there's anything left to discuss. SÆdon^talk 11:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There has grown a great misunderstanding in the Medical Profession of what the AA Theory suggests. Most medical professionals "debunking" the theory address the Blood's pH physiology, not the nutritional balance of our foods and the role foods and and their nutrients (or lack thereof) play in one's health. The Theory never has, nor does it claim to correct Body/Blood pH. What it does address is what the body does to maintain the blood/body's delicate pH balance of 7.365.and using Urine pH as a means to measure whether or not one is getting the nutrients one needs to maintain/regain Optimal Health. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you reading the same thing I'm reading? Here are some quotes from that article: "Alkaline foods are those that work to reduce acid levels in the body, while acidic foods are exactly that, foods that contribute to consistently higher acid levels" in an article titled The Essentials of Blood pH and Acid/Alkaline Balance. The same article also says "Blood pH, an abbreviation for potential of Hydrogen, is ideally maintained by the intake of foods for optimal health and the exclusion of foods that negatively affect blood pH." So blood pH is ideally maintained by the intake of foods for optimal health and the exclusion of foods that negatively affect blood pH but the alkaline diet has nothing to do with blood pH? SÆdon^talk 11:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

yes, ONCE AGAIN you misunderstand the diet. Affect is NOT Alter. The diet states that foods we eat DO affect the blood pH as they pass from the small intestine into the blood stream. The body then balances out this Affect so as to NOT Alter the blood PH. So yes I am reading the same article. You read it with a lack of knowledge, and I read it with knowledge, and you make the same mistake that the article says critics of the diet are making. So you have ONCE AGAIN proved my point that you don't understand the diet. The critics say the diet does not work as you cannot Alter the blood pH. And the diet says that you cannot Alter the blood pH (outside a narrow band). But you can Affect it. As does the body's efforts to balance the blood pH by using calcium and other minerals. So PLEASE learn about the diet before you talk here with misinformed points lacking the facts. This is why the consensus view here is a waste of time. You don't understand the diet as a consensus. BTW I DON'T follow the diet or support it. I am actually impartial. BUT I have actually studied the diet so unlike you, I do know what it says and I do understand it. When will you just accept that you are... Wrong??? 86.93.139.223 (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually why am I even bothering? Excuse me for returning here one last time. Enjoy your misguided incorrect consensus. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like splitting hairs here. No offense but your analysis doesn't carry the same weight as someone who actually has a medical degree and works for one of the best medical schools in the world. Ultimately our opinions don't matter, the sources matter and that's about it. SÆdon^talk 11:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like that to you, because you don't understand the diet. I have given you sources to confirm the details of the diet, not my opinions, and even your sources prove my point. As long as you think it is splitting hairs then you show that you have no idea what you are talking about. It is like saying calling Harry Potter a girl or a boy is just splitting hairs. Doctors used to prescribe thalidomide, being a doctor does not make you always right. When a secondary source contradicts the facts and you can't even mention that here, and people who don't understand the topic of the Article, just parot secondary sources, then it is time to give up. You win Monkey Man. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a biologist, the source we're using is Harvard medical faculty, and your specialty is film finance - which two of us do you think are more qualified to comment on this subject? SÆdon^talk 12:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! My exact point! Someone who understands the diet would be a good person to comment on the diet. But rather you wish to comment on the validity of the diet from your biology background. But this page is not about a discussion of the valitiy of the diet, it is about the diet. You clearly don't know about the diet, whatever your background is. If you wrote an article criticizing the diet for trying to alter blood pH, that would be another secondary source from an educated person in the field, which is verifiable. Then someone would be able to quote it here as criticism of the diet. It still would contradict the primary source. I was just making a point of fact, verifiable in the sources that I (and yourself also!) quoted here that none of the CURRENT literature (books not websites) and websites makes this claim. I didn't ask to remove the criticism, simply point to other sources as evidence of fact that it might not fully understand the diet. You may be the best biologist in the world, if you don't understand the diet (as you seem not to) then your assessment of the details of this diet is questionable. Read the books, then come back here. Whatever your background... 86.93.139.223 (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And the source I questioned while working in conjunction with the Harvard Medical facility, is not the Harvard Medical facility. Harvard review the medical content, not the sources. The medical content of the review is CORRECT. Any diet that tries to significantly CHANGE blood pH is a lie. This diet in the CURRENT literature does not do that. I never questioned any other part of this Wikipedia Article, but all the biased Artile Hogs still jumped on me immedately... The source in question is: Vangsness, Stephanie (December 20, 2010). "Alkaline Diets and Cancer: Fact or Fiction?". Intelihealth. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As a final note of proof of my point, people with education and status who do not understand this diet (be they linked to Harvard or have a biology degree) should not comment on this diet as if they do understand it. Five times here people have presented "evidence" that this diet claims to alter blood pH. Five times I went to the websites to see the evidence. One didn't even have the word "blood" on it. The other 4 all made a distinction between blood pH and the pH in the rest of the body (which varies depending on what part of the body you are looking at). Therefore EACH time the article didn't prove your (plural) points, it proved MY point. Which shows that you all have a complete lack of knowledge on the diet. So you (and perhaps the secondary sources as well) are misunderstanding the diet. Then when I explained this difference, WHICH IS AT THE HEART OF THE DIET, Ronz called it changing claims. No actually it was explaining the details of the primary sources Ronz. (noted he never provided his sources despite referring to their existence). Another called it "splitting hairs." It seems that there was no past incarnation of this diet that said it altered blood pH, it seems there is just a number of people who have not invested time in reading the literature willing to judge the literature. Both in secondary sources and on this talk page. So I won't even talk about past and current forms of the diet, since it may never have made the statement that it alter blood pH. It may just be people not understanding. There may be 5 of you who have not understood the basics of this diet. That means you outnumber me who does. You might have presented 5 sources that prove my point, but if you don't understand that, then there is no point discussing this with you further. 5 monkeys can kill a man, that does not make them smarter than the man... 86.93.139.223 (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As a parting gift to all you monkeys, you favorite Harvard reviewed article, (Vangsness, Stephanie (December 20, 2010). "Alkaline Diets and Cancer: Fact or Fiction?". Intelihealth) can't even distinguish the difference between the blood pH, the urine pH and the Body pH as she mixes them up in the same paragraphs. She says the body pH must stay in a tight range, then talks about the saliva and urine having a different pH. Aren't they part of the body? This shows that the body can have different pH readings in different parts of the body, while the blood pH is strictly regulated. Which is the cornerstone of the diet. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"Can Diet Change the pH Balance of the Body? The BODY'S pH levels may change slightly as a result of eating some foods, but will remain in the tightly held range of 7.35-7.45. For instance, some fruits and vegetables as well as dairy products may raise the pH of your URINE, whereas meat products and cranberries may lower the pH of your URINE. However, even if you eat large quantities of these foods, your BLOOD pH will barely change and only for a short time." 86.93.139.223 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"Are Urine and Saliva pH Test Strips a Good Way To Measure the Body's pH? The only way to directly measure the BODY'S pH is by testing your blood. Testing your urine only tells you the pH of your URINE. Urine is naturally more acidic and has a lower pH (~ 6.0). Similarly, saliva test strips only measure the pH of your SALIVA, not the pH of your BLOOD." 86.93.139.223 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You're again using the term "body pH", which has no precise scientific or medical meaning, and then attacking people for not understanding your points. The most common way to measure pH in clinical practice in humans is by sampling arterial blood, which is typically maintained between 7.35 and 7.45 (perhaps that's what you mean by "body pH"?). If you sample venous blood, you'll find a lower pH, because venous blood carries more CO₂. Urine pH varies substantially, because urinary excretion of acid/bicarbonate is one of the main mechanisms the body uses to maintain the blood pH within its narrow normal range. If "body pH" means intracellular pH, then that can be measured by nuclear magnetic resonance or acid/base distribution studies, but neither is used in anything except a research setting. MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

>> MastCell, you crack me up. I did not use the term "body pH". The quotes are from the source in question, an MD, who is cross checked by the Harvard Medical School. And some people here believe that these factors makes her unquestionable. The fact that you now try to question MY use of term "body pH" shows you didn't get that this is NOT my quote. This are the words of the highly prized secondary source, who I have pointed out does not know what she is talking about. You have proved my point! If you READ THE LITERATURE on the diet you would know what it means by "body pH" which is a neat way of saying the pH of food residue passing into the blood stream from the small intestine, which is then sometimes stored in the fat cells of the body, and sometimes expressed in the pH of the urine, as the body attempts to pass this acid residue out. Haaa. I just have to laugh again that you have tried to attack me, and not realized you were attacking the unquestionable source that I have been questioning. Thank you! 86.93.139.223 (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not use the capslock key. Arcandam (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I quote Cal Norton Junior (Talladega Nights), "So, when you say psychosomatic, you mean, like he could start a fire with his thoughts?... I'm just saying, sometimes you get a knock on the head, you get special powers... It happens all the time. Read a comic book, okay?" I'm just saying, would one of you (Personal attack removed) PLEASE read a BOOK about this diet, say 200 pages long, not a 1 page website with a throwaway article from someone who CLEARLY knows nothing of the actual diet? Quit attacking me here when I'm the only one who has read a book (3 actually) about the diet, as evidenced by your questions which you wouldn't ask if you had read even one book about the diet. Or even read a comic book about the diet. Read ANYTHING. Please. And stop making comments about something you clearly know nothing about. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please be polite. Read WP:NPA. Arcandam (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of my joking, this is not a debate about the diet, it is a debate about if I am allowed to express the details of the diet, as derived from the primary sources on a Wikipedia Article about the diet. So while this discussion is funny, it is also not on the topic. This is supposed to be unbiased, expressing all points, not just those who agree with people who HAVE NOT READ THE LITERATURE. Sorry, I just have to laugh again at your attack on the very secondary source in question. Haaaa! 86.93.139.223 (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not use the capslock key. Arcandam (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

ok thanks, I was not aware that it was not ok to use it. This is my first editing / talk page experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.139.223 (talk • contribs)

No problem. Please read this explanation. Arcandam (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

For those that love to quote Wiki rules. Wiki Consensus says "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." I see no EFFORT to incorporate my concerns into the Article. I simply wanted to make a statement about a source that I have a concern with. I didn't want to remove that criticism, just make a note to it so that BOTH sides of the argument were present. That IS CONSENSUS as defined by Wikipedia. But you monkeys don't want consensus, as defined by Wikipedia. You want to have NONE of my concerns in the article. After 2 days you have done nothing to remove my concerns, you have however proven them to be founded. You have yourselves failed to understand the diet, just as your secondary source has. Even with your biology degree. So for those that love to put Wikipedia Links WP:CONS to the rules as justification for your points, now that I have been there and read it, I see that I had been doing the right thing, and you have not. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean we need to include all sides of an argument. It also does not mean we need to give all sides of an argument the same weight (WP:UNDUE). In some cases person A is right and person B is wrong. We just report what the reliable sources report. If you have a legitimate concern that I may be able to address without disrespecting Wikipedia's norms please let me know. Arcandam (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean you can disclude everything that is not consistent with your own belief because there is more of you either. I have made legitimate and detailed explanations of the concern I have with one of the secondary sources here as it contradicts completely the primary sources. An administrator made a few comments that this may be the case. I was informed that the source was valid by three people here who directed me to sources which they proported to show it was consistent. A forth claimed such sources existed then failed to provide any. I reviewed five sources they provided and found that each supported my point of logic entirely. The issue was their lack of understanding of the diet, thought which they saw the sources as proving their point of view. I explained in detail this fact that they lacked an understanding of the diet, and then they claimed that I was "splitting hairs" or it was a matter of "moving goalposts." But none of them provided evidence of what they claimed. When I showed that the source in question made the same obvious misunderstanding of the diet (and hence was questionable) one of them attacked the source in the false belief that the words came from me. At that point I saw clearly their desire to attack whatever I said regardless of its validity. Clearly 5 people with no intimate understanding of the diet are attacking anything that someone with an intimate understandng of the diet is presenting. I am not the only person on this talk page that has observed this bias. Just read up and you will see that. Any effort to highlight this blatant bias is turned back onto me as me soapboxing. I have invested 2 days in this and nothing I have presented has been discredited as false, despite their efforts to discredit it. They have only highlighted their complete lack of knowledge about the primary material of the topic of this page. An administrator has stated that primary material can be referred to as evidence of itself, especially when it has originated outside of the academic field. I notice that some people here like to quote Wikipedia rules to support their case, when in fact they misquoting the rules, once I have read the rules in detail. As I am new to this I have taken some time to learn of their games. I recently noticed that one of them was suspended for a week and asked to take on a mentor because of their desire to revert the posts of others using obscure wiki rules as false justification. That person was one of the first to deny my original edit of the article by reverting it. When I provided a source as requested, they reverted again on the basis that they believed my source was invalid. They provided no evidence as to why this was the case. After 2 days and thousands of words from me they have not provided a single source to back up their claim that my edit should be reverted. As requested by an admin I have attempted to resolve this here on the talk page and I have not edited the article, despite it's blatant bias. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice job closing the bias comment, why don't you close the other 3 on this page? Oh wait, they didn't mention your behavior specifically. Another example of bias. Did you love the way MastCell attacked your beloved Harvard Medical School article thinking it was me? You people really don't have a clue about this diet do you? 86.93.139.223 (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That comment is not helpful. Arcandam (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have written a few thousand very constructive words here but when they are ignored and I am attacked regardless of what I say then the point to be constructive ends. Anyway these words are constructive because they highlight the desire of some people here to attack my point regardless of what I say. That shows a battleground mentality. They defend the source I was questioning, then when they thought comments from that same source were from me they attack them. In other words they discredit the validity of their own source they were defending because they thought it was me. This shows bias against the person despite the evidence of the case. They have an understanding of biology and medicine, but not the diet. Which is my exact reason for questioning the source. It shows medical knowledge and a complete lack of understanding of the diet. They have made this Article about discrediting the diet, not about the diet. They have asked me questions in order to understand the diet, showing they have no knowledge of the details of the diet. They have then used my answers to attack the validity of the diet. I have read three books about the diet (I am not a supporter of the diet or a user). They use this argument about the validity of the diet as a means to deny the details of the diet to be explaind and discussed here. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that I was merely seeking to apply a clarifying note to one of 7 sources to note that it is inconsistent with the source material, not to remove that source and it's criticism of the diet, or any of the other criticisms of the diet. They have shown no reason to remove that clarification. In fact they have provided evidence of its validity in 5 examples. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My response is at the bottom of the page. Arcandam (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Blatant Bias

Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM nor a place to vent or express frustration. Closing WP:DISRUPTIVE thread SÆdontalk 01:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a warning for anyone going to alter this article. There are a number of people here who have not read the literature on the diet who believe it is their right to stop any alteration to this article other than adding more criticism of the diet. I have spent several days dealing with this blatant bias. The final straw has been a person attacking me over the use of the term "blood pH" as being vague, not realizing that I was quoting one of the main sources of criticism of the diet that they like to champion. These people want to debate the validity of the diet here, which is NOT the purpose of this page, or of Wikipedia. They have no understanding of the diet itself, and prefer to promote their understanding of biology as evidence of their expertise. They then suck up precious time here in their debate about the diet, to deflect attention from the fact that they don't allow a consensus of points of view to exist here, only their own. Since there is about 5 or 6 of them, any chance of simply editing the article is defeated with reverts. Any efforts to discuss the desired changes on this page is met with uninformed attacks against a diet which they don't even understand. I am NOT a user of the diet or PRO the diet. I have read three books on the diet. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Yes of course you would close this thread, it reveals you for who you are. It is ok, anyone looking at the rest of the talk page can see the truth for themselves, I just wanted to save them the time to read the discussions or find out the hard way. The facts remain, you debate the diet to hide your bias and lack of understanding of the diet. I am one of many that have commented on the bias of this article and the behavior of the contributors here. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Did you notice that MastCell attacked your beloved Harvard Medical School reviewed article, thinking he was attacking me? Classic case of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.139.223 (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Blatantly False Statement

Taking serious issue with the statement, "There is no convincing scientific or medical evidence that an alkaline diet is beneficial to humans, nor that such diets prevent cancer, bone loss, or other maladies." Even if the theories behind alkaline diets are total hogwash, the diets themselves consist of eating more fruits and vegetables while eating less sucrose and alcohol. Is anyone seriously going to claim there is no convincing evidence that following such a diet is beneficial? Here is one of probably thousands of sources one could dig up. This article should be focused on the false claims within the theories used to market and promote alkaline diets. Saying the diets themselves are useless and claiming that there are no benefits (including ancillary ones) to eating more veggies and less junk food is absurd.Lifterus (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Revising to show scientific perspective

I've edited this page to remove the distortion of the scientific record. As many people have noted recently, this article has significant problems, so I'm thinking this will remove a lot of that tension and headache. This article was probably one of the worst I've seen on Wikipedia in terms of distorting science and not living up to the reliable sources standards such as WP:MEDRS; even though it relies extremely heavily on one research group (Fenton et al), it did not even convey the scientific perspective which Fenton did in his 2011 article - that is, that the "acid-ash" is a hypothesis which has had broad support in the scientific community for a long time, with Fenton's viewpoint a likely minority or at least certainly not a consensus view at this point (see, e.g., WP:RECENTISM). The published comment from the research group which sets what people in the US call "RDAs" (that is, the Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board), published in 2005, reflects more of the scientific community's view. The Quackwatch article was ridiculous in tone and while I wouldn't mind working Respecful Insolence's article in, he did not say that he speaks for the "consensus" of the medical community, nor would Orac likely say such a thing, since one of the big complaints these days from people like Orac, the author over there, is that the mainstream medical community is getting too big into "woo". Wikipedia cannot overrule the mainstream medical community based on a blogger or two. While I agree with this common complaint in some circumstances (particularly common over at sciencebasedmedicine.com, the backlash to "evidence-based medicine"), it is unfortunate that these bloggers are relative amateurs in teh research world, often do not have a good handle on the research, don't do good literature reviews, and instead resort to stereotypes and potshots at easy targets - which pretty much summarizes Orac's article in this case.

I did keep the InteliHealth article because it seemed reasonable. However, the article is UNDATED. While it has a date where it was "reviewed", it has no date for when it was PUBLISHED or last revised. Science is not static, so any undated article making broad statements is likely unsuitable for our encyclopedia. The article has at the end "Studies of alkaline diet are limited to animal and test tube trials. While research is currently in progress looking at the correlation between alkaline diets and bone health..." - I'm sorry, but either this article was published in the early 1990s or Vangness not only does not know the literature, but also does not know how to do a literature review. There are plenty of human trials on the alkaline diet and bone health, as Fenton et al's research attests to.

It should also be noted, if people are inclined to put absolute weight on Fenton's articles, that Nutrition Journal is not a great nutrition journal. It is no Journal of Nutrition, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or British Journal of Nutrition. For example, Nutritional therapies for mental disorders (on their highly-accessed list) by Lackhan and Veira could be regarded as "woo" article. I think Fenton et al's article looks reasonable (from a nonexpert's quick read), but their work seems to be still under digestion. MacDonald et al's Effect of potassium citrate supplementation or increased fruit and vegetable intake on bone metabolism in healthy postmenopausal women: a randomized controlled trial (2008) found no evidence; while Jehle et al Partial Neutralization of the Acidogenic Western Diet with Potassium Citrate Increases Bone Mass in Postmenopausal Women with Osteopenia (2006) did. Dawson-Hughes et al Treatment with Potassium Bicarbonate Lowers Calcium Excretion and Bone Resorption in Older Men and Women (2009) also comes down in favor of alkali supplementation to reduce bone resorption. II | (t - c) 08:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well done and kudos! 99.251.114.120 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Quackwatch, Intellihealth, Ask a nutritionist, etc.

Quackwatch, Intellihealth, Ask a nutritionist, etc. are not reliable academic sources. There is some recent legitimate nutritional research being done on acid-base homeostasis.[1][2] --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting research, and probably worth a mention here. We're talking about two different things, though - the Quackwatch and Dana-Farber refs deal with alkaline diets as they are promoted with dubious claims in the mass media. The research you mention is a more scholarly attempt to understand acid-base homeostasis. My instinct is that there's room for both in the article, but that's just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Quackwatch and other non qualified, in nutritional sciences, people, commonly attempt to roll this diet over to affecting the blood pH so they can discredit it, with known studies. I have read many websites and other materials supporting this diet pH concept and there never seems to be any claim of modifying the blood's pH levels. Medical people typically have no more nutritional training than your car mechanic. Quackwatch is not a credible source in Nutritional Sciences. This doesn't make the diet credible, only some of the sources used to attempt to discredit it non-credible. It appears that some aspects of the diet are not understood completely in Nutritional Science, similar to many other bodily functions in Medical Science. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Quackwatch is not a reputable source for nutritional articles. This guy's opinion isn't worth a nickle on a subject such as this. He has no credentials or experience and his slam is not backed by any knowledgable sources. Obviously done for grandeur only. Quackwatch should not be used here for references other than strict medical ideas. I think we have consensus on that one. It needs to beremoved to restore article validity. 201.140.189.1 (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're suggesting nutrition isn't a part of medicine...Oh, nevermind. Yobol (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Quack-watch is reliable, even a basic search shows you they have relevant expertise: As of 2003, Quackwatch engaged the services of over 150 scientific and technical advisors: 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 other "scientific and technical advisors" were listed. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Lets find a solution

We have a system for situations like this. This is not the first time people disagreed on Wikipedia. The first step, and also the most important step, is to relax. That admin helped you with second step: using the talkpage to resolve the dispute. Please read WP:BRD for detailed information. In the mean time I will read your edit and source and look into the history a bit. Arcandam (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it correct that you want to include something in the article and you get reverted? Arcandam (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is correct. You can see that in the article history. I did not want to disclude anything, simply add a note of fact, observing that one source of criticism of the diet was inconsistent with the three primary literary sources and one online source (now 5) that I am aware of. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That means you are responsible for proving your addition to the article is an improvement. Please see WP:BURDEN. You should try to convince the other editors instead of being impolite to them. Arcandam (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the anon's frustration. I've been viewing this debate from the peanut gallery, occasionally interjecting a comment. Here's what I see:

• The article, either through inappropriate phrasing or misinterpretation of a cited source, appears to use a straw-man argument regarding blood pH in the context of criticism. While the facts about blood pH may be valid, it may not be valid to represent that fact, or the source, in the context of criticism.
• The anon's opponents, rightfully insisting that we should rely on reliable secondary sources, seem unaware of the difference between secondary sources and secondhand information, and also seem unaware of when primary sources are appropriate to reference.
• The anon's opponents are familiar with the reliable sources that test or criticize the diet, but appear to have no familiarity whatsoever with the primary sources that actually describe the diet. This is secondary sources versus secondhand information. It does help to know what you're arguing against.
• The anon claims that the proponents of the diet refer to body pH not blood pH. The critics dismiss this as "moving the goal posts". Well, if the position of the diet proponents has changed over time, then failure to document that change suggests a problem with this article, and it should be fixed, not dismissed.

If you look at the debate that way, the anon editor's frustration becomes understandable. The anon's opponents are also understandably frustrated; it's always difficult to deal with someone who communicates with a wall o' text. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems the frustration is caused by assuming pseudoscientific claims and fallacious arguments are legitimate. Yes, from that perspective there's going to be a great deal of frustration.

The solution is to focus on finding more and better sources. None have been offered. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

After reading through the talk page I have to agree with Ronz. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This one was reverted for bad formatting [3] 99.251.114.120 (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is one that was reverted for "conflicting with secondary sources" [4] 99.251.114.120 (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is one reverted for "not notable, self-published, promotional" [5] that attempted to inject some food information as was discussed in this talk page previously. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

(Copied from Amatulic's talk to address this "alter" vs. "change" vs. "affect" angle) I will eventually go in and fix the problems with the page, but one of the problems is not that the Harvard source is a straw man. The nit-picking between the words "alter" and "affect" came off to me as a simple case of semantics, where the main point is that the sense of the words is to refer to "change," which is what the diet purports to do and what the Harvard source says the diet can't do. So what's the option then, to say something like "While Dr. so and so has said blood pH will barely change and only for a short time, proponents of the diet posit that the diet doesn't claim to change blood pH, just to affect it." What the difference is between "changing" and "affecting" is beyond me, but the Harvard source says the blood pH can't be significantly changed by the diet and the diet site says the diet affects blood pH explicitly. SÆdon^talk 19:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You, sir, have an amazing patience if you are still willing to help that dude! He is socking now. Arcandam (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I appreciate the vote of confidence but this is way beyond me at this point. A 10,000 kilobyte response with more of the same to a genuine offer of quasi-mentoring in the spirit of camaraderie is about all I need to be convinced we're dealing with a standard fringe POV pusher. I just posted my above comment to address the issue with the tp regulars who may have a take on it. As far as I'm concerned the IP is WP:SHUNED by me. SÆdon^talk 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Where do you see socking btw? SÆdon^talk 19:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Not far away [6] Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.93.139.223 Arcandam (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to stay focused on the article quality. Constant injecting of this only appears as more WP:BULLYING. This article has a long history of this used as a technique for WP:Ownership. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

IP editors typically aren't aware of their IP address and have no control over it. He probably thought "hey I'm not blocked anymore." Sockpuppet cases typically need a registered account to demonstrate willful block evasion.

Anyway.... Let me say first that, I have no expertise in this area. I'm involved as an interested observer, who came here as a result of some administrative action on that IP editor (I declined one of several earlier unblock requests).

Although it's difficult to discern from the wall of text, what I gather from it all are a couple of things: (a) a body's blood pH regulatory process more often attempts to keep the blood from being too acid than being too alkaline, using up stores of certain resources, and (b) a particular regimen known as the "alkaline diet" can restore these resources and relieve some burden from this regulatory process through affecting 'whole body pH' (whether that is intracellular pH or something else, I wouldn't know since I haven't read the proponent's sources), and that relief may have other health benefits.

It appears to me, from reading the discussion and glancing through a few of the sources, that the point of this diet is not that acidic foods "affects" blood pH, but that any change to blood pH as a result of consuming acidic foods is quickly regulated back to normal, putting unnecessary stress on that regulatory process. Again, I must stress that I am not familiar with all the literature.

Note also that the straw-man statement is referenced to an editorial, not a refereed academic source, written by someone with a master's degree from Harvard. The author appears to conflate blood pH with body pH, making a distinction between the terms, yet using them interchangeably at her convenience. She never says that proponents claim the diet alters blood pH, but makes a point that it doesn't. I wouldn't consider this an authoritative source.

It is appropriate to identify and cite the authoritative primary sources of this diet and actually describe what they say, not what critics say they say. This article also does a shoddy (actually nonexistent) job of explaining what the diet actually is and how it's supposed to work according to its proponents. Robert Young's books may be a good place to start. In fact, writing up such a section may be one way the anon could contribute positively. And if the notable primary sources show that proponents have been moving the goalposts in response to criticism, the article should document that fact. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In this case the master account created an illusion of support. 86.93.139.223 was blocked after doing a particular edit. The edit got reverted. Half an hour later SOCK 173.206.248.22 says: "Actually, 86 is quite correct, the claim that...(etc)". Arcandam (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I will comment on the meat of your post later, right now I just want to point out that you're right about the substandard sourcing, which is a consequence of WP's decision to host WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE topics. Most serious scholars do not spend their time debunking pseudoscience and so in the early days of WP psuedoscience articles were essentially advertisements. That eventually lead to an arbcom ruling, and the addition of WP:PARITY to policy which allowed us to use substandard sources as a way to present pseudoscientific topics from an NPOV. WP:MEDRS sources would be fantastic, unfortunately scientists generally don't take this topic seriously enough and thus sourcing is poor. SÆdon^talk 20:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What Saedon said. If you look at the relevant content guideline, it states: Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. I don't see any evidence that the points raised here are discussed in independent sources (i.e. those not involved in marketing and promoting alkaline diets). If such sources exist, we should discuss them. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I know the policies and guidelines quite well, thanks. I point you to WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. To paraphrase nearly verbatim in this context: Primary sources are appropriate for straightforward statements describing the diet and how proponents claim it works. No educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, would deny or fail to verify that those proponent claims are supported by the source.

Claiming that the points raised here are not discussed in independent sources is unconvincing and reveals a failure to go out and look. I see [ten articles] about the alkaline diet in PubMed, and a scan of Google books shows a few books on the subject written by MDs and PhDs, some of which are critical and some of which are neutral. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Good find. It's been a long time since I've done any research on this and there were some good publications in 2011. I will start to integrate stuff that's not already used when I have a bit of time to dedicate.

Regarding your comment about primary sources above: yes, correct assessment of course. The problem is that there are many companies and authors that have their own idea of what an alkaline diet is. There are some generalities, yes, but different primary sources have different explanations, differing views, etc. How do we determine which primary sources get weight and which don't except for by looking at what specific things secondary sources have commented on? If reliable secondary sources are saying that the aspect X is part of an alkaline diet, and one of many alkaline diet proponents, authors or companies say aspect X is incorrect, do we simply say that one of many primary sources disagree? What if I start a website today with my own version of the diet and it sells well but is not reviewed by the scientific literature, do we then say that secondary sources say aspect X is is part of the diet but Saedon's non-reviewed but well selling version says otherwise? If not by appealing to secondary sources, what is our standard for determining whether a particular primary source is worthy of inclusion? It would be one thing if it were something like the Atkin's diet where there is a central governing body that determines what is and isn't official, but the alkaline diet is more generic than that. SÆdon^talk 22:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

One standard used successfully in other articles on Wikipedia (particularly list articles) is to refer to sources that have sufficient notability to deserve their own articles on Wikipedia. The lead section of this article mentions three of them, although only one of them, Robert O. Young is contemporary. The others are older, so it may also be interesting to note any evolutionary characteristics between them. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The notability of a source (e.g. whether it has its own article) is completely separate from its reliability. As far as WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, it allows the very cautious use of primary sources "that have been reliably published". About the 2011 publications, at least 3 of them are already cited in the article - it's not exactly like the rest of us have been ignoring them - but we can certainly look at the rest. MastCell ^Talk 23:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a big difference between straightforward description of claims and interpreting those claims. A primary source is 100% reliable for the purpose of referencing the claims made by that source, but a primary source must not be used to interpret those claims. This article is about a diet that is fully described only in primary sources, and the diet is notable because of coverage in secondary sources. Primary sources are appropriate for describing the claims made by those sources, regardless of whether secondary sources have bothered to investigate those claims.

When selecting among primary sources to describe claims on a topic, we can safely ignore sources that fail to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. In the case of Robert Young, he is notable for his claims about this diet.

It might be interesting to include a section on the history of this diet. It seems to have origins from the 1800s or perhaps earlier, based on the proponents mentioned in the lead. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, Amatulic and it's not much different from the status quo. If we're only going to allow primary sources that have their own articles then that means we're only going to use primary sources for which notability has been established by being covered in secondary sources. So secondary source says aspect X is part of the diet and we can then say that in one incarnation of the diet something different is claimed. But the question is: is it the best way? Currently the article says that blood pH cannot be reliably changed; rather than say that some incarnations of the diet don't make this claim, wouldn't it just be easier just to cite the source that does make this claim as an example of one of many claims made by proponents of the diet? Also, I don't like making negative statements, e.g. that a book doesn't say something (you can't exactly cite a page or a passage at that point). It's better to make positive statements when they exist, and the source I pointed out earlier does make the claim that the diet affects blood pH (though not sure it would qualify as reliable based on the criteria we're discussing). SÆdon^talk 23:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Requests

"The relationship of acid-base homeostasis and diet and disease "has been a subject of considerable speculation for at least several centuries".[2]"

This paragraph has been paraphrased and yet only partially quoted. This bends the meaning of the original source statement. Why not use the whole sentence quoted and keep it accurate?

"The study of acid–base equilibrium and its relationship to the diet and disease has been a subject of considerable speculation for at least several centuries."

The author should also be atributed in the text. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps more information could be added in the appropriate section (copied directly from another article)

Biochemist T. Colin Campbell suggested in The China Study (2005) that osteoporosis is linked to the consumption of animal protein because, unlike plant protein, animal protein increases the acidity of blood and tissues, which is then neutralized by calcium pulled from the bones. Campbell wrote that his China-Cornell-Oxford study of nutrition in the 1970s and 1980s found that, in rural China, "where the animal to plant ratio [for protein] was about 10 percent, the fracture rate is only one-fifth that of the U.S."

Is there any mainstream independent, secondary sources that mention this diet with relation to this source? We need such sources to establish WP:WEIGHT. Yobol (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• As a general comment on the low fracture rate in rural Chinese, a common rebuttal (not sure where I've seen it, probably one of the Fenton et al papers) is that the lower fracture rate in these areas is due the higher workload of rural people. Farmers put more pressure on their bones which makes their bones stronger than your average sedentary American (not to mention age differences). I'm not sure how they are able to control for this; perhaps there is a study which looks at fracture rates for rural farmers in America (on an American animal-heavy diet) versus fracture rates for rural Chinese farmers. As far as revising the "speculation" comment, feel free to do so - quoting entire sentences is not a traditional style, but I worded it closely enough to the source that I could be accused of plagiarism, I imagine - one of the dilemmas of citing closely to the source. II | (t - c) 19:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• It's hardly a matter of consensus that high-protein diets lead to bone loss. There is a school of thought holding the opposite - that dietary protein is essential to bone health, and that low-protein diets may actually endanger bone health. See, for example, PMID 16373952 and PMID 21102327. But I'm not totally sure that this tangent is relevant to a discussion of "alkaline diet", except through editorial synthesis. MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems clearly relevant. For example, the 2005 NRC book's coverage begins as follows:

    A diet rich in potassium from fruits and vegetables favorably affects acid-base metabolism because these foods are rich in precursors of bicarbonate, which neutralizes diet-induced acid in vivo (Sebastian et al., 1994, 2002). The net quantitative outcome of this acid-base interaction is termed “the net endogenous acid production” (NEAP). Because most endogenous noncarbonic acid is derived from protein, and because most endogenous bicarbonate (base) is derived from organic anions present in potassium-rich fruits and vegetables, the dietary protein-to-potassium ratio closely estimates NEAP...

    II | (t - c) 21:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Six words (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Acid/Alkaline Theory of Disease Is Nonsense

Can someone sum up the reasons for not using this source? [7]. From above it sounds like the reasons were mostly based around opinion rather than the source itself. If a secondary source calls it nonsense, perhaps it is in fact because it is nonsense. (I'm sure you'll find similar for astrology, young earth creationism etc etc) IRWolfie- (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the article now is that there is a genuine scientific/medical interest in this type of diet (mostly in the area of bone health/demineralization) and then there's the fringe claims about it (cancer cure, more energy, etc) which is not very well discussed and the two are not differentiated well in our article. I see no problem with that source describing and criticizing the fringe claims. Yobol (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Quackwatch did some good work but this article is not part of it. The author seems ignorant about any facts pertaining to the diet and the article clearly demonstrates bias with only a one sided view. The medical aspects of the perceived mechanism is discredited but the perception is incorrect and out of his realm. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again, such personal opinions are disruptive here and are of no help in improving this article in any way. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well demonstrated! 99.251.114.120 (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Claiming that an author you disagree with is "ignorant" is hardly convincing. The source reports it as nonsense because, quite frankly, it is clearly nonsense, to pretend otherwise in the article would lead to a biased article. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Primary reasons that I removed the source, some of which I noted in my edit summary: complete lack of references, a seemingly contradictory view, an unprofessional "blasting" tone, and an arguably self-published publishing house which I personally have noticed has reliability issues and does not typically take a scholarly approach. Scientists generally can distinguish between "no evidence" and "evidence against". Gabe Mirkin doesn't seem to really understand that distinction based on that article. Good scientists speak in measured tones: for example, you could say "existing theory does not seem to support [contention], but there is not much evidence for or against". A good scientist could therefore say "Promotion is unwarranted and unethical". The scientist should not say "this is completely impossible", unless you're talking about something completely impossible like homeopathy. As Wittgenstein said (in an admittedly non-scientific context), "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". It's not entirely clear what claims Mirkin is arguing against exactly since he just refers vaguely to "advertisements". His main argument for why you shouldn't try bother with alkalinity: "your blood never becomes acidic because as soon as the proteins are converted to organic acids, calcium leaves your bones to neutralize the acid and prevent any change in pH. Because of this, many scientists think that taking in too much protein may weaken bones to cause osteoporosis..." - this is a controversial but nevertheless common view. However, osteoporosis is a disease, so he seems to contradict himself. There are clinical trials which suggest that alkaline supplementation can reduce the acidic load on the bloodstream and reverse the impact of acids on the bones. I pointed to Jehle et al 2006 and Dawson-Hughes 2009 above. On a somewhat more philosophical note, I would appreciate it if people came to Wikipedia with a neutral, scholarly tone rather than coming as strident evangelists.. If you come into a discussion with very rigid preconceived notions and a chip on the shoulder, it's hard to be neutral or to be taken seriously as someone who respects science. And if you don't know much about the topic and think it is analogous to young earth creationism, it might be best to not enter the discussion except to point out when others don't seem to support their statements. I will admit that I don't know a lot about this topic and so I just try to stick to reliably published secondary sources. II | (t - c) 19:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with conflating the legitimate medical discussion of this diet (its influence on electrolytes, bone health) and the pseudoscientific claims (it will increase your blood pH! it will cure cancer!). Clearly the former is a legitimate medical discussion, the latter pure nonsense as it is nearly impossible to change your blood pH through diet (your blood pH being one of the most heavily regulated things in your body). If you're saying we should not use it to criticize the legitimate medical research, I am in agreement. If you are saying we cannot use it for criticizing the pseudoscience, we are not. Quackwatch is a reliable source for critiquing fringe medicine and we should use it carefully, but not reject it out of hand when used properly. Yobol (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you find Quackwatch articles which have a professional, non-inflammatory tones and do not overreach in their claims, that's fine. Currently we already have a professionally-worded article by Intelihealth to cover the outlandish claims such as cancer, and I have no objection to Barrett's article Urine/Saliva pH Testing: Another Gimmick to Sell You Something. Mirkin, on the other hand, is all over the place. It's not appropriate to use a source which is inflammatory in tone, completely lacking in references, and somewhat incoherent. There are clear disadvantages to using articles which use inflammatory wording and don't support their statements with references. They dramatically increase the upkeep and complaints about the article and hurt Wikipedia's reputation as a scholarly encyclopedia. II | (t - c) 20:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing inflammatory in the Quackwatch article, especially in regards to fringe ideas like eating something to change your blood pH. I will be re-writing a significant portion of this article to make sure that the real distinction between the real medical topics and the pseudoscientific fringe is clear, and will use this article in that pseudoscience area if it is appropriate. Yobol (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You see nothing inflammatory about an article that has "nonsense" in the title? Mirkin's article says that eating proteins has an acidic effect on the blood which is neutralized by the bone, which clearly contradicts his overall statement that nothing you eat affects blood pH. If you eat excessive "alkaline" things such as vegetables and it has a similar "alkalizing effect" on the blood, I imagine that these are neutralized by something else (I don't know offhand what neutralizes the alkaline - do you?). It's fine to revise the article, but do think about whether it's worth your time to go through the dispute resolution battles if you write an article which skews heavy on one side. Fighting a huge battle for an inch or two is what leads to burnout. Given the extent of your contributions (which I'm very thankful of!) you seem to have the time to deal with this type of stuff. I don't anymore. Good luck. II | (t - c) 21:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want any skew, I want a neutral article which covers all facets of this diet as covered by reliable sources. I appreciate your concern about burnout, and I'm sure I will at some point or another, but I might as well improve an article or two on the way there. Yobol (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Retitle and rephrase

Some of the regulars here might remember from recent history Maximus the IP that railed here and on Jimbo's talk page about how the alkaline diet doesn't actually claim to change blood pH and that we're not experts Bob Loblaw. I think that the root of the problem is that the IP associates the "alkaline diet" with proprietary concept like the Atkin's diet or the South Beach diet when in reality the alkaline diets are a group of loosely associated diets that are based around certain ideas regarding alkaline foods. Some proponents of the diets claim changes in blood/cytoplasm pH and others don't as the diet is now being pushed in various forms all over the web and in print.

Based on this I suggest we move the page to Alkaline diets and redirect the singular form there. I also suggest that the lead be changed to something like "Alkaline diets are a group of loosely associated diets based on [...]" If a move is objectionable I at least think we should edit the lead to read something like "An alkaline diet is a diet that revolves around the claim (or belief, whatever) that [...]"

Thoughts?

Sædon^talk 00:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am actually in the process of doing a complete re-write of this page (my in-process draft on my sandbox currently); it will differentiate the known (limited) medical uses and investigation (use to change urinary pH and investigation into osteoporosis) and the alt med, which will discuss the other claims about it. I hope to introduce the re-write later this week, and this may address the above issues. Yobol (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

...and I have re-written the article. Comments welcome. Yobol (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job. As far as renaming, we have a guideline WP:PLURAL that indicates a preference for singular form in article titles. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say great job, a far more unbiased article. Still please be aware that the major independently published books on the diet clearly state that because blood pH cannot be altered, the body spends resources to achieve this outcome. None of these sources (which Wikipedia guidelines say are more valid than self published websites) claim the diet alters blood pH. In these books there is no confusion between body pH and blood pH, they are not interchangeable, they are clearly separate, defined and discussed. The original proponants of the diet have never said it alters blood pH. These books have been in publication for many years, and there is no moving of the goalposts. In fact these books started the whole "Alkaline Diet" phrase. IPMaximus (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, those books aren't actually reliable sources for presenting phsyiological mechanisms as you describe. I have no objection to this article presenting what these sources claim to be happening in the body, but without actual scientific or academic studies to reference, the article can't present such claims as fact, only as claims by proponents, logical as the claims may seem. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I just didn't want to see the article claiming that these books said the diet claims to alter blood pH when they do not. That is all.IPMaximus (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

On WP:FRINGE topics, we go by what independent reliable sources say about the topic, not specific individual primary sources say. We are not in the business of evaluating the fringe claims of each individual practitioners' book or website, we use good secondary sources to establish what is important to talk about. Yobol (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

When a "reliable source" misrepresents a "fringe source", however, it is incumbent on us to avoid propagating that misrepresentation. Over on the Robert Young talk page, there was an example of a source considered reliable erroneously suggesting that alkaline diet proponents claim the diet alters blood pH when the proponents clearly do not make that claim. The point is, we need to perform our own due diligence and compare both kinds of sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That was actually this talk page (now archived, I believe), and I was part of that discussion. While it may be true that some proponents of alkaline diet may not propose a change in blood pH (I have not checked all available websites and books), from what I saw it actually true that some actually do propose it. Whether or not the ideas of those who do not propose it are significant in the grand scheme of this topic is best dealt with by what independent reliable sources say. I agree with you that if a source misrepresents or is incorrect, we are obligated to not use it; however, I do not agree that that particularly applies in this case. Yobol (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I had a chat with Jimbo Wales himself and he agreed with me that you cannot ignore the primary sources. His words were "We are not transcription monkeys." I remember on the Alkaline Diet talk page when someone gave 5 examples of websites that claimed the diet altered blood pH. I looked at them. None said that. One didn't even have the word "blood" on it. I did a search for that word. The others all talked about body pH. I was then accused of being pedantic. But the diet revolves around the fact that blood pH cannot be changed, and I was being specific and factual. I have still not seen one website that claims the diet changes blood pH. Then I was told this was moving the goal posts. So I pointed out that the major independently published literature on this diet (considered by Wikipedia as having more weight than self published websites) have been around for 7 to 10 years and none of them make this claim. So it is not moving the goal posts. What I have seen is people who do not know the basic mechanics of this diet misunderstanding the websites and presuming that body pH means blood pH when it does not. I don't use this diet. I did research it and I did read a number of the original books, and I can see when someone is misrepresenting what they say. Right now the article does not do that. The article is excellent. I just want to make sure that for those who have not read the primary sources for this diet, being independently published books and not websites, that you understand the primary sources. Which Jimbo Wales himself has made very clear are 100% valid for judging the relevance of secondary sources. They are also 100% valid for stating what the primary sources say. As you say Yobol, 'independent reliable sources'. If a secondary source clearly misrepresents the primary sources then it is not reliable and can be ignored. Be clear on that. If you are unsure then go to Jimbo Wales' talk page, search the history for "Harry Potter Is A Girl" and see for yourself. If Jimbo Wales makes the point, you might want to listen to it. IPMaximus (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

One other point, this Wiki page is not called The Effects Of Acid Ash On Blood pH. It is about the Alkaline Diet. This is not saying the diet works, the diet is right, or describing the science of the effect of alkaline or acid ash residual food on the body. It is talking about a diet, as popularized in a number of books, and secondarily in some websites. I am not agreeing with the diet or trying to say the science works. I never have. I have simply wanted the Wiki page called Alkaline Diet to refer to the details of the diet rather than misrepresenting them. I am not in the business of evaluating the claims of the diet. I am here making sure that the article represents the claims of the diet as detailed in the books and websites, and not in the minds of some misinformed secondary sources. And Jimbo Wales has made it clear that this is the goal of Wikipedia in these situations and Primary Sources are the key place to look to make sure that happens. IPMaximus (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not the first time I've shown you this link. And please stop misrepresenting the conversation you had with Jimbo; it culminated in you being told that he didn't find your argument convincing and he didn't even bother telling you he didn't find your argument convincing until you had badgered his talk page incessently. Further, being that multiple secondary sources discuss blood ph and how it relates to the diets, and being that at least one website claims benefits from changing blood ph (first and only one I checked, I'd be surprised if there weren't more), and being that you haven't presented sources saying that these claims aren't true, you're just murdering equines. Lastly, Jimbo is not the god of WP; he has no more control over articles than any other editor and appeals to Jimbo don't override consensus. Sædon^talk 05:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, Jimbo said he did not agree with my discussion about the gang on this talk page, and Wikipedia being a place where gangs with admin support rule over knowledge. As for secondary sources that disagree with primary sources, he was really clear about that. I also listed several books as sources about the diet that do not claim to alter blood pH. I guess you just don't read books. I did so I am happy to state the facts here. Sorry if that still upsets you. I cannot change the facts of what those major primary sources for the Alkaline Diet say. As for the website, I looked at it and it makes it clear that the body balances the blood pH and the diet does not alter the blood pH significantly or permanently. So it agrees with what I have been saying all along. So once again your simple lack of an understanding of the diet has you misread these websites. That is also something that I cannot change. It is up to you to read a book and learn about the diet from the key major primary sources. Then you might get it. Until that happens there is no point talking to your persistent ignorance with facts. IPMaximus (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also Saedon, we should be discussing the notable/mainstream primary sources; that is, sources that are best-sellers, have broad mainstream media coverage, or have greatly influenced mainstream thinking on the subject. Bringing up an obscure website as you did two paragraphs above is a non-sequitur. Every discipline (even those we regard as "fringe") has its own fringes. It is pretty clear that the "mainstream" primary sources about this diet (such as Robert Young's book) don't claim the diet alters blood pH.

And IPMaximus, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This is a hard-line policy. You're crossing a line with name-calling statements such as "your persistent ignorance". ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic, you'll notice that this article is no longer about a particular diet, but rather about a group of loosely associated diets that revolve around intake of pH affecting foods - some studied by the mainstream and some not. While it may be true that the "mainstream" versions of the diet do not specifically mention blood pH, some in the alt-med category do make this claim. In Yobol's recent rewrite, he specifically puts the blood pH affecting versions of the diets under the alt-med category ("Advocates for alternative uses of an alkaline diet propose that since the normal pH of the blood is slightly alkaline..."). Two points to make regarding this: 1. If someone wants to edit the article to more specifically point out that not all formulations of the diet claim to affect blood pH that's probably fine, depending on the wording of course. 2: Our AIC source is actually talking about body pH and not blood pH, so parts of that section can probably be rewritten.

Lastly, what exactly is body pH? The body is a complex set of differing mechanisms and fluids, some of which are more acidic than others. The only thing I can think it to mean (as a scientist only; I cannot think in terms of what it might mean nonscientifically) is an average of the various bodily fluids (which, insofar as I can tell, would be a meaningless statistic). If this is the case, then blood is certainly a child to the parent category of body.

To summarize: since some alt-med formulations of the diet claim that blood pH can be affected by diet and presumably people will be coming here for information regarding blood pH, and because we have both a primary source (admittedly not mainstream) and secondary sources discussing the topic, criticisms of a blood-pH affecting mechanisms should be included. In order to distinguish the more fringe side of the fringe from the regular fringe, clarification that not all formulations of the diet claim to affect blood pH should also be included. However, because the idea of "body pH" remains vague, but that the blood is part of the body, we should err on the side of caution and let people know that at least one of the possible factors contributing to "body pH" is empirically false. Sædon^talk 00:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Saedon I agree that the websites are vague as to what Body pH is. Blood pH is a bit clearer. The books generally refer to food ash and its elimination from the small intestine through the blood stream, or its deposition in the body, sometimes in the fat cells. I have never been a supporter of this diet, I just know that some pretty major primary sources of the diet do not claim that the diet significantly and lastingly alters blood pH. That is all I have ever said. I really like your process to say that those sources of the diet that do claim it alters Blood pH are clearly false because this is impossible without killing someone. Then it is also wise to say that the major independently published literature on the diet does not make this claim. IPMaximus (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic, someone can be ignorant, as evidenced by their statements here. Someone can be persistent in their ignorance by making statements over a long period of time that are ignorant. That is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact. I have been accused of misrepresentation. Is that a personal attack? It is like calling me a liar. Please. Just focus on the facts of the article and don't try to silence me with a personal attack. Just know that I have read some books on the diet and others have not. IPMaximus (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

How can a hypothesis be a risk factor?

The "acid-ash" hypothesis has been considered a risk factor for osteoporosis by various scientific publications, though more recently, the available weight of scientific evidence does not support this hypothesis.

I do not understand what this statement is trying to portray. It appears confused and lacking of its orignal intent by the writer. 99.251.149.32 (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It was initially considered by early publications, now it has been falsified. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Cell Damage

The article failed to offer any alternative theory for Cell damage. It simply says that there isn't any conclusive evidence that one can effect the ph of the urine. What did the people eat in those studies? How long? There are to many unanswered questions. Yes metabolic waste is acidic; and yes cancer cells have more metabolic waste, therefore there would be more acid in that location. Why did the cell get damaged in the first place? The underlying tone of the article was that diet has no predictable effect on the human bodies accumulation or removal of acidic metabolic waste and therefore is bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgodwin11 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. If you have any reliable sources (that is, academic and peer-reviewed scientific works) specifically countering any materials cited in this article, you may present them. Since the diet is really only meant to treat particular problems, and any use beyond those specific problems is advocated only by quacks, the majority of mainstream scientists assume the novel uses are "bad." Wikipedia goes with mainstream science, which explains the skeptical tone. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a link to review of a article with reputable source and I wondered what other people think?

I went to this website: http://www.energiseforlife.com/wordpress/2009/04/27/alkaline-diet-proof-evidence/

and it seemed proof enough for me that alkaline diet works.

I try to take a unbiased view on things and listen to both sides of the story.

I am though a vegan and try to live on as much of alkaline diet as possible, now after almost 2yrs my muscles are exploding in size with having to do little or no exercise.Samzen06 (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wordpress sites, and blogs of any sort, are generally not allowed under our reliable sourcing guidelines. Furthermore, the blog states that only small bits are being proven, it is... well, superstitious so act as if that proves anything else about the alkaline diet. It should also be telling that he has to put a huge disclaimer saying "This blog is only my opinion. It is not medical advice or diagnosis," continuing on to say. There's also the conflict of interest that blogger has, since he claims to be an authority on alkaline dieting, and profits from the sale of AD books and such. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, doesn't even meet WP:RS, not to mention WP:MEDRS. Not reliable for medical claims on Wikipedia. Yobol (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Some Scientific Studies on Alkalization

There are a few studies that need to be included in this article, in order to make the article more scientific. These studies provide evidence that there are observable and measurable effects and benefits that arise from dietary alkalization. Thus the general current tone of the article, which is that there is little evidence for any benefit in alkalizing diets, needs to be changed a little, in the light of these studies.

The first study that needs to be included in this article is:

The Alkaline Diet: Is There Evidence That an Alkaline pH Diet Benefits Health?

which concludes that:

"Alkaline diets may result in a number of health benefits as outlined below:

(1) Increased fruits and vegetables in an alkaline diet would improve the K/Na ratio and may benefit bone health, reduce muscle wasting, as well as mitigate other chronic diseases such as hypertension and strokes.

(2) The resultant increase in growth hormone with an alkaline diet may improve many outcomes from cardiovascular health to memory and cognition.

(3) An increase in intracellular magnesium, which is required for the function of many enzyme systems, is another added benefit of the alkaline diet. Available magnesium, which is required to activate vitamin D, would result in numerous added benefits in the vitamin D apocrine/exocrine systems.

(4) Alkalinity may result in added benefit for some chemotherapeutic agents that require a higher pH.

From the evidence outlined above, it would be prudent to consider an alkaline diet to reduce morbidity and mortality of chronic disease that are plaguing our aging population".

Note also that alkalization for health benefits is often performed not only by diet, but alternatively just by taking alkalizing supplements like sodium bicarbonate or potassium citrate (both the bicarbonate and citrate will alkalize — see here), which is in fact an easier approach to alkalization.

The article as it stands make no note of this alkalization performed via bicarbonate and citrate supplementation, and I suggest that it needs to.

The second study that needs to be quoted in this article is:

Partial neutralization of the acidogenic Western diet with potassium citrate increases bone mass in postmenopausal women with osteopenia

This study used of potassium citrate as an alkalizer, and found that "bone mass can be increased significantly in postmenopausal women with osteopenia by increasing their daily alkali intake as citrate".

A third study that needs to be included is this:

Effect of urine pH changed by dietary intervention on uric acid clearance mechanism of pH-dependent excretion of urinary uric acid

This study showed that an alkalizing diet is effective for removing uric acid from the body, which may explain why alkalizing diets are beneficial for gout.

Two other studies of note, that look at the use of various alkalizing supplements, are:

Brain pH responses to sodium bicarbonate and Carbicarb during systemic acidosis

which concludes that Carbicarb (a mixture of sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate) alkalizes both the body and the brain, whereas sodium bicarbonate alone alkalizes the body, but acidifies the brain.

And a very similar study found the same result:

Management of acidosis: the role of buffer agents

"The potential value of sodium bicarbonate was called into question when more recent studies demonstrated that it induced venous hypercarbia (high CO2 in the veins), and decreases in tissue and cerebrospinal fluid pH, as well as provoking tissue hypoxia, circulatory congestion, hypernatremia, and hyperosmolality, with consequent brain damage. Bicarbonate buffers may intensify rather than ameliorate cellular acidosis because sodium bicarbonate generates CO2 and thereby increases intracellular (hypercarbic) acidosis."

So clearly there is some scientific research behind alkalizing diets, and alkalizing the body, and this research needs to be included in this article. And I suggest the assertions made in this article that there is no evidence base for alkalizing diets really needs to be removed.

Drgao (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The other interpretation

This article seems to only talk about the health food interpretation of alkaline diet, as in alkaline forming diet. What about true alkaline diets, where low pH foods are eschewed, no matter how alkaline "forming" alternative medicine say they are? 68.9.90.216 (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to share about such diets, preferably scientific or medical studies? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

History

If this diet is still in use the history section should go at the end. The historical medical aspects should be moved to the history section IMO. Could use one image anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alkaline diet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 15:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC) I worried a bit when I saw this on the Good article nominees, as there is, as I'm sure you know, a lot of quackery surrounding alkaline diets out there. You have, however, mostly struck a good balance. I think that a few more tweaks could be useful before promotion, but it's generally there.

First of all, the lead could probably stand to make a distinction between the more extreme quackery versions (claimed to affect the blood) and what diet could change. I'd also imagine there are a few, rare cases where changing the pH of urine could have some advantage - wasn't there a kidney stone remedy related to that? It was in one of Stephen Jay Gould's books - that might be worth briefly mentioning as well. With this kind of article, defining terms helps a lot.

I'd suggest the sentence "Due to the lack of human studies supporting any benefits of this diet, it is generally not recommended by dieticians and other health professionals." should come earlier. It serves a useful framing role.

On the whole, this is pretty good. I think it's well on the way to GA, just that difficult articles such as this are hard to get perfectly right. Think I'll ask WP:FTN to have a quick look as well, since getting these sorts of things right is that board's expertise, so they'd be useful to have on hand. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at the nomination. The use in changing urine pH/kidney stones is discussed in the History section at the bottom of the page (placed there per WP:MEDMOS). It isn't really used for that purpose much anymore as medications do a much better job than diet does, so it's largely a historical relic for that use. My time on Wikipedia is extremely limited for the next week or so, so I might not be quick to respond here. Please bear with me, I will get back to the suggestions as soon as possible. Yobol (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good! A little tweaking of the lead, and I think this one's a pass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, moved the sentence higher (2nd paragraph) as suggested. Thanks for bearing with me. Yobol (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's amazing how much that change makes to how the article reads. Promoted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No evidence at all - state it clearly in the lead

In line with the Med guidelines, I would make it much clearer up front in the lead that there is no evidence at all to support the theory of the alkaline diet - as it states in the Evidence Base section. At the moment the lead just says that doctors do not recommend it. 86.162.6.246 (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Poor article quality

A huge portion of this article is improperly sourced and vague with one-sided claims and ad-hominem attacks made against credentialed professionals & their theories. Many of the statements preference the analysis of some experts arbitrarily over other experts of comparable credentials. The article is not even close to neutral.

I mirror Drgao's sentiments above. Wikipedia is not a place for people who think they have the right answer to systematically suppress principled alternative theories. Anyone who values the scientific method should be ashamed of the way this and many other articles distorts the validity of some research in preference of other research which supports a particular model.

I cannot help but suspect that some of the editors have an agenda, since these sorts of errors are difficult to make with the incredible frequency with which they appear here. Boleroinferno (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT.

Take care, however, not to remove material that is accurately sourced while claiming it isn't, as you did in this edit. The statement is conspicuously present in the source, 4th paragraph down in the Background section. ~Amatulić (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Added four referenced studies on June 14, 2016 JacquelineNH (talk)JacquelineNH —Preceding undated comment added 11:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

From the BBC recently

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38650739 may have content worth thinking about for this or the Young article. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Errors of fact

How can this be a good article when the following obviously false statement is included in the lede?

Levels above 7.45 are referred to as acidosis and levels below 7.35 as alkalosis

I suggest a complete review. I am highly skeptical that this rises to the level of "good". jps (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That error was added today by on Feb 14 by JzG (talk · contribs). I fixed it in my recent edit using peer-reviewed sources, which was reverted by Alexbrn. II | (t - c) 19:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I really don't care why or how the error was added. I just care that it indicates that the article is not up to good standards. jps (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Two things going on: one, a transposition error on my part, switching acidosis and alkalosis around (oops!). I fixed that. Second, a matter of interpretation. Some evidence of the potential to slightly affect blood pH through diet is actually entirely equivalent to the sourced statement that claims to materially affect blood pH through diet are nonsense. Both statements are true and mutually consistent. It is also unarguably true that the alkaline diet as promoted by Young and his acolytes, is pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Potential bias

This article seems a bit biased. Someone well informed fix this please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Higgins (talk • contribs) 10:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@J.Higgens: New sections go at the bottom. Biased in which direction? What changes do you suggest, based on what sources? Just saying "this article seems biased" is not helpful at all. Wikipedia does not operate based on what users know, but on what professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources they can cite. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm well informed, but I don't see anything to fix. The main current proponent is Robert O. Young, who is currently serving time for promoting this nonsense. It's just as well you can't change your body's pH by food selection, or large numbers of people would be dead from alkalosis. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This article was promoted to "Good article" after careful editing, particularly by Yobol (talk · contribs) but with some help by MastCell (talk · contribs) and myself. I think it's quite fair. For better or worse, there are scientific articles which say that this is a real thing. I've been hesitant to make them more prominent as I've wanted to wait for the dust to settle more. However, given the recent push to use Quackwatch in the lead by Alexbrn (talk · contribs), who I know has a lot of passion about this topic, I went ahead and raised one of the sources discussing this topic directly (Diet-induced acidosis: is it real and clinically relevant? (2010)). I'm a bit wary of this source, but I looked at the sources citing it in Google Scholar and could not find any that rebutted it. If Alexbrn feels that Pizzorno et al have gotten it truly wrong, he could perhaps encourage Gabe Mirkin to publish an article rebutting it in a peer-reviewed journal. Incidentally, there's a general consensus - as far as I understand it - to use peer-reviewed sources in published medical journals, which Quackwatch is not. We can use it as WP:PARITY if such sources are lacking, but they are clearly not lacking here. Quackwatch does some great things, but its passion lends it a solid lack of credibility versus the scholarly dispassion we strive for in science. II | (t - c) 17:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You'd to better to WP:FOC: your false accusations are disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems like it would be better to post an explanation before going through with an edit like this... what's the reasoning on a narrative review in the British Journal of Nutrition being non-MEDRS? And how is Quackwatch MEDRS? II | (t - c) 18:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a narrative review (according to PUBMED). MEDRS applies to biomedical information: the classification of a diet scam as nonsense is not subject to MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You realize that an alkaline diet was promulgated by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine (see here)? Obviously there's a mix of things happening. Anyhow, I'll wait to hear from recently involved folks such as Anachronist (talk · contribs), Ian.thomson (talk · contribs), J.Higgins (talk · contribs), or JzG (talk · contribs). II | (t - c) 18:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

No, despite your accusations (which appear to be projection), I have no interest in this diet other than reflecting what decent sources say about it. We don't want to be digging up 8 year old hypothetical essays from fringey nutrition journals. I'm sure better sources can be found, though e.g. [8] or [9] Alexbrn (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

No, your reference does not show that an alkaline diet was promulgated by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine. What makes you think it does? -Roxy the dog. bark 18:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Roxy, the source says "A diet rich in potassium from fruits and vegetables favorably affects acid-base metabolism because these foods are rich in precursors of bicarbonate, which neutralizes diet-induced acid in vivo (Sebastian et al., 1994, 2002)" ... anyhow, it's not exactly my words - Fenton et al, one of the main sources used in this article, cites the National Academies as one of the promoters of the diet. Anyhow, there's no way we will be citing websites instead of peer-reviewed journal articles when such the peer-reviewed research is available. It just ain't gonna happen. I'll take it as far as I need to. II | (t - c) 18:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• (Trying to stay off because I'm going a bit stir crazy in a college town turned ghost town, but since I was pinged...) Question to stir the pot and/or get things moving: with what intentions and to what ends has the alkaline diet been "promulgated by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine"? Alternative medicine does have a habit of taking something that does have very specific use and pretending it cures cancer and autism. If the FNBIM recommended it for a specific use that has little to no overlap with the alternative medicine claims, then we are not dealing with a zero-sum issue here. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense

I reverted the reversion that removed (I almost typed that reverted, but I started to confuse myself....) the description 'nonsense'. It seems a fine word to me. That said, obviously another editor disagrees. I suggested we take it to the talk page, so, well, here we are. Oh, yeah [10]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the body of the article? If not, could you please? Because if you did, it would be clear that it is not nonsense. Also see the discussion above in Potential bias. II | (t - c) 22:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

To elaborate a little: there are actually MANY peer-reviewed scientific publications which contradict Quackwatch. For example, you could glance at Diet-induced acidosis: is it real and clinically relevant? or The Alkaline Diet: Is There Evidence That an Alkaline pH Diet Benefits Health? but there are many, many more, many of which are cited in the body of the article. To add Quackwatch to the lead and contradict all the scientific sources in the body does not work. II | (t - c) 22:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense is the correct term. Actually it's rather mild: Robert O. Young deluded Kim Tinkham and hastened her death, so I would prefer fraudulent, but I am happy to defer to the source, which says, exactly in as many words, nonsense. Quacks love to portray minor and clinically irrelevant effects as validating their wacky theories. You can't materially change the pH of your body through diet, and if you could, you'd probably be dead every time you ate broccoli. I don't know why, it's not as if all the food you eat passes through a pool of strong acid or anything... Guy (Help!) 00:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the pH aspect of the alkaline diet is nonsense. But "nonsense" is a non-neutral descriptor that merely parrots the opinion of the Quackwatch author, who synthesized his own sources to reach that conclusion. See the lead of WP:NPOV: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. We don't parrot what sources say, particularly when reliable sources are not in agreement as described above, and especially if Quackwatch cherry picks sources. We don't dictate opinions to a reader. Bottom line, the usage of the word "nonsense" comes across as opinionated. We can cite the source using more neutral language. Or we can include the word with proper attribution in a quotation. But to use the word in Wikipedia's narrative voice is not acceptable. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Using a single word is not "parroting". I could live with "nonsensical", "poppycock" or "bollocks". But nonsense is fine. Following NPOV does not mean we avoid the (maybe strong) views of our good sources, on the contrary it means we must reflect them. Alexbrn (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Reflecting "strong views" in Wikipedia's voice is the exact opposite of NPOV. Following NPOV means exactly that we avoid opinionated terms that sources use. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You ought to read the policy; the first sentence is enough to give a clue. QW is a relevant source here and we are obliged to present its view without any editorial watering-down of meaning. Alexbrn (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"Nonsense" seems to summarize the viewpoint of the source, the source is especially reliable for assessment of fringe medical claims, and the source is generally given weight when better sources with similar perspectives are not available. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You aren't getting it. Nothing trumps WP:NPOV. Not WP:MEDRS or WP:FRINGE (both guidelines not policy), not an agreement among some editors here that an opinionated term is "neutral". You ought to read the policy. What part of the policy I quoted in boldface text above is not being understood?

Quackwatch is not a WP:MEDRS source. Quackwatch is an advocacy site. Their articles aren't peer reviewed. The site exists to advocate a particular point of view about subjects that the Quackwatch editors consider "fringe" medicine, even if peer-reviewed literature may disagree, as described above. Quackwatch is a reliable source for information, but it also expresses opinions. Educated and logical opinions yes, but opinions nonetheless. And we must not express opinions from sources in Wikipedia's voice. It's fine to use the term "nonsense" in a quotation attributed to Quackwatch. But that isn't being done here. The viewpoint of the source isn't being summarized, it's being presented as the viewpoint of Wikipedia. And that violates NPOV. If attribution to Quackwatch were made in the prose, there wouldn't be a problem. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You're inventing policy. There is no problem calling obvious nonsense, nonsense. In fact to make it look like a mere opinion would be NNPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I summarized policy and general consensus. I'm not claiming anything trumps NPOV, rather that removal of the source or misrepresentation of the source would be an NPOV problem. This isn't a MEDRS situation, so it doesn't apply. FRINGE is a special case of NPOV, and it most definitely does apply.

If you're moving on to concerns on whether or not "nonsense" should be presented in Wikipedia's voice, I think it's a good point. Can we move on from the other concerns then? --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Using "nonsense" in Wikipedia's voice has been my chief concern since the beginning of this thread. There are a number of ways one can represent a source without parroting the opinionated language in that source. This article isn't doing that. Think of it this way. If QW had used the term "bullshit" instead of "nonsense", would editors here insist on using that word in Wikipedia's voice? Either way, it's opinionated, and writing it so that it appears Wikipedia is taking the same position as an advocacy site violates NPOV.

I'll also point out that the introduction of the word "nonsense" appears to be a recent non-consensus change added by JGZ on 14 February. The article was doing just fine without it until then. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

For some values of fine. The article did not adequately emphasise in the lede that this is a fraudulent diet promoted by scammers. Young is not the first person to be convicted of offences due to promoting this bullshit, but he is unusual in that we can actually put names to some of the people he killed. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. We are discussing the usage of an advocacy site's opinion in Wikipedia's voice, in violation of NPOV, a policy that cannot be superseded. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Quackwatch is generally considered a reliable source for discussion of quackery. That ship sailed long ago. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. The reliability of Quackwatch isn't the topic of this discussion. We're talking about NPOV. As an advocacy site, Quackwatch does not use neutral language, and there is no Wikipedia policy that dictates we must use the same terminology that Quackwatch does. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It is completely neutral to describe the fad alkaline diet as nonsense, just as it is completely neutral to describe its primary proponent, Robert O. Young, as a convicted fraudster and quack. As a matter of objective fact, the alkaline diet, as promoted by Young and his accolytes, is bogus, and the claims made for it (especially in respect of preventing and treating cancer) are fraudulent. People have been convicted. The court records are there. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Guy is right, and NPOV doesn't mean 'fair and balanced', we don't do that here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. So, hypothetically, if QW used the word "bullshit" instead of "nonsense", then we should be using the same terminology? The two are basically equivalent expressions of opinion. On what basis are you arguing that this is neutral? On what basis are you arguing that using such expressions in Wikipedia's voice, basically having Wikipedia state an opinion, is neutral? On what basis are you objecting to using a quotation or properly attributing the opinion in prose? And I still have seen no argument for disregarding the non-negotiability of WP:NPOV, only bare assertions that making a bare assertion in the article is indeed neutral. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hypothetically if reliable sources describe something as bullshit, yes we could describe it as such. We are only required to quote when we have to state something as an opinion rather than as an accepted fact. 'Should' we do it? Probably not as it is not a very encyclopedic word. But there would not be a policy reason not to. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Um, we have the opinion of one advocacy site that we consider a reliable source. As for policies and guidelines, we have WP:NPOV which cannot be overrulled, and this is clearly a non-neutral term, and we have WP:LABEL which says we shouldn't use such words. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What is this stuck record "advocacy site"? Calling QW that seems a bit odd - unless it advocating for consumer awareness and science ... which is aligned with Wikipedia's content goals too. As to NPOV, yes we follow it, not your imaginary version of it: see above. Alexbrn (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the policy is pretty clear: "Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd". Nonsense is obviously meant as a disparaging term here (as are "poppycock" and "bollocks"); this isn't a discussion of Edward Lear's poetry. Such language should only be used with in-text attribution.

As for using the same wording as the sources (vs. "watering down"), policy is clear there too: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words", and "Wikipedia respects others' copyright. You should read the source, understand it, and then express what it says in your own words".

When the same idea can be expressed with more factual terms such as unfounded, unsubstantiated, disproven, refuted, etc., there's no reason to call something "nonsense". Better still would be to demonstrate with facts why the theory is unfounded; show, don't tell. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as how we are not using the word nonsense in the article, I'm inclined to remove the pov tagging recently added. What do other page watchers think? -Roxy the dog. bark 14:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup, though I suspect the goalposts may move. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The article currently uses the term "nonsensical" instead of "nonsense", which is merely a superficial change that doesn't alter the meaning of the statement. I certainly wouldn't consider the problem "solved" by the change. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Masem commented on this specific dispute at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view – see diff. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonsensical has a different more nuanced meaning: I like it better. Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Arguments such as "I like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever in discussions of article content. The actual meaning of nonsensical is "silly or stupid", according to the Cambridge English Dictionary. Once again, "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject" and "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone". Describing a topic as flatly nonsensical most certainly does not convey an impartial tone.

We can all trawl around for this or that odd dictionary definition to suit an argument. But going to the usual standard, the OED, we get "Having no meaning; making no sense" for nonsensical - which is perfect. Yes, we don't engage in disputes: we must tell it like it is. And that means nonsensical things will be described as such, for NPOV's sake Alexbrn (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe there is a confusion here between "having no meaning" and disproven by evidence. The fact that the theory is wrong doesn't make it meaningless – it just means that its meaning is incorrect. But I suspect there's more to the OED definition than what was quoted – nonsense and nonsensical are universally perjorative labels. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

(Actually it's not the OED but one of the other dictionaries out of OUP online.[11]) The point I think is that the notion (it is not a "theory") is not disproven by evidence (which is probably not possible) - but that it is not even wrong. Something of that force needs to be conveyed. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Then what about a reference to the AICR's statement, which describes the idea as a "myth" (and an "unsubstantiated theory")? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

On another note, giving such prominence in the article to Quackwatch's analysis is surely a case of undue weight when peer-reviewed analyses are available, along with a statement from the American Institute for Cancer Research about the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC) (updated 05:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC))

(edit conflict)

Saying "The idea ... is nonsensical" is still a value-laden label in violation of WP:LABEL. We can call it pseudoscience, which it is. Or we can call it nonsense with proper attribution in the prose. Or we can provide a quotation of the source. What we cannot do is dictate value labels to readers in Wikipedia's voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinged here. This sentence "The idea that diet can materially affect blood pH, or that pH is related to a range of diseases, is nonsensical." regardless of "nonsense" or "nonsensical" is terrible encyclopedic writing in WP's voice. What is wrong with "Most dietitians have found no connection between diet and blood pH, nor connection between pH and a range of diseases." or "The hypothesis of the alkaline diet that diet can affect blood pH and subsequently the impact on a range of diseases has been disproven by medical research."? (Or anything similar and far less "familiar"-type language) It's completely fine to call out this diet as pseudoscience but let's still to dispassionate, neutral terms and wording. --MASEM (t) 05:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Whatever the merits of the topic, using such value-laden prose in articles damages Wikipedia's reputation as a serious, impartial source of knowledge, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Ask Doctor K.

Can someone explain why this article by Anthony L. Komaroff of Harvard Medical School is an "unreliable EL"? The source looks perfectly reliable to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not WP:MEDRS. While what it says may be perfectly sensible we shouldn't be linking to anything other than impeccable sources for biomedical information, esp. wrt cancer and diet for which we have better sources. 08:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

And yet Aetna, not to mention Quackwatch, are WP:MEDRS? This must be a joke. Please explain what makes Komaroff's syndicated column less "impeccable" than these two. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If you think those are bad, why add more bad? QW is not a MEDRS, but it's a good source for identifying health fraud/quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please answer the question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I did: your premise was wrong. Adding non-MEDRS sources, especially when we have good ones (Canadian Cancer Society), does not improve the article. Hence your edit was reverted. This is the way it works. Alexbrn (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Calling Ask Doctor K "unreliable" and Quackwatch a "good source" when they make essentially the same points is a ridiculous double standard, in my opinion – especially when the former comes from a notable medical authority. I strongly suggest re-adding the article, and in fact using it (and others such as AICR and CCS) to replace Quackwatch as a source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Way to misrepresent what I said with selective quoting. You think other editors won't notice? Alexbrn (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

QW is fine for supporting main stream opinion with respect to alt med topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm really at a loss as to the problem people have with QW. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

[12]...could be used as indicated by Alexbrn--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not. Fans of quackery hate every site that accurately discusses SCAM. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Which means that they ought to hate the external link that Alexbrn removed, right? That's the one that begins "I wish it were [true that an alkaline diet prevents cancer], but it’s not. So-called alkaline diets do not fend off cancer" and ends with "An alkaline diet has no proven health benefits". I can't imagine why anyone would think that this link supports this diet.

This was in the ==External links== section. It doesn't even matter if QuackWatch (which was not disputed here) or this newspaper column is a reliable source, because the WP:External links guideline specifically permits the inclusion of non-reliable sources as external links. This looks like it falls into the permitted category of "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". So this would be permitted (assuming editors wanted to include it, of course, because WP:EL takes a particularly hard line about not including disputed links).

So the question is: Should you be disputing this link? If your goal is to be strategic about educating people and changing their minds, then sending them to sites that they can quickly reject because they're so obviously biased against anything in the altmed range is a stupid approach. Sending them to something that sounds impressive (e.g., a syndicated newspaper column from a physician at Harvard Medical School) and isn't dedicated to "anti-SCAM" information is likely to be much more effective. If your goal is to make sure that people who kind-of-sort-of think that this diet might be a good idea are tipped into strong belief through the backfire effect, then we should probably try to cite QuackWatch and other sources with extremist-sounding names in every sentence, and try to make sure that everyone knows that we think it's stupid. I recommend that you think about what you want to achieve, and make your decision after rationally considering what will achieve your goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I know exactly what i want to achieve. Accurate information that does not pander to scammers. People are dying because of the alkaline diet bullshit, that's pretty important. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure that we all wish to provide accurate information to readers. But how does that relate to the sources under discussion? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If your concern is that the source does not provide "accurate information", then would you please provide a specific example of the inaccurate information that column allegedly contains? That would be very helpful, as the presence of inaccurate information would give us a good reason to discard it immediately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This is descending into a bizarre meta-argument. To the point: given that the article already contains pretty much all we need to comment on wrt. cancer and this diet, sourced to the Canadian Cancer Society, is any editor here arguing that an EL to "Ask Dr K" enhances the article? Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur – I don't think that the article contains all we need to comment on, and additional sources would help to substantiate the information presented. But yes, I am arguing that the link in question is valuable, for the following reasons:

• It's written for a general audience, and so cuts through the mass of verbiage that tends to clutter Wikipedia articles like these;
• It's from a recognized medical authority; and
• As User:WhatamIdoing pointed out, it's free of polarizing language such as "quack" and "nonsense", which are likely to alienate a lot of readers interested in the topic.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: Since no one has said exactly why the Ask Doctor K link is inappropriate, aside from not meeting WP:MEDRS, which doesn't apply to the external links section (which includes "Further reading"), I've re-added it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The Canadian Cancer Society – after I enable Javascript and tell lies about living in a Canadian province, so I can see the page at all – says this: "An alkaline diet – also known as an acid alkaline diet – is a diet that consists of fresh fruit, vegetables, roots and tubers, nuts and legumes and only small amounts of meats and dairy products. Some people believe that this type of diet will help you lose weight, increase your energy and reduce your risk of heart disease and cancer."

The remaining seven sentences say that this diet – a diet of "fresh fruit, vegetables, roots and tubers, nuts and legumes and only small amounts of meats and dairy products" – does not work. My initial reaction is to ask them why a high-vegetable diet doesn't work when it's called "acid alkaline" but apparently works just fine on a different page, where they list effective prevention strategies such as "Eating well – lots of veggies and fruit, lots of fibre, and little fat and sugar" and "Red meat and processed meat increase your risk of cancer."

I therefore believe that the CCA page alone is inadequate because it doesn't differentiate the weirdness of this high-veggie diet (and its pseudoscientific blather about pH) from the mainstream recommendation for a high-veggie diet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's perfectly straightforward. A healthy balanced diet reduces your risk of cancer, but not because it changes the body's pH, and not because it prevents any specific cancer, as alkaloons claim. It's pretty much the same situation as for any fad diet. Proponents claim the fad diet is uniquely able to do X, whereas the reality-based community says any health balanced diet will do X, and by the way most fad diets are healthy and/or balanced only by accident, because they are usually dreamed up by cranks with idiosyncratic notions of how the body works. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A very trenchant analysis. What would be truly helpful, however, would be naming a reliable, published source for such information, so that it could be used to actually improve the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the article on fad diets? Guy (Help!) 08:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

IMO the first limitation to the CCA source is that it doesn't differentiate this high-veggie, low-meat diet – which excludes certain fruits and vegetables – from any old high-veggie, low-meat diet, e.g., one that includes cranberries, prunes and plums. It says that this is just a high-veggie and low-meat diet; it does not say that this is a high-veggie and low-meat diet that specifically excludes cranberries, prunes and plums (for what most scientists will describe as nonsensical reasons).

If we relied upon the CCA source, we would not accurately describe this diet. We therefore need an additional source, if we want an accurate description of the weirdness of this diet. Do we agree on that much? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so, and Dr K might do it, if used explictly for that purpose. But the source has just re-appeared, promoted this time to WP:Further reading, which should really all be RS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The Dr K article seems overly simplistic. It's certainly not MEDRS. It doesn't address the alt med issues. I don't understand why it is being discussed. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

As Komaroff states, "Proponents of alkaline diets claim that when the body’s pH is too acidic, your risk for many conditions, including cancer, increases. They also claim that by avoiding acidic or acid-producing foods, you can make your pH 'alkaline enough' to prevent cancer ... There are only two problems with this theory. First, to repeat, changes in your diet have only a brief and minimal impact on your body’s pH. Second, there’s no evidence that a brief and minimal increase in pH (to make the blood slightly more alkaline) does anything to prevent cancer".

Looks like it does address alt med issues, in fact. However, there's nothing that says that external links (including "Further reading") have to cover all aspects of a topic (or even meet WP:MEDRS), just that they contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "promoted" to WP:Further reading? And where does it state that further reading sources should "all be RS"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• The headline is a great example of Betteridge's Law. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

RSN notice

Note there is a post on RSN that I have started to discuss the reliability of two sources from the lede.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I left a note at FTN as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

POV of the article as a whole

An issue I am seeing with the article (outside the lede) is that it is remarkably light on the criticism. Even in the hypothesis section, there is evidence that is shown that it might cause bone disease, but not a lot of sourcing outright calling the diet concept 'false'. The lede on the other hand is so vehement that every paragraph in it ends with a statement that the diet is an erroneous concept, and these statements are not backed by good sources either. We have one archived source from 'intelihealth' which isn't exactly a journal review article or anything, and we have another source from 'quackwatch': a source who's website and name should clue us in to the fact that this is not a reliable source (I have removed it). Another issue I am seeing with the article is that the sourcing of the consensus against the alkaline diet seems extremely weak, in fact, the only review article that we cite on alkaline diets that I have found concludes that "There may be some value in considering an alkaline diet in reducing morbidity and mortality from chronic diseases and further studies are warranted in this area of medicine."[13]

Similarly, the 'evidence base' section offers some solid criticisms, but again not to the level of calling the entire concept false.

I really do not think we have the sort of negative coverage to justify the statements in the lede that condemn the diet repeatedly, and at the very least, the lede is currently wildly unrepresentative of the article as a whole (the lede should summarize the article, this lede does nothing of the sort).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Some of the stuff in the lead should be in the body. Since editors know the lead is the only part of the article that many of our readers actually read, there's often a tendency to pack anything important into the lead. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I pointed out, that tendency is contrary to policy, especially when it is unsourced, or sourced very badly.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The sources I mentioned above were discussed over at RSN and the consensus was that they were ok, but that we should add better sources if available. I did a bunch of small edits to the lede, both to improve the sourcing, as well as to avoid repetition. With the exception of the change I have proposed in the 'Sources for the lede' section below, I believe that the issues with the lede have largely been resolved now.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Conflated topics

I think we have a problem here (common to other fringey topics such as Leaky gut) whereby two topics are in play, and the fringe one is a kind of parasite on the legitimate one. On the one hand we have the serious study of acidity in the body (in which diet may play some role), and on the other we have the fad diet called the "Alkaline diet". I think we could do a better job making a clean break by making it clear in a hat note that this article is exclusively about a fad diet, and by hiving off any legitimate content elsewhere (either a new article on body acidity - or else it may live naturally at say Acid–base imbalance). The problem at the moment is that the the whole thing confuses BS and science - this is playing the SCAM-promoted game for them. Alexbrn (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. The article on acid–base homeostasis is not so big that it could not accommodate a short section on medical use of diet to aid regulation. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay: hearing no objection ... Alexbrn (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

At first I thought you might be on to something here. The only problem is that we also have reliable sources conflating the two and reviewing them simultaneously. (i.e. Schwalfenberg 2012 and a number of other academic sources). It becomes a little difficult to discuss the topic in reliable sources if the highest quality sources that we have for the diet are also referring to acid-base homeostasis and diet's effects on osteoporosis in their discussions of the fad diet. In short, the two are too intertwined to be separated.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)