Talk:Juice fasting/Archive 1

Misc

The "Medical Doctor Explains How To Do A Juice Fast" mentions a LOT of her products as stuff to buy when doing a fast. Should we remove it? --Mr. Vernon 14:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change made due to problems with the citation: Under Possible side effects -> This line: Medical conditions such as diabetes may be aggravated by excessive intake of certain juices.[8]http://www.bbc.com/news/health-23880701 and [9]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130905-blueberries-fruit-juice-diabetes-nutrition-health-science/

Problems

Study is "Unreliable" according to its own researchers within the very same articles.
Study uses self reported claims regarding consumption of "Juice" which does not specify store bought, sweetened, etc. and most likely does not refer to the types of juice referenced in this article.
Multiple citations to the same research study, duplication

Nature's annual cycles

Right now, there's a claim about "nature's annual cycles." What evidence is there that annual physiological cycles exist? 71.240.105.62 06:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tongue Cleaner?

What does tongue cleaner have to do with juice fasting? Someone please care to explain. Or remove this link from the "See also" section. I find it irrelevant. --ADTC (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix

Under possible side effects it reads - suffers from children. Although funny, I do not think this is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.181.239 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Sick and Nearly Dead Reference?

There's a documentary I've seen on Netflix that got me interested in this. There's some video taped at the least 'anecdotal' evidence regarding weight loss on that video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.211.190.11 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juice fasting is not a 'fad'

I'm going to edit 'fad' out of the lead sentence. Juice fasting is a legitimate detoxification process. Describing it as a 'fad' undermines its value and is a subjective perspective. Thanks, Mike P. Abell 03:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikepabell (talk • contribs)

Hi. Not a regular Wikipedia contributor so forgive the informality of my request, but this article has obviously been hijacked by people with a commercial interest in juice fasting. The benefits are widely disputed by sources such as the American Dietetic Coucil. The dangers are highlighted by many and the science promoting these diets is weak; again, supposed scientific evidence for the value of such diets is mostly volunteered by people and organizations with a commercial interest. Is there a way the community can help rectify this? L. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.24.255 (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm Mike. I'm the one who has supposedly "hijacked" this page out of "commercial interest". I am in no way affiliated with juice machines or any related fasting products or methods. I am merely a holistic health practitioner who has faith in juicing, along with juice fasting, based on 1). my own experiences; 2). extensive YouTube video content which clearly demonstrates the health benefits associated with juice fasting; and 3). what little scientific research is dedicated toward juice fasting and non-Western medicine in general. I resent your carving-up my contributions and making outrageous claims toward my motivations. 24.7.84.160 (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, before you too resentful, maybe you should read Wikipedia's guidelines on original research, such as your "own experiences", and "extensive YouTube video content". Original Research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.173.222 (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Catherine Collins criticism

We're going to need a citation or I am going to have to delete this part. Marked for citation, deletion within a month.

"Dr Catherine Collins, Chief Dietician of St George’s Hospital Medical School in London, England, states that "The concept of ‘detox’ is a marketing myth rather than a physiological entity. The idea that an avalanche of vitamins, minerals, and laxatives taken over a 2 to 7 day period can have a long-lasting benefit for the body is also a marketing myth."" Acid 1 (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I spent 5 minutes trying to track this back to an original cite and couldn't find anything. Everything I looked at either came back to this page or the page it got lifted from. Possibly someone with more time to look into this can find it. It's clear that Dr. Collins participated in some sort of 'panel' that seems to be connected to a study by WHICH? magazine. I did also remove some pro-juice fast language ("excellent taste!") from the 'types' section. WLight (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The source cited for that quote doesn't include it. Nor does it include the other claim: "Scientists, dietitians, and doctors regard detox diets as less effective than water-fasting, and hence a waste of money." I'm going to remove that part of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.173.222 (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Points

The first line of the criticism section cites a source saying that fasting is generally harmless but a waste of money; the next paragraph cites WebMD and three unverifiable sources to state that fasting causes quote "all kinds of health problems". The quote is not attributed to any one source or speaker. These two points clearly conflict and their sources are tenuous. They should be updated or the information should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.171.90 (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juice fasting reliable sources

Here is a pubmed article in German, which can't be easily accessed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13311424# - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 08:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juice fasting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140418091439/http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/debunking-detox.html to http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/debunking-detox.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

I would like to add some more rounded critiques of juice fasting in this article, since I think there are more reasons to discuss juice fasting - the potential for benefits seen from the diet are due to a lower calorie intake which isn't sustainable in the long term. I have included discussions of four different studies about juice fasting in my sandbox with a link here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:N.deshmukh/sandbox N.deshmukh (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read your paragraphs on juice fasting and think they are pretty good. They are informative but I think that when listing the studies, you could be a bit more general. Try to boil the studies a bit into something that is more representative of the whole piece and you don't need to be as specific on each study although it was informative. Shujins (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three of your sources are published results of individual studies (or a case report). Under WP:MEDRS, these are primary sources and should not be used.

The fourth source is not discussing juice fasting, the topic of this article, and should not be used. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you and your instructor had a clearer understanding of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Your sandbox draft may be useful as a term paper, but the information and sources are not encyclopedic, WP:NOTESSAY, as they do not meet the sourcing standards for medical content as defined in WP:MEDASSESS. Because juice consumption and fasting are not mainstream clinical topics to be well-enough studied and interpreted by high-quality sources like systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, there isn't a high standard of information on juice fasting to put into the encyclopedia. The current article is weak, but there's little more to say. You chose a topic of interest to you, but it is not sufficiently sourced or encyclopedic in content. Here is further guidance as a student tutorial on choosing MEDRS sources - please introduce it to your class. --Zefr (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]